There has been a some talk in the media (see here, here and here) about the Government’s “Red-tape Challenge” – a challenge to you, you and you (and hey…you), to identify and let them know which bits of UK legislation clog up business, hinder progress and just get in the way of life. I suppose, we can lump together all of this under a single word: bureaucracy.
NGOs such as the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts (e.g. Kent, Sussex & Hampshire) and Greenpeace all originally responded, stating or theorising that the aim is to scrap all environmental legislation, thus putting paid to the claim that the Government is the greenest ever. If indeed as has been suggested in the most extreme arguments, the Government scrap all nature conservation legislation such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 or the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; or the 275 other ‘environmental’ pieces of legislation that are on the statute book, then there is no doubt, none whatsoever, that the following examples of bureaucracy will potentially be at great risk of disappearing: National Parks, wild flower meadows, bats, great crested newts, nesting birds, clean air and a stable climate. So for developers, no more great crested newt surveys or checking vegetation for nesting birds before site clearance, and no further requirement to commission ecology surveys at all. So if this is true, what would this mean for developers? On the face of it, good news. Development could plough ahead (literally as well as metaphorically), unhindered, unabated and undoubtedly with fewer delays.
Of course, I seriously doubt that all the legislation would be lost; indeed, Defra issued a press release reaffirming the Government’s commitment to environmental protection. So why are the NGOs getting anxious about this – surely there are more credible campaigns to be had? Well, I suppose it has probably got something to do with uncertainty. Uncertainty as to what the real motive behind this exercise is. In a recent article in the Guardian, George Monbiot stated that “The point of the Red Tape Challenge is not to scrap all this legislation but to shake the bolts looser. The government is in the process of resetting the political boundaries so that the outrageous propositions it makes in future seem unexceptional”. Well may be, time will tell; but judging by the number of comments (576 at the time of writing); all of which seem to be vociferously opposed to the idea of even meddling with the existing legislation, it would be a brave Government to make any outrageous proposition. People don’t like change – ask the AV campaigners.
But does the construction, business or financial sector have a vested interest in making any changes? I think so (see below), but do you?
Having worked with contractors, developers, architects, designers and engineers, I think that you are a lot cannier and a more savvy group than the Government seem to acknowledge and, importantly, recognise that a healthy environment is a good thing. A good thing financially, a good thing commercially and a good thing at weekends. And if presented in an intelligent and articulate way, a more robust suite of environmental legislation may also be welcomed by you…but, and there is a but, only if there is clarity, proportionality and mutuality. Clarity such that everyone understands and appreciates what is protected, why it is protected, by how much it will be protected and where it will or can be protected. Proportionality such that where protected species or habitats are present and it is not realistic to avoid disturbing or losing them, then a more pragmatic approach, whilst still retaining the favourable conservation status (as the minimum), would be allowed under agreed circumstances and following robust guidelines, thus avoiding a dogmatic approach that can and does exist; and mutuality in that as far as is possible, all sectors get buy in. This for me would be the real benefit of the red-tape challenge and, I think, can be illustrated with an example.
Take a site with some ponds, some rough grassland and some scrub. The grassland grades in to a sparsely vegetated habitat with bare ground consisting of broken up concrete, loose gravelly material but flower-rich, i.e. a fairly typical brownfield site. The pond has a population of great crested newts and there are some important invertebrates such as scarce bumblebees, solitary bees and wasps, spiders and butterflies, some included in the local biodiversity action plan.
In today’s legislative climate, great emphasis would be placed on translocating the great crested newts at some considerable expense, including construction of new ponds and terrestrial habitat. Licence applications may take more than 30 working days to be reviewed by the statutory nature conservation organisation (SNCO), more if they themselves request further information; and the translocation period may last at least two months. It could be more than a quarter of a year before the developer gets on site. Meanwhile, there is very limited protection, if any, given to the diverse invertebrate assemblage. Retaining the good will of the developer in trying to either retain or mitigate this habitat can be easily lost in the frustration that can follow.
However, if the energies expended on the red tape challenge were spent on a comprehensive and intelligent review of our nature conservation legislation, reflecting the challenges of the 21st century (e.g. biodiversity loss, climate change and sustainable development) and the obvious need, for say affordable housing, then perhaps a more pragmatic approach, providing holistic benefits to nature conservation can be achieved.
Returning to the example, rather than making every effort to collect every newt, perhaps a shorter but no less robust translocation exercise could be undertaken, using the traditional approach of temporary amphibian fencing but say over a period of two weeks and not two months, followed by a finger-tip search in suitable habitat; and with a less complicated and onerous licence application. The developer benefits by getting on site much earlier and potentially saves a considerable amount of money. The SNCO benefits as less time is spent reviewing sometimes complex development proposals – after all, they are under resourced and under pressure – and can focus their limited resources on managing SSSIs or other extremely important and vital work. The great crested newt benefits as it is still moved out the way, has two new ponds (instead of one) and the population is not lost or isolated.
And what about that money saving? Does it line the pockets of the developer? Well, here’s my outrageous proposition…what about some of it lining the developers pocket, but a big proportion, a very big proportion gets to line the pocket of nature conservation by being diverted to protect/ mitigate the invertebrate rich habitat that currently receives little protection. This can either be achieved by strengthening the legislation to ensure that developers provide meaningful habitat mitigation, signed off by an accredited qualified ecologist or using an existing mechanism such as a Section 106 Agreement, which could fund the exercise. Examples could be on site mitigation such as a green roof (which would have added benefits such as Code for Sustainable Homes) or appropriate habitat creation in a quiet corner whose monitoring and management could be ceded to a local wildlife trust or relevant community group. Alternatively, if the on-site option is not practical, or just as an alternative, then a commitment for off-site mitigation in line with the RSPB’s Futurescape or the Wildlife Trust’s Living Landscapes could be offered.
So the alternative approach would still protect great crested newts, still enable the developer to build and over a much shorter timeframe and with less delay, but also protect the invertebrate rich habitat too. The challenge should not be identifying red tape, but finding pragmatic, proportionate and mutually inclusive conservation. And it has Government support.
[…] to NIAs is the concept of biodiversity offsetting. I alluded to it in an even earlier blog through references to the RSPB’s Futurescape for […]
[…] I have blogged on them: here, here, here, here, here, here and here; and these are the ones up to the beginning of October […]