“It seems that the Chancellor is not content with the massive shake-up of the planning system that is already under way, and which initially failed to recognise Local Wildlife Sites1. Now sites and species of European importance face an uncertain future in England. When will the Government recognise that our natural resources are finite?” asked The Wildlife Trusts’ Chief Executive Stephanie Hilborne OBE.
...
The chairs and chief executives of the 47 Wildlife Trusts met last week and heard from the New Economics Foundation about the urgent need for a fundamentally different economic model that takes into account that our natural resources are being rapidly depleted. Only such a dramatic shift will secure a society that can thrive whilst addressing climate change and reversing the loss of biodiversity.
Stephanie Hilborne concluded: “Economic growth should not be achieved at the cost of our natural life support systems.”
via www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk
Will there be a public backlash against Osborne's anti-wildlife rhetoric? Will conservation organisations be able to mobilise their members to voice their dissent? Remember the government's attempt to sell off the country's national forests? That didn't work out too well.
The government's recent attempt to streamline the planning system has raised the ire of many organisations, including the National Trust.
The draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published by the Coalition Government in July, threatened to put short-term economic gain ahead of all other considerations, including the impact on local communities and local green spaces.
via www.nationaltrust.org.uk
Weakening the Habitat Regs is just one more step along the way.
Like The National Trust, the RSPB (that recently attacked Osborne's plans) has a fairly considerable membership. Could RSPB members cause a change of heart at Whitehall? Membership of the Tory party continues to fall.
"As parties get closer to the state and more professionalized, they find it easier to ignore their members while at the same time expecting them to take on extra regulatory burdens. Party leaders have little incentive to recruit and retain new members if the taxpayers pick up the costs of running the party organisation”
via www.blogs.telegraph.co.uk
So not only does the current government want to weaken legislation that protects important species and habitats, but they are planning to do it knowing full well that the decision will not be popular. By trying to falsely tarnish wildlife legislation as an impediment to 'economic growth', the government aims to pull a slight of hand. But why do such decisions have to be popular when political parties no longer even need the support of their own members?
Of course we won't actually know what impacts the proposals are likely to have until the results of the review are published. However, I rather suspect that the government's report is half written and DEFRA has already been advised of the results of its own review - if you see what I mean.
If watering down the Habitat Regs results in a relatively small number of wealthy landowners becoming even more wealthy, I'm sure that will suit Osborne and his cronies just fine.
Mr Osborne was backed by Country Land and Business Association vice president Harry Cotterell, who told BBC Radio 4's Farming Today: "We have always had big, big problems with the Habitats Directive and the way it is being implemented in this country.
"We think it is being over implemented, and we think that this is a very very welcome attempt to possibly melt some of the gold plate on the directive.
"Finally we might see a time when human beings are treated with about the same importance as bats, newts and dormice."
via www.bbc.co.uk
Given Mr. Cotterell's recent comments on reform of the planning system, I guess a lack of respect for the Habitat Regs and the species it is intended to protect doesn't come as too much of a surprise.
Harry Cotterell, deputy president of the Countryside Land Association, said: “The planning system is currently failing to provide either the jobs or housing the countryside desperately needs for its survival. The draft NPPF provides a streamlined and less bureaucratic way of achieving economic and social success, while at the same time protecting the needs of the environment.”
via www.planningportal.gov.uk
Protecting the needs of the environment?
I do suspect a 'statement' clarifying the government's commitment to protection of the environement has already been prepared and is just waiting for sufficient negative press publicity before it is released.
Finally, some enlightened words from Kent Reptile and Amphibian Group's Jo Richards who declared...
You might be able to grow the economy back but you can't grow wildlife back by printing more animals or habitats. Once it's gone - it's GONE!
[ UPDATE]
Fiona Reynolds has published more comments concerning the draft National Planning Policy Framework on behalf of The National Trust.
But the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) simply won’t deliver the ambition. Instead, the NPPF attempts to use planning to drive short-term economic growth in ways that will undermine the longer-term development we need.
... I asked a professor of law – an expert on smart growth – what the secret of making that happen was. She told me it depended on two factors. First, there are some issues – biodiversity, water management, energy, food, housing density, affordability – that neither the market nor communities alone can solve. National direction or pan-local co-ordination are needed. Second, a strong local plans that genuinely reflect the will of the community and involve them in a debate about the kind of places they want to live in.
via ntplanning.wordpress.com