To be worried about what might happen to Nature now?

[OneBusyFinch]

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

This is very worrying. Unfortunately the MSM don't cover it and most people either don't know or care.

Yes @Aliceisagooddog very worrying

The State of Nature report makes it really clear how fragile things already are — wildlife down 19% since 1970, 1 in 6 species at risk, and only 14% of key habitats in good condition. We’re officially one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.

And nature doesn’t have a voice in any of this. If protections are weakened, it just quietly disappears.

It’s hard not to think of that Joni Mitchell line about not knowing what you’ve got till it’s gone

Well, this is what happens when people clamour for more immigration in an already hideously overcrowded country. Even if we offset the excess energy used, they still have to live somewhere - hence more building and destruction of habitats. We are the 8th most densely populated country in Europe, with countries like Vatican City and the Channel Islands above us. And that’s even where the Highlands of Scotland sway the stats.

We are completely and utterly fucked and have destroyed our country.

It is nothing whatsoever to do with with immigration, and will not make any material difference to helping us to meet housing targets - species protection is not a major factor causing delays to planning decisions currently, and protected species are very rarely a barrier to development - just something that must be considered and impacts to them mitigated.

This government has a complete lack of understanding of what the reasons are for planning delays (multifactorial but largely years of austerity leading to massively under resourced planning departments in local authorities) compounded by a reckless ignorance of how nature works.

I voted for labour and beyond disappointed in their performance on many things, but particularly nature. They seem intent on faking us back to the 70s where developers can just trash everything and the country will be horribly worse off for it

edited for typos and hopefully clarity

We wouldn’t need mass ‘planning’ or building if it wasn’t for our rapidly increasing population. Even with creative solutions you can’t not destroy wildlife when 15 or 20% of your land ends up being built over, which is where we are eventually headed. We have already lost our food security and clean air. It’s a disaster.

Unfortunately this is true. Whilst there’s food on supermarket shelves, people don’t know or care how it got there and at what cost. Same with petrol in the pumps. Whilst people can drive in and fill up, that’s all they want to know.

By the time they can’t do that, it’ll be too late.

I’m devastated and appalled that the government has back tracked on requiring swift boxes in new buildings.

I share your despair. If you can, join you local wildlife trust and Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace

Yanbu op it’s not good

I recall hearing about a large selling off of land, I think the Wildlife Trust or other charity were trying to raise money to buy it. Related to this, I can’t remember the details.

It's horrifying news and @Pushmepullyou is absolutely right. It's not to do with immigration, nature protection is not the reason for delays in the planning system that is an utterly lie that Labour have pushed rather than tackle the real issues.

Each person requires 1 acre to fulfil their dietary needs. We now have more people than acres. We are absolutely rammed. People think because they can ‘see plenty of green’ from an aeroplane window that means things are fine. It’s painful.

I mean we can call it ‘population increase’ if that sounds better. But the basic facts remain - more people, more building, less wildlife and less habitat. No amount of efficiency or clever solutions change this fact. The fact we’re looking to build more houses is in itself mental.

are you thinking of this?@EasternStandard

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.

Yes @HoppityBun the swift bricks were such a simple way to work with Nature not against it - the back tracking on installing them in new builds was disgraceful

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.

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

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

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 .

Thank you, donated to the Rothbury appeal

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Link didn’t post - trying Nature not a blocker to housing growth, inquiry finds again