Time to stop blaming bats and newts for blocking development? A new fund could support nature and ease building delays
- Written by Graham Haughton, Professor, Urban and Environmental Planning, University of Manchester
For years, nature has been blamed as a blocker of economic growth. After some ministerial bluster[1] about not letting newts and bats[2] get in the way of growth ambitions, the UK government released more details of its plans to get Britain building again[3].
The centrepiece of its aspirations to balance both nature and economic growth is a nature restoration fund[4], to be set up in England through changes to habitat regulations. This should allow developers to stay within their legal obligations towards nature through a payment scheme without delaying their projects.
The broad concept[5] is that, as an alternative to relocating important species or improving habitats on the site of a proposed development, a developer could pay into the nature restoration fund. This would pay for larger, more strategically located schemes to protect the species in question.
The fund simplifies and streamlines the regulations while collecting funds to promote more, bigger, better and increasingly joined-up sites for nature[6].
Protecting nature is not just about bats and newts. According to trade association the Home Builders Federation (HBF), there are 160,000 homes being delayed by what are known as “nutrient neutrality”[7] measures. These rules were a response to growing public concerns about land and water pollution caused by nutrient loads – pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus – associated with livestock farming and spillages from sewage works.
Government agency Natural England[8] advised[9] 74 local authorities that they should not allow any more house building in their areas unless this pollution could be mitigated. But this has led to lengthy and expensive project-by-project reviews to identify potential damage.
The fund will build on some schemes that are already known to work. One such scheme works for the protection of great-crested newts[10]. Another successful scheme is Thames Basin Heaths[11] project, working to protect and enhance heathland sites where rare birds such as nightingales breed. Crucially, this scheme allows new development to go ahead in adjacent areas.
The fund will be run by Natural England, which aims to draw on these experiences to unblock development at a large scale rather than at single-site level, pooling contributions from developers to pay for mitigation measures when there is a risk to nature.
If a particular “blocking” issue is identified, experts from Natural England will produce a plan, which must be approved by the environment secretary. A levy on developers will then pay for mitigation measures “in perpetuity” (often 30 years), allowing the development to get under way.
Read more: The government has revealed its plans to get Britain building again. Some of them might just work[12]
Environmental experts have cautiously welcomed[13] the general principles and approach of the nature restoration fund. But there has also been concern[14] about whether the plan is well enough thought through. There are also questions on how well it will integrate with other schemes.
A widespread worry is for the future of biodiversity net gain[15] – which includes measures for creating and improving habitat banks[16] using biodiversity units, effectively a form of “nature market”. This approach sets a target of 10% for biodiversity improvement based upon the combined distinctness, condition and significance of affected habitats over the lifetime of the development. But these measures are only just getting started[17].
The concern is that providers of sites for these habitat banks – which might be councils, landowners, charities or private businesses, for example – might get cold feet and pull out[18] if they can’t be certain that their plans will be compatible with the nature restoration fund.
There is concern, too, about how payments from the nature restoration fund would be calculated. These will need to be locally appropriate and not pit nature restoration and biodiversity net gain against each other if, for example, landowners are forced to choose a particular scheme for their land that they are then committed to for decades[20]. With two parallel systems in play, the relationship between them must be crystal clear, otherwise shared goals could be missed.
Another question is whether Natural England can be both regulator and financial beneficiary of the new scheme. There have been calls from some of those already involved in nature markets for some form of independent oversight[21].
And it will also be vital that the new scheme respects what’s known as the “mitigation hierarchy”. This hierarchy aims to avoid, reduce and then mitigate any impacts on nature on-site in that order. Then developers should consider off-site measures in areas where there could be greater gains for biodiversity[22].
But a danger here is that this could disconnect people from nature even further by mitigating ecological loss miles away from the site of the damage. This disconnection is considered to be a critical underlying cause of biodiversity loss[23].
There is much to like about the nature restoration fund, but there is a risk that little will be achieved without the government showing genuine ambition and allocating enough money and staff to properly monitor and enforce it over the long term. Only time will tell whether it achieves the government’s goal of speeding up development.
At the moment, it is not clear how the fund will complement similar schemes and there is a danger of creating a complex patchwork in nature restoration funding. But if it works well, it could provide a richer funding ecosystem for nature recovery – a much-needed boost for England’s nature-depleted landscape.
References
- ^ bluster (www.bigissue.com)
- ^ newts and bats (www.wildlifetrusts.org)
- ^ get Britain building again (theconversation.com)
- ^ nature restoration fund (www.gov.uk)
- ^ broad concept (www.dentons.com)
- ^ joined-up sites for nature (www.gov.uk)
- ^ “nutrient neutrality” (www.hbf.co.uk)
- ^ Natural England (www.gov.uk)
- ^ advised (www.hbf.co.uk)
- ^ great-crested newts (www.froglife.org)
- ^ Thames Basin Heaths (www.elmbridge.gov.uk)
- ^ The government has revealed its plans to get Britain building again. Some of them might just work (theconversation.com)
- ^ cautiously welcomed (www.sustainableviews.com)
- ^ concern (www.endsreport.com)
- ^ biodiversity net gain (www.gov.uk)
- ^ habitat banks (www.environmentbank.com)
- ^ getting started (www.businessgreen.com)
- ^ pull out (www.dentons.com)
- ^ Erni/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
- ^ committed to for decades (www.the-ies.org)
- ^ independent oversight (www.entrade.co.uk)
- ^ gains for biodiversity (wcl.org.uk)
- ^ biodiversity loss (www.ipbes.net)
