New building rules might still require developers to set up “bat tunnels and fish discos”, the Conservative shadow housing secretary has warned.
Kevin Hollinrake suggested that nature restoration proposals in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill risked delaying builders working on new homes and infrastructure.
The Buckinghamshire “bat tunnel” at Sheephouse Wood, a 900 metre-long structure designed to stop bats from colliding with high-speed trains on the HS2 railway between London and Birmingham, has cost more than £100 million.
An “acoustic fish deterrent” in the Bristol Channel, to keep fish away from a nuclear reactor cooling system at the Hinkley Point C power station in Somerset, has previously been dubbed a “fish disco”.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner described the Buckinghamshire structure as “an outrage” on Monday as she introduced the Bill, and Labour MP Chris Curtis told the Commons that the existing planning system was “indefensible”.
The Bill, if agreed to, would give Natural England the power to set up environmental delivery plans (EDPs) to look at natural features which could be negatively affected by building, and set out conservation measures.
They would also set out how much developers must pay as part of a “nature restoration levy” to cover these measures.
At the despatch box, Mr Hollinrake asked: “Are Natural England sufficiently resourced to carry out their work? How long will it be before these plans are in place?
“Have the Government taken into account the inevitable delays due to judicial reviews of the EDPs?”
Ministers can only adopt EDPs if they pass an “overall improvement test”, if the conservation measures outweigh the “negative effect” of building.
The Conservative former minister suggested that if an EDP fails this test, “then the system won’t apply and the developer will still need to build those bat tunnels and fish discos”.
Ms Rayner, who is the Housing Secretary, had earlier said: “I’m sure it’s a shared goal by all members across this house, that we want to improve outcomes for nature.
“But I’m also confident that no one here thinks the system is working well. Any set of rules that results in a £100 million bat tunnel is an outrage.
“I know those on the benches opposite agree, but they were determined to take a clumsy approach to fix nutrient neutrality that risked ripping up environmental protections and would not have worked.”
Mr Curtis, the MP for Milton Keynes North in Buckinghamshire, described plans for a nature recovery fund as a “policy masterstroke”.
He told the Commons: “What is most shameful about our current setup of nature legislation including the habitats regulation is not just that it stops us from building the homes and infrastructure our country needs and damages our economy in the meantime.
“It’s that it doesn’t even work on its own terms. Britain is still … one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.”
Mr Curtis said “the money we force builders to pay for nature projects isn’t being spent in the most efficient way”.
Turning to the “infamous bat tunnel”, the MP said: “It cost us more than £120 million to protect a tiny proportion of bats, all while critical infrastructure projects were delayed or cancelled.
“Imagine what we could have done for nature not just with that money but with the extra money that would have been provided to our economy by not stalling that project for so long.
“However, while the nature recovery fund is a welcome step forward, we must ensure it works. It is heavily reliant on Natural England bringing forward workable delivery plans in a timely fashion.”
Conservative former environment secretary Steve Barclay later said Mr Curtis had created a “strange paradox to criticise” the “bat tunnel”, while “also then supporting giving Natural England more powers to make similar decisions moving forward”.
