'Protecting every bat and every newt': busting myths about nature conservation and planning

Chancellor Rachel Reeves, in an interview with Radio 4's Today programme (30 Jan 2025), said we have gone too far in 'protecting every bat and every newt' and therefore 'our infrastructure costs are higher than elsewhere'; we should 'crack on and get the development built'.

Let’s bust some myths:

1. Great crested newts (GCN) haven’t caused delays for development in England since around 2017. Defra and Natural England grabbed the mantle at the end of 2016 when it produced a suite of new protected species policies which found a way to make the existing legal protection system work in a streamlined way to help developers 'crack on and get developments built' whilst delivering better protection for GCN. Naturespace is an example of a key provider of a scheme that was borne out of that streamlining. Developers make a GCN payment and can then get on and build. Naturespace has reported that there has been a significant GCN conservation benefit from this system.

2. How does Freeths LLP know that GCN haven’t caused delays for development in England since around 2017? Our environmental law team has been for many years the leading UK law firm advising developers on nature protection laws. Up until 2017 60% of our legal work was to help developers overcome bat and newt problems and delays – since 2017 this area of work has almost entirely stopped for us (don’t worry, we’ve had loads of other stuff on!).

3. The system moved away from 'saving every newt' back in 2017 – so this hasn’t been the approach for years!

4. The GCN system in place now works very well – so...if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Or, at the very least, incorporate the existing GCN system into any new proposal (so far, this doesn’t seem to be the government’s intention: Planning Reform Working Paper: Development and Nature Recovery)

5. It is true that, to date, bats have not been subject to the same strategic approach as GCN, but this could be done. It’s a question of Natural England revisiting the 2016 policies with a renewed focus on bats and using the GCN model to design a streamlined bat approach. At Freeths we have tried to persuade Natural England to this way of thinking - we know this is a possibility!
   
   

6. In our view it is always possible to find a solution under the existing system when bats become an issue for development (See: Norfolk County Council withdraws plans for Norwich Western Link. We came up with a solution although, sadly, were never instructed to deliver it.)

7. The government’s idea of a new Nature Restoration Fund, where developers 'pay and then get on and build', is a good one, but it is not needed for bats and newts. As explained above, there are already effective systems for newts; and bats could be subject to a similar system without the delays of any necessary legal changes.

8. We do agree that there is sometimes an unfortunate institutional 'computer says no'/over precautionary culture within certain public sector organisations. This could be addressed with stronger guidance/direction from Defra.

9. The idea of a new Nature Restoration Fund, where developers 'pay and then get on an build', does need to be fully explored for other sorts of environmental impacts - as it could, if it were designed well and had up-front kick-start investment/habitat delivery from the government, make a real difference to developments. However, there is no reason for this to undo all the positive work to date on great crested newts; and it is not needed to do the same for bats.
   
   

Penny Simpson is partner in the environmental law team, Freeths