The following consultation response to MHCLG development and nature recovery paper was submitted.  This  link takes you to full response

7/  The paper presents nature as a block on development in particular through NATURA  2000 and  environmental regulations. This lacks any evidence. Moreover, reviews of Habitat/Bird  Directives have found them effective and not growth constraints (Eg Spelman review 2012).  There is a wealth of evidence that demonstrates the value of nature as an economic asset: UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011 and UKNEA follow on project 2014;  HM Treasury Dasgupta Review 2021; Valuing Nature Network UKRI research.

The proposals add another layer to existing arrangements raising confusion with how these plans interact with LNRS, BNG, impact assessments and international legal agreements.

Furthermore, the approach conflicts with current legislation and established protocols:- Environment Act 2021 Environmental Principles where Minister must have regard to in policy/decisions; the Mitigation Hierarchy (Avoid stage); the Aarhus Convention requiring effective public engagement in environmental decisions; the scope/role of LNRS or green infrastructure as a strategic nature delivery plan; impact assessment regulations as key tools for sustainable nature& economy outcomes; CIL/ Section 106  lever strategic scale benefits yet not mentioned.

Resourcing and enforcement is currently under resourced, causing delays and poor outcomes. New systems add further workload.   Land Use framework is a prerequisite to the development of this model not a follow on.

The paper is based on an ideological based myth that simplifying environmental regulation is the model to follow. Changing legislation/regulation needs to be based on evidence that current arrangements are not working. Moreover regulatory impact assessments need to demonstrate that they improve and enhance nature, economic and social aspects including equity outcomes. Regulations are there to protect societal interest and protect those without voices and against market failure

 Nature obligations work effectively when they have strong guidance, strongly worded policy and enforcement with necessary resources and skills.  This is currently lacking in many authorities. My own research has found national environmental guidance to have significant policy gaps (SuDS, stewardship) in England to be weakly worded allowing its trumping by economic interests. There is also an important opportunity to better formalize the linkage between LNRS and improved development plan policies. This is key to improve certainty for developers and BNG. Something that is currently lacking as English planning has suffered endless reforms and creeping legislation  incrementalism.    

There can be benefits working at strategic scales to achieve better environmental outcomes.  CIL and Section 106, in theory, can do this. Have these tools been evaluated to inform this paper? I do not see any evidence of this. The use of natural regions  based on catchments would provide a more integrated  strategic planning framework as I recommended a strategic planning report for PAS (2021) improving  landscape and ecological connectivity. Again this links in the Lawton report 2011.  

However, to me the lack of detail in this paper on evidence and operational  justification are key limitations.  The priority for development and nature must be predicated on evidence based policy including limits. Here there is scope for viability to have an explicit role for nature via environmental limits  (currently lacking).   Strategic delivery plans should not replace local place-based assessments.  

I am not confident the process or outcomes can deliver improvements for nature or will (short or long term). I am not entirely sure what the proposed delivery plans are being built from. What extant policies will shape a delivery plan?  How do they fit in with existing LNRS and BNG?  What is their role in impact mitigation? How do they square with need to have regard to Environmental Principles? How do they respect the mitigation hierarchy?

The lack of recognition of the mitigation hierarchy and the lack of consideration to environmental principles in the paper suggests that the process is driven by development needs rather than sustainable development which is the golden thread running through the NPPF. It also seems to conflict with the more holistic vision being proposed in the draft Land Use framework.   Indeed to me the process would be that the Land Use Framework in conjunction with evidence based reviews of the current  approaches informs any new changes. Thus the presentation of a delivery plan before the synergies between the  land use framework and NPPF are identified and assessed is putting the cart before the horse risking perverse impacts.   

The proposed upfront payment model is particularly risky and at odds with enforcement and mitigation delivery and could lead to over ambitious mitigation claims without evidence of viability.  The lack of capacity for effective monitoring or enforcement exacerbates  these risks. Ultimately there is a risk of perverse outcomes for nature and the economy with the wrong sort of development in the wrong place.  The outcomes for nature depend on policy and legal adherence supported by effective enforcement. 

Again how this adheres to environmental principles is a key concern. It is important to stress that this is a major weakness of the current system without the extra resource needed to process these changes.  For example, many SSSIs are not in favourable condition and are declining yet limited enforcement is being taken.

 It is also unclear  how this works  with and respects international obligations  such as RAMSAR  sites for example.

The focus on adequate site mitigation is important and its potential removal raises issues of equity  and wider public benefits from off site approaches.  The Aarhus convention comes into play raising issues of social and environmental justice; something completely ignored in the paper. It is important to remember that people are part of nature not separate considerations.  

 There is also a conflict of interest with delivery bodies creating, assessing and monitoring delivery plans. 

 I am concerned that the existing system has not been effectively reviewed before proposing these changes.  Better use of the current system through improved resourcing and skill development is a much better proposition as the current system possesses both flexibility and tools (e.g. natural capital approach; CIL; Section 106 and impact assessments) to support economic growth and nature conservation. Here, existing legislation such as the biodiversity duty under the Environment Act 2021 should be given a chance. NATURA 2000 is much maligned but evidence shows it supports nature and economic growth challenging a lot of  current government rhetoric  which is based on presumption and  incomplete understanding.   

The proposed land use framework looks holistically where development and nature are key pieces of the jigsaw. It seems a little perverse that a delivery measure is put in place before a strategic framework has been established. Here nature, climate, health, development and culture all intersect which provides a vital and much needed integrating mechanism for tackling big societal challenges.  Here it is worth highlighting that England is one of the most nature depleted countries in the developed world.  

The HM Treasury 2021 Dasgupta Review demands  a transformational  rethink in the way we value nature given its clear economic benefits (not recognized in the paper at all).  These have been outlined in multiple research studies (Valuing Nature Network  https://valuing-nature.net/) and my own work on green infrastructure (https://mainstreaminggreeninfrastructure.com/) 

Development and nature can go hand in hand using accreditation schemes like Building with Nature (https://www.buildingwithnature.org.uk/) and the Nature tool (https://nature-tool.com/)  should be seen as a fast track way to show development working with nature rather than trying to short cut it. 

Current policy wording for nature in development plans is weak with regard to LNRS and renergising these would help to achieve positive outcomes for nature highlighting also where development should not go.

The desire to reform the WCA1981 and NATURA 2000 in the paper are misplaced.

The mitigation hierarchy particularly the avoid stage needs to better used and enforced. The current proposals tend to push emphasis towards the mitigation/compensation stage which is the last resort stage.