richardbenwell.bsky.social
CEO, Wildlife & Countryside Link, for #wildlife, animal #welfare and #wellbeing. http://wcl.org.uk @wclnews.bsky.social. Chair, #Oxfordshire Local Nature Partnership.
66 posts
631 followers
22 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
Yes, I'm sure that must be a big part, Alasdair, some big restoration projects with stacks of benefits for nature. It might even involve buying more land? a Public Nature Estate? Coastal realignment, rewildling, rewetting, rewiggling & more. Securing the land or landowner buy in will be the magic.
comment in response to
post
We want to see the #PlanningBill work harder for nature.
🦉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.
comment in response to
post
We hope Parliament will:
❌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.
comment in response to
post
There are genuine opportunities here 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.
comment in response to
post
I won't pretend this isn't risky! Government must learn the lessons from net gain:
💡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.
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
Now the potentially positive bit. This can only be done if the EDP would result in benefits *for that protected feature* that outweigh the damage from development.
So, polluters pay not just to offset but improve nature.
That guarantee is here in Clause 55(4).
comment in response to
post
An EDP is a plan to improve a protected feature (eg. a species or habitat) across a whole landscape, rather than necessarily working site-by-site. Natural England will own the EDP.
The idea is to speed up development by delinking individual applications from nature requirements.
comment in response to
post
So, will it succeed? The scary bit first.
Schedule 4 would allow developers to "disregard" the Habitats Regulations if they pay a Nature Restoration Levy in accordance with a new Environmental Delivery Plan. This is a big change, affecting our most effective nature protections.
comment in response to
post
These are 2023/4 figures, but they're a flashing warning signal for the Labour government & its legal duty to halt decline in this Parliament.
Simply managing impacts of growth won't be enough.
Rapid regulation & investment are needed for nature.
gov.uk/government/s...
www.gov.uk/government/s...
comment in response to
post
Bad news too for wild bird populations, especially in England, especially in farmland, woodland & at sea.
Clearly, investment and enforcement of wildlife-friendly farming rules, protection and management of woodlands, and fisheries and industrial improvements at sea are urgent.
🧵2/3
comment in response to
post
Here's the PR: gov.uk/government/n...
To say it plain again: we can restore nature at the same time as sustainable development. Ripping up environmental laws is not the answer.
greenallianceblog.org.uk/2025/01/14/c...
comment in response to
post
The process so far has been really collaborative, thanks to Steve Reed, and it's good to see the need for sustained funding, cross-dept working & delivery and accountability recognised.
The next stage will need to find & fill big policy/investment gaps.
www.gov.uk/government/p...
comment in response to
post
Thanks Barnaby!
comment in response to
post
Recognising that resilient, biodiverse ecosystems are underpinning "assets" that require maintenance and investment & planning for nature recovery on that basis would help defuse the unnecessary conflict brewing between nature and development. There's no growth without nature.
comment in response to
post
Meanwhile, the PM's rhetoric continues to misrepresent planning as a binary "bats vs houses" choice. The system can be improved, but changes must be built on trust & this kind of reductionist misrepresentation risks pointlessly pitting planning reform against nature groups.
comment in response to
post
Here's the new MPAs report published yesterday:
gov.uk/government/p...
Also a notable silence about Highly Protected Marine Areas. There are just 3 tiny HPMAs so far. More are needed to allow marine life to recover (including fisheries) and to help meet the #30x30 pledge.
comment in response to
post
Thanks Rosie! Yes, really good points. I was encouraged by lines on this in the working paper, promising monitoring and remedial action if things aren't working.