Over 400 amendments have been tabled in the Upper House, which I think tells you all you need to know about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and particularly Part 3 of the legislation. Like most people who are following the progress of the Bill, I do not support Part 3, I think it is ill thought through and will not achieve the aims of the Government, but instead creates a bureaucracy that will fail.
I have long been of the view that if we are to protect biodiversity using the extensive legal protections that are currently in place, we need to have strong regulations which are well funded. On top of that, employ experienced, knowledgeable ecologists who know the law and are able to work with equally experienced lawyers who are also familiar with the complexities of the legislation. Since 2008, however, the funding for regulators has been systematically cut and we are now in the position where Natural England (for example) is struggling to meet its current statutory duties. To be clear, I am not attacking Natural England’s employees, who continue to soldier on under very difficult circumstances, but I am saying that due to the budgetary cuts the organisation has had to endure, it cannot provide a service that is based on authoritative scientific decision making, and that this is leading to poor outcomes for both those who are seeking to promote developments and for the protection of nature.
It is unfortunate that in the post truth society in which we now live, issues such as development vs. the protection of nature become polarised with people taking extreme and entrenched stances on both sides of the debate. We cannot pretend that “£120m bat barns” of HS2 fame and “fish discos” of Hinckly Point C are sensible uses of limited economic resources, but equally neither can we ignore the fact that the regulators are struggling to meet the demands that society correctly places upon them in order to protect the natural environment. I really want to depolarise this debate so we can explore what is going wrong with this highly nuanced and complicated system.
The debate in the House of Lords on Wednesday 17 September got a little heated at times. Working with Catherine Howard of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, we had proposed changes to the Habitats Regulations with the aim of trying to make the implementation of the legislation run more smoothly, and try to avoid the worst excesses of the current issues we are facing. These amendments were proposed by three members of the House of Lords: Lord Ravensdale, Lord Roborough and Lord Hunt. Lord Hunt spoke eloquently on the proposals (time stamp 20:29:45); he was challenged by Baroness Young who was forthright in her objections and equally eloquent.
The exchange is worthy of watching as I feel that it illustrated that even in the highly controlled and polite environs of the Upper Chamber, the polarisation of the debate was evident from both sides. I did not entirely agree with Lady Young’s views, but neither did I entirely support Lord Hunt’s rhetoric. Following the debate, I made contact with Baroness Young and I am very pleased to say that in the spirit of trying to depolarise the debate, she had very graciously agreed to meet me to discuss the issue.
I am dismayed by the polarised debate that has emerged on the Habitats Regulations over the past few years. However, I feel that we must not let that polarisation mask the facts or stifle informed discussion; the system is clearly not working but we need to make sure that any changes we make do not undermine the protection of nature that we have fought so hard to secure over the past 50 years and more. When we proposed changes to the Habitats Regulations, we consulted a number of key organisations, but they were dismissive or simply refused to engage with us.
Our amendment to the Habitats Regulations was sadly withdrawn from the Bill. Maybe there are other ways to address this than changes to the law but, whatever the solution, we need to have that dialog in the spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding, and I urge all those with an interest in this to enter this discussion accordingly.
If you are interested you can watch the entire debate here.
Skip to 20.32.08 to view the section where our suggested amendments to the Habitats Regulations are discussed.
The Baker Consultants team is highly experienced and we are passionate about what we do. If you need advice related to ecology, surveys or conservation, then please get in touch with us via our contact form on the website, or you can call us on +44 (0)1629 593958 or email us on info@bakerconsultants.co.uk.