Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be worried about what might happen to Nature now?

38 replies

OneBusyFinch · 15/11/2025 18:33

This barely made the news and I don’t think I’ve seen another thread.

This week the Commons voted to remove the Lords’ amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have kept stronger, species-level protections for wildlife. The government’s motion passed, so those safeguards are out of the Bill for now.

In practice, decisions affecting protected species — hedgehogs, bats, owls, newts — could end up handled through broad “environmental delivery plans” instead of the proper site-specific checks we usually rely on. Nature groups are warning this could really weaken protection unless MPs support putting the amendment back in.

If you want a clear, simple explanation, The Wildlife Trusts have done one here

Just sharing because it feels like something people would want to know about. The Wildlife Trusts have created a template if you want to show your support

⚠️ Yesterday, the UK Government ignored pleas from the public, civil society and cross-party parliamentarians and stripped vital wildlife protections from the Planning & Infrastructure Bill. This is… | The Wildlife Trusts | 17 comments

⚠️ Yesterday, the UK Government ignored pleas from the public, civil society and cross-party parliamentarians and stripped vital wildlife protections from the Planning & Infrastructure Bill. This is hugely disappointing, but we are not giving up. Fin...

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/the-wildlife-trusts_yesterday-the-uk-government-ignored-pleas-activity-7395095499063652353-_pgO?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAABipJe8BQNiqEhshsT4F5KGxvJbxFlFm5oo

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
11
celyntk · 10/12/2025 22:40

hattie43 · 16/11/2025 08:27

It’s dreadful . Developers should be forced to develop brown fill land and spaces in already used areas before touching natural habitats and green belt but of course it’s cheaper not to do that . I wonder why we spend so much time , money and energy on any eco projects when we do this .

We have lhis type of land within a few miles that has been earmarked as an industrial estate for 25 years. It's never been used. It would be ideal for housing stock as it's on the outskirts of a small town with good transport links and a lot more amenities than our village.

Meanwhile, Persimmon want to extend a large housing estate on land that is rich and diverse with wildlife, despite there not being amenties or transport links in our rural area. The housing they want to build does not include affordable or social housing. We have a large elderly population, one small surgery, a school that is full and two bus services a day. Totally unsuitable.

We have a petition up on the petitions board if anyone wants to sign.

peanutbuttertoasty · 02/12/2025 20:49

This government could not give less of a fuck about our country’s wellbeing.

Original poster
OneBusyFinch · 02/12/2025 20:30

it is scary @WaryCrow

thanks to everyone who has posted

OP posts:
WaryCrow · 01/12/2025 16:42

That’s scary. I’ve long wondered what would happen if slowing current meets global warming.

I can’t really conceive of this entire planet’s life being threatened: not just a few species but the entire web of life! although it’s happened before (possibly from too many plants once, weirdly!). I really can’t understand the arrogance and stupidity that would threaten this amazingly complex living structure for the sake of a few bits of green paper.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens (particular emphasis on homo): the biggest force of stupid in the universe.

