Protect our wild places!

The Prime Minister is backing proposals from the Fingleton Nuclear Review report that could weaken the rules specifically designed to protect England’s most important wildlife sites - and he has recommended applying them far beyond new nuclear power stations, across the whole of the  UK Industrial Strategy.

The Fingleton review includes recommendations that could make it easier for major developments to impact protected areas by changing how the Habitats Regulations and other environmental safeguards apply purely in an attempt to speed-up development consents, despite there being no evidence this approach would speed up construction. Crucially, John Fingleton, the author of the review, has himself questioned whether extending these recommendations as the PM suggest is a sensible choice.

The rules currently require developers to:

• avoid damaging internationally important sites such as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)
• fully mitigate any harm caused 
• or if not possible demonstrate that no less damaging alternatives exist and there is a public need for the development and compensate for unavoidable impact

Currently, it is suggested that new nuclear power stations could avoid some of these requirements. But there is now a growing push for these exemptions to be applied across all large developments in the UK Industrial Strategy, including major industrial facilities and nationally significant infrastructure projects. This would expose more of the country’s most sensitive nature sites- such as estuaries, which are vital feeding grounds for internationally important bird populations - to increased development pressure.  

This comes at a moment when nature cannot afford further setbacks. The Office for Environmental Protection’s latest progress report shows the Government is largely off track in meeting its legally binding targets especially the first to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030 targets and its Environmental Improvement Plan commitments - including, improving protected sites, and achieving the UK’s goal to have 30% of the UK protected for nature by 2030.

Weakening environmental rules now would move those targets even further out of reach. Protected sites play a crucial role in stabilising and recovering nature across the wider landscape; if the safeguards around them are eroded with large scale development being exempted, the knock-on effects for species, habitats, and climate resilience will be profound. 

Rules that were created to protect the best of our natural world should not be rolled back when nature is already in steep decline - especially when independent evidence is telling us that we need to speed up and scale up nature’s recovery, not cut back.

Whilst there are a lot of important issues to deal with, 3 recommendations pose a huge risk to nature

• Recommendations 11 & 12:  “streamline the Habitats Regulations”

This could reduce the level of scrutiny required before developments are consented allowing projects that cause harm to Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation to progress more easily, by lowering the threshold for what counts as “acceptable” environmental damage, reducing requirements for avoidance and mitigation, and only requiring compensatory conservation measures away from the damaged protected sites. Here, ‘streamlining’ means stripping back legal safeguards - removing the tests for environmental damage, the duties to avoid harm, and the requirements for full mitigation or compensation. 

This would particularly affect habitats like saltmarshes, lowland heaths, ancient woodlands and rivers, coastal bird breeding sites, and peatlands - places that depend on strong legal safeguards to withstand development pressure and ensure they can deliver their purpose.

• Recommendation 19:  weakens duties in National Parks and National Landscapes

This would “remove or constrain” the duty requiring public bodies and planning authorities to further the purposes of these landscapes. This duty is central to ensuring that National Parks and landscapes retain their wildlife, character, and cultural value.
Taken together, these changes would make it far harder for the UK to meet its legally binding nature recovery targets and its international commitments especially to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030.

Yes - and this is exactly the right moment to act.

These proposals are only recommendations currently. They are still being considered by officials across all relevant departments including the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which means MPs have a real chance to influence the Prime Minister’s approach before any decision is made to draft even more new legislation.

Recent evidence also shows that the report driving these proposals contains significant factual errors. Independent analysis found that some of its key claims - such as the costs and benefits of fish protection measures at Hinkley Point C - were wildly inaccurate

Once new legislation is proposed, especially if it bundles together wider planning or infrastructure reforms, stopping it becomes far more difficult.

2026 is a critical year for nature and it is the chance for us to make sure that the UK Government is back on track to meet its legally binding targets. The decisions taken over the next few months will determine whether the UK closes that gap or falls even further behind.

In the run up to the King’s Speech in May, where the agenda for the next Parliamentary session is being shaped and any new laws that may impact nature or planning considered, now is the time to give MPs the strongest possible opportunity to push back against deregulation before the direction of travel is locked in.

There’s more to come and more to do, but by speaking up today, you can help prevent a damaging shift towards weaker protections and make sure our most precious places remain safe for nature - and for future generations.