Environmental organizations do not “change their tone” in planning reforms (Planning in England bill has many naysayers. I’m not one of them, 4 June). As it stands, the bill has a lot of mistakes and a long way from reaching a win-win for nature and development. Environmentalists surround the bill of good faith, but, if published, the protection is clearly lost, the office of environmental protection, agreed.
The bill does not drive a responsibility to avoid harm to nature and communities wherever possible. We need such a duty to drive progress taking the best route for people and nature, not the quality option. We need the suggested endurance fund to provide guaranteed results, with evidence of returning it. Without the guarantees the design allows the destruction of the nature of a wing and prayer it is effectively restored elsewhere. Ensuring security of consequences and strong protections is not only important for nature, they are good legislators.
Our job is to protect nature, so we need to challenge major protection gaps today and begin the changes needed. If not, the whole country will pay the price for a wrong system in the future, with additional loss of nature, more pollution and less healthy communities. It also makes the economic meaning, which is estimated by the disability of nature leads to a 12% GDP reduction in the coming years.
We know that the system can be better – it is possible to make a hand planning system to give the wild wild, and new houses we need. The nature sector is always past, and remains ready, going to the table with the government to achieve the victory we all want.
Craig Bennett CEO, THE Wildlife Trust, Beccy month CEO, RSPB, Harry Bowell Director of land and nature, national trust, Ali Plummer Director of policy and adbokasya, wildlife and linkside link
