31st January 2025

The government has continued to make public statements attempting to paint those who care about nature protection as the “blockers getting in the way of development” and asking developers to “stop worrying about the bats and the newts”. It is particularly disappointing to hear this type of rhetoric from politicians such as Rachel Reeves who claims to want to be “Britain's first green chancellor”.

The real issue behind the ‘bat tunnel’

The “£100 million HS2 bat tunnel” has been repeatedly used by the prime minister, the chancellor of the exchequer and other government ministers to support their call for deregulation.

The use of this case fails to recognise the real failings of HS2 and previous governments in not carrying out a timely strategic environmental assessment. This could have identified viable alternatives that could have avoided significant expenditure and delay.

We hope that the government will learn from this; not by proposing changes to legislation or policy but simply by ensuring that companies take nature into account early in the process. By taking the necessary steps early on, it will mean infrastructure plans such as the proposed East West Rail linking Oxford to Cambridge can avoid making the same mistakes as HS2.

Nature vs Growth? The false choice threatening our future

Nature and economic growth are on the same side

Pitting nature against development is dangerous, irresponsible and unnecessary. The language being used by government ministers is divisive and ignores the pragmatic and sustainable ways that could be used to build more homes and infrastructure.

It is false that in order to grow the economy we must sacrifice our natural heritage. We have previously shared a planning briefing outlining some of the ways this could be done.

The government has put forward a working paper on planning and development. The proposals as they stand are likely to accelerate species extinctions and degrade habitats. In turn, they are likely to have negative impacts on the economy, society and individual wellbeing.

Asking developers to pay into the “Nature Restoration Fund” will not “enable developers to meet their environmental obligations” but rather disincentivise them from engaging proactively with onsite nature recovery. BCT has responded to this working paper.

Rather than using soundbite politics, it is time for the government to work with Bat Conservation Trust and others to find pragmatic solutions that will benefit economy, society and wildlife.

For details on how to help us to protect bats and other wildlife see our previous article: Is the government’s planning reform bad for bats?