The last few weeks and months have been rocky for our environmental protections. 

The recent rhetoric from the Prime Minister and Chancellor on bats and newts seems to be based on old and outdated assumptions that nature is getting in the way of development. Our own research has found that bats and newts are a factor in just 3% of planning appeal decisions. 

What are S106 agreements and how are they delaying development? 

S106 – section 106 - agreements are legal agreements between developer and local planning authorities that can be required as part of planning permission to make a development proposal acceptable.  

S106s can be about nature - requiring the developer to take specific actions or make financial contributions to address the development's damaging or degrading effects. However, these agreements also include requirements for affordable housing, improvements to play areas and open spaces, and contributions to support health care and schools. 

In a recent report from the Home Builders Federation, they quote figures of house building being held back by S106 agreements. 

There is even an example of an S106 agreement taking 2,679 days to be agreed. 

Why are these delays happening?  

The Home Builders Federation report does not mention nature protections as a reason for these delays, at all. 

Instead, it suggests that the primary reason for delays is that Local Authorities are either under resourced to respond or are having difficulty retaining staff with the appropriate skills. 

Many of these Local Authorities are working at 75% staffing capacity.  

In addition, the report states that Local Authority legal departments are not sufficiently resourced. 

So why do our leaders continue to blame bats and newts and spread false rumours?  

The Government is actually doing business a disservice as many businesses want to treat the nature crisis as something they can help tackle. 

Well, it’s easy - they will be significantly affected if we have no soil, no pollinators, more episodes of drought and flooding. These issues will cost industry significant money.  

The Treasury-commissioned Dasgupta review on the Economics of Biodiversity brought home that nature and the economy are distinctly linked. This Review recommended a fundamental shift in how we approach economics, recognising the vital role of nature. 

It calls for a more inclusive measure of wealth that accounts for natural capital and its benefits, and for a transformation of our institutions and systems to enable this shift. The review emphasises the need to balance humanity's demands on nature with its sustainable supply and to invest in nature's recovery. 

The review proposed moving towards a measure of economic success that includes the value of natural capital, rather than focusing solely on GDP or other financial metrics. It suggests incorporating natural capital into national accounting systems to reflect the true cost of economic activities and the benefits of investments in nature. 

Why are Government regressing the protection of nature? 

You might ask why Rachel Reeves has not read this report which her department sponsored. 

Should it not have been on her reading list while in opposition, rather than recycling newt rhetoric which was first planted into politics by George Osborne back in 2010? At that time, after many months of review, the government accepted that environmental legislation is not “Gold Plated” but is fit for purpose. 

Later the EU carried out a similar review called “Refit” and once again they concluded that the Habitats Regulations that protect the most important places like the New Forest and species such as bottlenose dolphin was also fit for purpose. Yet places and species like this could be put under threat by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill as it stands.  

So why despite all of this evidence is the Government pulling apart our environmental regulations? 

Why also is the Chancellor not embracing the new philosophies that businesses are embracing and instead pitting developers against nature? 

Biodiversity Net Gain consultation marks another potential blow to nature 

But it’s not just changes to the planning system which will, we believe, create serious regression to the protection of nature in this country. The Government last week launched another offensive on nature by publishing a consultation on Biodiversity Net Gain. 

So how do these funds talk to each other? Is the Nature Restoration Fund replacing the Marine Recovery Fund? If so, this will seriously stifle growth.  

This is not about small housing estates but is about multi-million-pound infrastructure that is currently in the planning system. The Marine Recovery Fund is ready to go while the legislation for the Nature Restoration Fund is going through parliament now and later into Autumn. Then it has to be implemented!  

This creates yet more uncertainty for developers who need compensation now. It is not surprising that one offshore operator has pulled out of what would have been the largest wind farm in the world called Hornsea Four. A development that already has planning permission. The three people at the top of this Government - Starmer, Reeves and Rayner - have seemingly scored an own goal because they haven’t taken notice of the two departments responsible for development at sea.  

Business needs and economic evidence ignored in favour of unevidenced theories, new markets undermined, marine facts overlooked by land-based departments. 

The Government’s approach to planning is a shambles – and nature will pay the price.  

Help us to hold the Government to account