Only protected features covered by an EDP are exempt from Habitats Regulations requirements. So, if there's an EDP in place to reduce nutrient pollution, let's say, there would still be the normal requirements for site assessments for protected species.
Comments
💡marginal gain ("outweigh") can easily fall short
💡without enforcement, promises prove empty
💡individual species needs are often overlooked.
The industry is powerful; nature laws must be too.
💚Current laws hold the line, this aims for recovery
💚Pooling funds should lead to bigger, better nature
💚It should bring with it ecological planning resource
Mr Pennycook (housing minister) & Mr Reed (environment sec) have approached this in the right way.
❌strengthen requirements for benefits to significantly outweigh harm
❌add tougher rules ensuring EDPs are only made when the science supports them (esp for species)
❌tighten monitoring and enforcement requirements to ensure gains really materialise.
🦉all planning decisions must be in line with nature & climate targets.
🦉more nature sites & irreplaceable habitats should be legally protected.
🦉development should be "wilder by design" with new Building Regs for wildlife.