Original poster
OneBusyFinch · 27/11/2025 20:07

Just been reading about this event held today

Scientists warn of severe climate-related risks to UK economy and security

A host of eminent scientists have warned politicians, business and community leaders that the UK risks severe climate-related risks to its economy, public health, food systems and national security.
According to its organisers more than 1,000 corporate bosses, senior civil servants and civic leaders were set to assemble in the Methodist central hall in Westminster for the “first-of-its-kind national emergency briefing” on Thursday morning.
“This event is about resetting the national conversation, especially in the face of growing misinformation,” said Prof Mike Berners-Lee, the climate writer and pioneer in carbon footprinting, as he introduced the talks.
Nine experts gave stark assessments of the scale of the changes needed to adapt the country to the rapidly changing climate and ecological situation, and potentially stave off the worst potential outcomes.
Speaking on climate, Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the Universities of Manchester, Uppsala and Bergen, said: “The choice is between deep, rapid and fair decarbonisation of modern society, and an organised-ish technical and social revolution; or ongoing rhetoric and delay as temperatures [rise]. And then we’ll have a revolutionary style change that will be both chaotic and violent.”
On nature, Nathalie Seddon, professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford, said: “We are facing a national emergency not only because the climate is changing, but because the living systems that protect the climate are breaking down.”
She added: “This isn’t about choosing between the economy and the environment. It’s about recognising that the economy is embedded within the environment, and that the health of the nation depends on the living systems that sustain us.”
Tim Lenton, director of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, said that a collapse in the Atlantic meridianal overturning current (Amoc) would leave London freezing in winters of -20C, “and yet the summers would still be hotter than today’s”, leading to a situation where the UK would be 100% reliant on food imports. “We have got to do everything in our power to limit the amount of time we spend above 1.5C [above preindustrial temperatures],” Lenton said.
Mark Rylance was among the prominent figures who attended the briefing. Inequality is a core part of the climate problem, the actor told the Guardian. Echoing Anderson, he said: “The cost of living crisis is really an inequality crisis. They go hand in hand. What we have is such an unequal society. And it is a contributing factor to the climate crisis.
“I’m a very wealthy person and I have to do more about this. We have got to do more about our collective addiction.”
He accused billionaires of funding climate denying misinformation. “They do it because they don’t want people to act collectively, they want people to feel powerless. They should do better things with their money.”
Richard Nugee, a retired general, said politicians focused on the threat from Russia were failing to see the greater threat of the climate crisis. “Climate change is going to be a bigger problem than Russia,” he said. “It’s an insidious threat, one that has crept up. It’s going to do more damage than the threats they’re focused on now. But all they see is a resurgent Russia.”
He said politicians needed to ensure the UK could cope with the greater extremes of weather that were already apparent and going to worsen. The lack of action to ensure that vital infrastructure is resilient was leaving the country vulnerable to extreme weather, and open to attack from enemies who could perceive this weakness.
“Having spent most of my life fighting, I need to believe this country to be strong. The last thing I want to see is this country go to war. But we are not providing a sufficient deterrent, because we are not resilient enough [to the impacts of the climate crisis],” said Nugee.

Collapse of critical Atlantic current is no longer low-likelihood, study finds

Scientists say ‘shocking’ discovery shows rapid cuts in carbon emissions are needed to avoid catastrophic fallout

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/28/collapse-critical-atlantic-current-amoc-no-longer-low-likelihood-study

OP posts:
Original poster
OneBusyFinch · 17/11/2025 20:12

Environmental
sustainability and housing
growth, Sixth Report of Session 2024–26 is now available.

To be worried about what might happen to Nature now?
To be worried about what might happen to Nature now?
OP posts:
HearMeOutt · 17/11/2025 18:35

Purplebunnie · 16/11/2025 16:59

On another thread I got accused of wanting to create slums as I suggested empty office blocks could be converted into apartments. I would have thought some people would find it convenient to live close to everything and perhaps not need a car but apparently I was condemning people to a life of hell

Edited for typo

Edited
Show quote history

The entitlement is a shocker. The issue is ‘family flats’ don’t exist (3 bedrooms and enough space for a family, storage etc). We looked at a few but they are all in listed buildings with high service charges etc and a lot of potential issues. We really need to start developing them from existing building and making apartment living normal.

Original poster
OneBusyFinch · 17/11/2025 18:33

Bumping

OP posts:
whiteroseredrose · 17/11/2025 08:09

hattie43 · 16/11/2025 08:27

It’s dreadful . Developers should be forced to develop brown fill land and spaces in already used areas before touching natural habitats and green belt but of course it’s cheaper not to do that . I wonder why we spend so much time , money and energy on any eco projects when we do this .

My thoughts exactly

Purplebunnie · 16/11/2025 16:59

smallglassbottle · 16/11/2025 14:20

I find this really upsetting. Why don't they utilise all the land in the dead town centres and high streets to create living spaces? I hate this awful government.

On another thread I got accused of wanting to create slums as I suggested empty office blocks could be converted into apartments. I would have thought some people would find it convenient to live close to everything and perhaps not need a car but apparently I was condemning people to a life of hell

Edited for typo

newusernamex1000 · 16/11/2025 15:31

I’m very worried. They’re building 3000 homes between my village and the next village, which will essentially join our villages. All on green belt land.

