"We can’t have a situation where a newt is more protected than people who desperately need housing." Angela Rayner

Angela Rayner was putting forward a soundbite on how the governments commitment to building 1.5 million homes was more important than a protected species. However, this kind of populist statement pitting nature against people is not only ill conceived it is fundamentally and fails to understand the role of nature as critical infrastructure in the development process.

The Uk is currently one of the most nature depleted  countries in the developed world according to the state of nature report (2023) with declines ongoing and the current rhetoric coming of the new labour government has a strong ani-nature slant with economic growth the overriding priority. Significantly the environment did feature in Keir Starmer’s recent 6 pledges but only as a hurdle to much needed development and infrastructure projects such as costly bat tunnels.  

Such a one dimensional view of prosperity is at odds with the HM Treasury independently commissioned Dasgupta report (2021) which recommended that we urgently need to rethink the way that prosperity is measured if we are to realise and protect the multiple values of nature. It is also at odds with the purpose of the planning system in its pursuit of sustainable development.  Developments are not stopped due to protected species or important habitats. There is something called the mitigation hierarchy with its four sequential decision steps:- Avoid, minimise, restore and offset which have  a fundamental role to play in shaping good development. The current government rhetoric seems to bypass the first three steps in favour of offsets which is misplaced and can lead to perverse outcomes actually hindering economic growth.

This government like many of its predecessors have declared war on the supposed regulations that stymie development, but there is an inconvenient regulatory truth regarding the way regulations actually protect societal interest and  actually help foster innovation ensuring development is in the right place assuming they are adequately followed. This prevents extra costs further down the line such as through flooding or pollution.   

The value of nature underpins our economy and society and our existence. Recent data from the ONS natural capital accounts (2024) reveals that the total asset value of nature in term of the ecosystem services it provides is £1.8 trillion. Health benefits total asset value is £489 billion providing a natural health service for us all where we have access to nature. Of concern is that climate regulating services was -£212 million due to degraded and poorly managed peatland.  

Rather than attacking  nature we should be integrating it into our development projects much in the way Building with Nature (the first UK benchmark for identifying what good nature development looks like) to raise the standard of our built developments to the benefit of people and nature and also developers’ bank balances due to the uplift in prices. The planning system des not work well with any focus on one metric in isolation whether it is 11 million trees or 1.5 million homes.  The siloed nature of our thinking is at odds with the interlinked nature of our key problems like economic growth, climate change and health and well being. They are not solved in isolation; rather they need to be solved collectively with the public at the heart of the process from the outset, not bypassed to secure supposed quick wins. The Aarhus Convention to which the UK is a signatory requires the public to be consulted and have a say over major developments with environmental impacts. Poor or inadequate consultations can lead to legitimate legal challenge and international embarrassment.

The lack of recognition of the legal commitments to the Arhus Convention is evident in comments made by the current government on the natural environment and peoples legitimate right to participate in planning developments.  There is a more fundamental maxim at play here, however, working with nature rather than against it will secure longer term wins for the economy and environment but governments are in office for  5 years and therefore favour short term policy foci. Therein lies the conundrum.

Regarding newts I recommend the Secretary of State visit Hampton a large scale housing development (8500) in place for 30 years with one of the largest Great Crested Newt populations in Europe. This was not led by David Jarvis Associates  and provides an exemplar of working with nature rather than trying to trash it with some populist soundbite.