Labour’s ‘blinkered’ drive to build risks pushing wildlife to point

Published: 25 November 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Top conservationists have warned that the government’s “blinkered” drive to accelerate building projects could push the natural world to the point of no return. Campaigners say that Labour’s push to speed up development, including amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, threatens wildlife, green spaces, and ecosystems that have already suffered decades of human pressure.

The RSPB and Wildlife Trusts are lobbying hard in the final stages of the bill’s passage in the House of Lords. They argue that the most damaging parts of the legislation – including weakened biodiversity protections and exemptions for smaller developments – could lead to irreversible loss of habitats. Experts also fear that the upcoming Budget could introduce further measures that prioritise economic growth over ecological balance.

Over the past few weeks, public engagement has surged, with 65,000 people emailing their MPs urging them to support amendments protecting nature. Despite widespread concern, sources indicate that Labour MPs who privately oppose the bill were whipped to vote against environmental amendments. The move has sparked anger among conservationists, who say the government is ignoring both public opinion and scientific evidence.

RSPB chief executive Beccy Speight said: “Ecosystems depend on a diversity of species. It’s an interconnected web – like a game of Jenga. If you keep taking pieces out, at some point the tower will fall. I don’t think the Planning Bill recognises that.” She stressed that undermining protections for green spaces would have long-term consequences not only for wildlife but for communities that rely on nature for mental health, recreation, and climate resilience.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has also been accused of prioritising economic growth at the expense of the natural world. Critics say that the bill overrides key protections for habitats and species, claiming that regulations are a barrier to the government’s target of constructing 1.5 million homes. However, a cross-party Environmental Audit Committee report released just ten days ago contradicted this, stating that nature is not a block to housing. The report described anti-nature arguments as “a lazy narrative” and emphasised that resilient, sustainable neighbourhoods depend on healthy ecosystems.

Wildlife organisations say the legislation threatens ancient woodlands, wetlands, and habitats for species including badgers, dormice, and sand lizards. Craig Bennett, chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, highlighted the removal of local decision-making powers, saying: “If in one or two years’ time local communities start seeing bulldozers move in on their most treasured green spaces – where they walk their dogs or enjoy nature – and the first they know of it is when construction starts, frustration with the government will be immense.”

Sally Hayns, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, raised further concerns about the practical implications of the law. “Wildlife on a site covered by a new environmental delivery plan will have to be removed. Either they must be found and relocated, which is often impossible, or they will be killed. The public is unlikely to support developers literally sanitising sites to comply with this approach.”

The bill controversially allows developers to meet environmental obligations by paying a levy for nature restoration, rather than directly ensuring the protection or enhancement of habitats. Experts warn that this “financial shortcut” could result in real harm to local ecosystems. Hayns noted: “Every bat eats between two and 4,000 tiny insects a night. Without bats as natural pest controllers, we would face more crop and animal diseases, potentially requiring increased chemical interventions. Bats provide vital ecosystem services, and undermining protections threatens the balance of nature.”

The Environmental Audit Committee criticised past delays in housing construction, citing fragmented data, poor cross-government coordination, and a lack of ecological, planning, and construction expertise. However, it warned that the current bill threatens to exacerbate these problems rather than solve them. The Wildlife Trusts highlighted that exempting small developments from biodiversity net gain rules could undermine the green economy, potentially allowing developers to avoid compensation obligations worth £250 million per year.

Research by the RSPB indicates that the public overwhelmingly opposes sacrificing nature for short-term economic growth. “We have lost 38 million birds in the past 50 years,” Speight said. “Nature is in a really bad state. This government promised to be the most nature-positive government this nation has ever seen. Yet in the past six months, we have seen anti-nature rhetoric that contradicts that commitment.”

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill also raises concerns about chemical use in agriculture and landscaping. Loosening habitat protections could drive developers to rely on pesticides and herbicides to control vegetation or pests, further threatening biodiversity. Experts warn that such practices could have knock-on effects for pollinators, soil health, and water quality.

Ministers argue that slow housing development is partly caused by outdated environmental regulations, claiming that removing certain protections will streamline construction and boost the economy. A government spokesperson said: “We inherited a failing system that has held up the construction of vital homes and infrastructure, blocking growth and doing nothing for nature’s recovery.” However, critics counter that sustainable development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. Studies show that well-planned green infrastructure can enhance property values, improve community wellbeing, and provide natural flood defenses.

The debate over biodiversity net gain is particularly contentious. Under current proposals, small developments could avoid obligations to compensate for habitat loss. Conservationists argue this loophole could undermine years of progress in wildlife recovery, allowing incremental losses to accumulate and eventually cause irreversible damage. Both the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts have called for stricter oversight and enforcement to prevent developers from circumventing environmental responsibilities.

In addition to local ecosystem impacts, experts warn that weakening protections could hinder the UK’s climate commitments. Natural habitats, including woodlands and wetlands, play a critical role in carbon storage, flood mitigation, and heat regulation. Any reduction in their protection risks not only biodiversity loss but also increased vulnerability to extreme weather events.

Public pressure appears to be mounting. Tens of thousands have written to MPs urging support for amendments to safeguard wildlife and natural habitats. Conservationists hope that continued lobbying in the Lords can secure changes to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill before it becomes law.

Ultimately, nature experts argue that the bill reflects a short-term, blinkered vision of development, prioritising construction over ecological sustainability. Beccy Speight said: “This is a crucial moment. If we keep removing protections, we risk pushing wildlife to the point of no return. It’s not just about animals – it’s about the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the communities we live in.”

The coming weeks are critical. With the bill approaching its final stages in the House of Lords, the outcome could determine the future of some of the UK’s most cherished landscapes and species. Conservation organisations are urging MPs and peers to listen to science, heed public sentiment, and ensure that economic growth does not come at the expense of the natural world.