Conservation Groups Say Government Policies Are a Threat To Wildlife

Published on: 24 May, 2025
Updated on: 26 May, 2025

Sarah Jane Chimbwandira, CEO of Surrey Wildlife Trust

By David Reading

Surrey conservationists are accusing the Government of “an assault on nature” – claiming that proposed legislation governing development and infrastructure will “significantly weaken” important habitat regulations and pose a serious threat to wildlife.

They have strongly condemned statements from Chancellor Rachel Reeves suggesting that nature protections are a hindrance to growth, saying that such statements are totally false.

“It’s completely unfair to paint conservationists as ‘blockers’ to progress,” says Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT).

The problem they point to is the Planning & Infrastructure Bill, which was introduced in March. It is claimed that the Bill in its current form will strip away vital protections without clear requirements on developers to deliver the nature restoration needed to revive precious landscapes.

Guildford Labour activists believe the fears are unfounded and say that overall, the Government is striking the right balance between meeting the desperate need for increased development and the needs of the environment.

Opposing this view, Surrey Wildlife Trust CEO Sarah Jane Chimbwandira said: “Before the General Election Labour promised to restore nature, so it’s depressing that we are now seeing an ill-informed and counterproductive charge against the natural world. Growth and jobs are essential, but we must never forget that nature is the very foundation of the economy, society and people’s health. Destroying it will do nothing to improve people’s lives.

“The Government’s Planning & Infrastructure Bill, in its current form, fundamentally undermines its stated commitment to protect nature. The so-called Nature Recovery part of the Bill replaces vital nature protections with a weaker substitute and has been described by the Government’s own nature watchdog as ‘environmentally regressive’ because it puts irreplaceable habitats and species at risk.”

Ms Chimbwandira added: “It’s completely unfair to paint conservationists as ‘blockers’ to progress, and Surrey Wildlife Trust has a proud record of working with responsible businesses of all kinds. Our colleagues across The Wildlife Trusts movement have offered constructive solutions that would allow the Bill to achieve its aim of accelerating well-planned developments that are good for both people and nature. We’re appalled that these have all been spurned. That’s why we’re now saying the misleadingly named ‘Nature Recovery’ section must be removed.”

SWT said protections for bats and great crested newts and their habitats have often been “scapegoated” by politicians as typical impediments to infrastructure projects.

The organisation claims its research shows that these creatures are a factor in only three per cent of planning appeal decisions. A statement says: “This reveals conclusively that some politicians’ attempts to blame wildlife for slow economic growth are wide of the mark. This evidence is published as the Planning & Infrastructure Bill reached a critical stage today when the Committee discussion of the Bill ended.”

The Wildlife Trusts movement has joined forces with the RSPB and has backed calls from conservationists and economists for a series of amendments which would tone down “the most damaging aspects of the Bill”, while also suggesting positive measures to improve it such as adding safeguards for irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.

RSPB Chief Executive Beccy Speight says: “Despite engaging in good faith with the UK Government for many months, it’s now clear that the Bill in its current form will rip the heart out of environmental protections and risks sending nature further into freefall.

“The fate of our most important places for nature and the laws that protect them are all in the firing line. The wild spaces, ancient woodlands, babbling brooks and the beautiful melody of the dawn chorus – it’s these natural wonders that delight people all over the country and support our physical and mental health that are under threat. That cannot be allowed to stand.

“The evidence clearly shows nature isn’t a blocker to growth. The government has identified the wrong obstacle to the problem it’s trying to overcome, and that has led it to the wrong solutions. With no meaningful amendment in sight, the complete removal of Part 3 of the Bill is the only responsible option left.”

Invited to respond to the claims, Brian Creese, Guildford Labour Activist and former Chair, said it was untrue that the Bill would remove environmental protections. Instead it would provide an alternative way of meeting existing obligations.

Brian Creese

“He said: “The proposed Nature Restoration Fund will make better use of the millions of pounds that are spent each year on one-off mitigation and compensation schemes, instead using this money to fund strategic interventions that provide greater benefit for nature.

“This new approach means more for nature, not less. At the same time, developers will benefit from a streamlined process and simpler user experience with costly and time intensive processes removed.”

Mr Creese said the Labour government was absolutely committed to improving growth in the UK and delivering a huge boost in housing, something desperately needed, particularly for young people.

He added: “We all know that building infrastructure in this country has become a tortuous process, subject to never ending delays and staggering increases in cost. Many think that as a nation we are incapable of building significant infrastructure.

“The current system often slows down housing and infrastructure delivery while the condition of our environment has continued to decline. Time and large amounts of money are wasted on appeals and judicial reviews. This is a lose-lose situation for our economy, communities like Guildford and nature.

“Personally, I have one caveat, and I hope the Government will allow the amendment proposed by Labour’s Barry Gardiner, that every new home should be fitted with at least one ‘swift brick’ to help these endangered birds. The costs do not seem to me onerous on developers and should be quite simple to implement.”

Disclosure: David Reading is a member of the Green Party.