The worst is what they’re doing to my home village. They’re building a huge estate on the surrounding green belt the natural pond has newts yet they’re still pushing through with the planning. It’s swarming with wildlife. The land was gifted to residents (council) over 100 years ago but they’re selling it to developers. I don’t know how that’s even legal.

It’s not posh, it’s very working class village and my family have been there since the 1500s. It’s so so sad.

WaryCrow · 16/11/2025 15:22

What I keep telling my kids is that at least the population levels are going to fall. Birth rates down around the world.

Humans have wrecked local and regional environments before, with civilization collapses. I do wonder about the first farmers, deforestation, and the climatic shift that drowned lands and created deserts around 3.5k BC.

This is why humans need reason, knowledge and education rather than more computers and religion. We have got to start understanding our roles as keystone species for the entire world.

smallglassbottle · 16/11/2025 14:20

I find this really upsetting. Why don't they utilise all the land in the dead town centres and high streets to create living spaces? I hate this awful government.

OP posts:
Original poster
OneBusyFinch · 16/11/2025 13:56

Thanks to everyone that took the poll and contributed to the thread so far. I’d be interested to hear from the 8% who think I’m being unreasonable.

just seen Nature not a blocker to housing growth, inquiry finds this article confirming what Nature groups have been saying all along - Nature is not a blocker to planning and infrastructure

OP posts:
waddleandtoddle · 16/11/2025 08:47

I've done a lot of walking in the UK this year and I have found it scary how little nature there is. Compared to say France and Spain, if you walk in their countryside, the grasses, hedges and fields literally move with bugs and are filled with buzzing, humming and chirping. The country needs to be working much harder to recover nature populations and it is a shame simple solutions are being written out of legislation.

EasternStandard · 16/11/2025 08:42

I’d go for lowering population growth over flats. Some can be built of course but many people prefer houses and that’s ok.

I’d prefer to see more natural gardens in them but most are anyway.

TransAdmiralsAreAdmirals · 16/11/2025 08:41

You're right. These protections have played a big part in challenging, slowing and preventing large infrastructure projects which would have ridden roughshod through sensitive and protected local wildlife. It'll be for this reason they're being removed: developers wanging on about spending millions on badger tunnels or newt relocation.

Original poster
OneBusyFinch · 16/11/2025 08:39

if you’d like to know how your MP voted, click here

It’s clear from the results that the Government whipped their MP’s to vote to remove the amendment.

If you want to email your MP, the Wildlife Trust’s template works out how your MP voted and tailors accordingly

To be worried about what might happen to Nature now?
To be worried about what might happen to Nature now?
OP posts:
Simonjt · 16/11/2025 08:34

Every property was once natural land, a big problem is that a significant number of British people insist on living in houses with concreted driveways and either plastic grass, or just grass and slabs in their back garden. Moving away from houses and building more flats would be beneficial as the land required is significantly smaller. But too many people value having a house more than they value the environment around them. Rather than x number of affordable homes developments should have x number of flats per house built.

Developing brownfield isn’t just expensive, people are less likely to buy there, so the homes are both more expensive and less desirable, which then makes it even less attractive for builders.

roseum · 16/11/2025 08:31

Thank you, donated to the Rothbury appeal

hattie43 · 16/11/2025 08:27

It’s dreadful . Developers should be forced to develop brown fill land and spaces in already used areas before touching natural habitats and green belt but of course it’s cheaper not to do that . I wonder why we spend so much time , money and energy on any eco projects when we do this .

Original poster
OneBusyFinch · 16/11/2025 08:19

zzplec · 16/11/2025 08:07

For those not on LinkedIn:

https://action.wildlifetrusts.org/page/180301/action/1?ea_tracking_id=home

It doesn't seem to give the wording of the amendments, unless I missed it.

Thank you for sharing for those not on LinkedIn @zzplec . It doesn’t include the wording but it does give details of what the amendment is and why it’s important

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 16/11/2025 08:14

OneBusyFinch · 16/11/2025 08:06

are you thinking of this?@EasternStandard

Show quote history

Yes thank you. I heard it on the radio but couldn’t recall. You’ve reminded me to donate.

HearMeOutt · 16/11/2025 08:14

I’ve emailed my MP who thankfully voted to keep the amendment.

I feel so sad that we’ve destroyed so much of our beautiful country.