A group of prominent economists, former government advisors, and ecologists are urging lawmakers to reconsider a key section of a proposed planning and infrastructure bill, arguing that it effectively creates a “license to kill nature.” The controversial bill, currently under consideration, has sparked fierce debate over its potential impact on environmental conservation and sustainable development.

The signatories of a public letter to members of parliament include Sir Partha Dasgupta, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Cambridge; ecology professor Sir John Lawton; and Dr. Tom Tew, a former chief scientist of Natural England. They are collectively imploring legislators to disregard what they describe as misleading “government slogans and false rhetoric about nature and wildlife being a block to growth.”

“Cash to Trash”: How the Nature Levy Works

The core of the controversy lies in Part Three of the planning and infrastructure bill, primarily affecting England and Wales, which critics argue allows developers to engage in a “cash to trash” system regarding wildlife and the surroundings. This provision enables companies to circumvent existing environmental regulations by instead contributing to a national nature levy. According to the letter, this system is deeply flawed.

“It is a blunt instrument that rewards bad planning and penalises good practice, all the while adding cost and delay to the planning and development process,” the letter states.

Opponents of the bill fear that this “nature levy” will incentivize developers to prioritize financial contributions over genuine environmental protection, leading to a net loss of biodiversity and ecological health. They argue that the levy creates a perverse incentive, where environmental damage becomes a permissible cost of doing business.

Conflict of Interest Concerns

The letter to parliamentarians, who began hearing evidence on the bill on Thursday, explicitly states: “the nature levy is not a tool for ecological recovery: it is a licence to kill nature, with no evidence to suggest this would in any way help our economy.” The signatories are demanding the removal of the disputed section and a thorough public consultation and review.

Furthermore,the bill raises meaningful concerns about conflicts of interest. According to the letter, Part Three of the bill creates “a conflict of interest for Natural England,” the governmental agency that is supposed to be autonomous. The agency would be responsible for both deciding on conservation plans and assessing their success, while also being reliant on the new nature levy for its own funding.

This dependence on developer funds, critics contend, could compromise Natural EnglandS objectivity and effectiveness in safeguarding the environment.

Political Override and Economic Harm

The bill also includes “a hazardous loophole where political convenience can override ecological reality,” according to the letter. Housing secretary Angela Rayner would have the final say on whether the nature levy system is implemented, rather than the environment secretary or an independent body.

Sir Partha Dasgupta warned that the nature levy allows companies to “buy out” of existing nature obligations and effectively removes decades of nature laws.

Dasgupta also believes, “part three of the bill will cause economic harm by introducing overlapping and clashing nature laws, and slowing development with complex viability-based levy systems that critically undermine the investment case for nature in the UK.”

Dasgupta authored a comprehensive review of economic policy commissioned by the Treasury in 2019, which concluded that nature is a crucial asset, and its decline undermines economies and wellbeing.

False Rhetoric and Real-World Delays

Signatories of the letter refuted, “the government’s much-repeated rhetoric that nature and wildlife were blocking development,” calling it simply false. “In our collective experience, delays are driven by under-resourced planning authorities, infrastructure bottlenecks, and industry-led viability constraints. Environmental licensing,when done well,is not the problem,” they asserted.

Similar debates have unfolded in the United States, where streamlined permitting processes have been championed as a way to accelerate infrastructure development. However,environmental groups often argue that these efforts can lead to inadequate environmental reviews and increased risks to sensitive ecosystems.

A Race to the Bottom?

Prof. David Hill, a former deputy chair of Natural England, lamented: “I cannot believe we have come to this position. Under the watch of previous governments, the debate had always been around how far we should progress to increase protection and funding for nature and green growth.”

Hill added, “Now regressive laws are being quietly accelerated through parliament with no public consultation, impact assessments or pilots. Part three of the bill harms our economy, rather than helps it, and will deliver a profoundly unacceptable blow to our natural environment, which, unlike the economy, may never recover.”

Counterargument: streamlining Development

Proponents of the planning bill argue that it is necessary to streamline development processes, reduce bureaucratic delays, and stimulate economic growth. They contend that existing environmental regulations are overly burdensome and hinder much-needed infrastructure projects. They might also suggest that the nature levy provides a transparent and efficient mechanism for compensating for environmental impacts, ensuring that developers contribute to conservation efforts.

However, critics counter that this argument prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability. They warn that weakening environmental protections could lead to irreversible damage to ecosystems, undermine biodiversity, and ultimately harm the economy by depleting natural resources and ecosystem services.

U.S. Implications

The debate in England and Wales mirrors similar tensions in the United States, where there is ongoing friction between economic development and environmental protection. the U.S.has a long history of environmental legislation, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which aim to protect natural resources and biodiversity.

However,these laws have often been criticized by developers and industry groups as being too cumbersome and time-consuming. Proposals to streamline environmental reviews and weaken protections for endangered species have been met with strong opposition from environmental advocates, who argue that such changes could have devastating consequences for the environment.

FAQ: Understanding the Planning Bill controversy