Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on ‘what the papers don’t say’ – without fear or favour.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Government plans to tackle the housing crisis and boost the economy have been slammed as a “pay-to-kill” system for developers that will lead to “the injury and killing of protected species”.

This week, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill cleared its second reading in the House of Commons with a majority of 256 votes.

The Bill, the Government has argued, will remove unnecessary environmental obstacles to development, with Angela Rayner saying in December that, “we can’t have a situation where a newt is more protected than people who desperately need housing”. 

Environmental groups and conservationists have expressed concerns about its impact on animal welfare and biodiversity loss, branding it a “sledgehammer approach to crack the largely mythical nut that nature blocks development”.

Speaking before this week’s vote, Rayner, deputy prime minister and housing secretary, stressed the importance of the Bill to combat the housing crisis and help the Government deliver 1.5 million new homes by 2029. 

“For me, the act of civil disobedience was a stand against the increasing erosion of a fundamental pillar of democracy – our right to protest”

Stuart Spray

To speed up the planning process, the Bill proposes to legally allow developers to bulldoze habitats without finding out what wildlife lives there, so long as they pay into a newly established Nature Restoration Fund administered by Natural England — the Government’s environmental watchdog.

The fund will allow developers to contribute financially to off-site nature conservation efforts to offset biodiversity loss resulting from their development projects. Environmentalists have dubbed it a “licence to kill”.

UK law requires developers to conduct surveys, apply for licenses to disturb protected species and provide detailed plans explaining how they will ensure wildlife, such as dormice, hedgehogs and badgers, are not harmed during a project’s construction phase.

By removing this requirement, critics argue the Government is giving the green light for adders and great crested newts to be squashed by diggers, for trees to be felled with bats and their dependent young still roosting in them, for nests with chicks to end up in the wood chipper and for valuable habitats, like ancient woodlands, heathland and meadows, to be flattened along with all the wildlife they support. 

Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves have justified their watering down of wildlife protections by blaming species like bats and newts for unnecessarily blocking and slowing down development projects, as former PM Boris Johnson did in 2020. Earlier this month Reeves expressed her frustration over environmental regulations, reportedly saying, “We can’t have newt counting holding up housing developments.” 

‘Pointing out the distortions, inaccuracies and outright lies is so easy that it’s almost a bore,’ argues Russell Warfield

Russell Warfield

The Government’s scapegoating of protected species has infuriated ecologists and environmental charities including Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (ARC) Trust, Friends of the Earth, The Wildlife Trusts, Greenpeace UK, Bat Conservation Trust and Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). 

Wildlife campaigner and writer Dominic Dyer accused the Government of being “hell-bent” on demonising both wildlife and those who stand up to protect nature and biodiversity from developments. 

“By further weakening environmental protections to build millions of new homes, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are sacrificing yet more of our precious wildlife, in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, which is unforgivable,” he told Byline Times.

James Mansfield, an ecologist based in southern England, says it is fundamentally wrong to permit projects that result in injury and loss of species in exchange for financial contributions to the Nature Restoration Fund.

On a very basic level, it simply isn’t morally right to approve developments knowing they will lead to the injury and killing of protected species. For me, it goes against the principles of our industry

James Mansfield, ecologist

Mansfield also highlighted the emotional toll the Bill would have on those working in conservation, saying from a “mental health perspective, it’s really difficult to process and understand. And it is very sad to see that this seems to be the path that we’re going down now. It’s going to have a big impact on our industry.” 

Sally Hayns, Chief Executive Officer for CIEEM — a professional membership body representing and supporting ecologists and environmental managers in the UK — expressed her anger at the Government’s rhetoric labelling bats and newts as so-called environmental “blockers”.

“I am seething about the Government’s arrogance in not having genuine and meaningful dialogue with ecologists and environmental managers about what can be done to improve the system for developers, planners and nature,” she told Byline Times, adding: “I am deeply worried about the anguish and stress this is causing our profession.” 

While CIEEM supports policies that balance environmental protection with economic growth, Hayns said the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is being “rushed through the parliamentary process with undue haste that does not allow for proper scrutiny”.

She told Byline Times the Bill is a “sledgehammer approach to crack the largely mythical nut that nature blocks development”, is “flawed”, won’t work as hoped, and will “very likely lead to further depletion of nature”.

The Government is ‘absolutely not going to save us… 2025 needs to be the year we start to save ourselves’

Rupert Read

Kit Stoner, CEO of the Bat Conservation Trust, warns that the Government’s Bill will “undermine the guiding principle of avoiding harm to our natural heritage”.

She argues that this will not only impact the UK’s 18 bat species and other wildlife but also harm the economy and public well-being. Calling the Bill “fundamentally flawed and not fit for purpose,” she urged the Government to reconsider, and take an “evidence-based pragmatic approach” to planning reforms.

Hayley Farnell, who runs an ecological consultancy in Cambridgeshire, suggested the Bill “effectively promotes a ‘pay to kill’ system, where developers can destroy wildlife habitats in one location and simply compensate by creating another elsewhere”.

“The assumption that wildlife will just reappear in these new areas is flawed — it simply doesn’t work that way.”

Farnell illustrated her point with a stark analogy:

It’s like demolishing a house with a family inside, killing them, then building a new house five miles down the road and expecting a new family to move in to replace them. Because it’s animals, people don’t think about it in the same way

Hayley Farnell

Farnell emphasised the importance of proper environmental assessments before development. “If you don’t know what’s there, how can you mitigate the loss? I always tell my clients and developers, ‘You don’t have to care about the wildlife — that’s my job.’ My role is to prevent unnecessary harm to wildlife and ensure developers stay within the law. But if no assessments are conducted, then there’s no way to protect vulnerable species.”

Farnell acknowledges that in some cases, ecological surveys might appear excessive, but warned against swinging too far in the opposite direction: “There has to be a middle ground, and this Bill seems to be missing it entirely.” 

Starmer’s push for deregulated development is reminiscent of Donald Trump’s approach in the US where his administration has dismantled environmental regulations and weakened protections for endangered species in favour of industrial developers.

The UK’s planning reforms are also at odds with international commitments to reverse biodiversity loss. At the COP16 biodiversity conference, world leaders agreed on a groundbreaking deal to mobilise $200 billion annually by 2030 for biodiversity protection. Wealthier nations pledged $20 billion a year to support conservation efforts in developing countries by 2025, increasing to $30 billion by 2030. 

A report by the Climate Change Committee shows just how much action the new Labour Government needs to take to achieve the country’s targets

Russell Warfield

Labour’s housing strategy has the potential to derail the UK’s ability to meet its own legally binding targets to halt species decline by 2030, as agreed in the 2021 Environment Act.  It also raises the question of why Britain is championing biodiversity protection on the global stage but not doing more at home.

Marian Spain, Chief Executive of Natural England, refused to directly address the concerns of the Bill’s critics, saying: “This could be an important step to deliver the new homes and infrastructure this country desperately needs alongside nature recovery. Both need to be done with ambition, pace and scale and this Bill provides a great opportunity to achieve those objectives together. 

“We are working with the government to ensure that ambition to grow nature and grow the economy hand in hand will be for the benefit of everybody.” 

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government also declined to address the concerns, telling Byline Times: “We know that the status quo is not working, with environmental regulation slowing down delivery while our environment declines. “

The spokesperson added that the Bill will “change this by making it faster to build while ensuring developers meet their environmental obligations, so we can drive forward the delivery of 150 Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and 1.5m homes by the next Parliament while protecting our most important habitats and species”.

The Labour Party declined to comment.