NatureSpace                            ESH0088

NATURESPACE RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE INQUIRY: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND HOUSING GROWTH

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

  1. NatureSpace Partnership (‘NatureSpace’) welcomes the move towards a more strategic approach that accelerates development and delivers nature recovery.

 

  1. A national delivery plan and Nature Restoration Fund, as outlined in MHCLG and DEFRA’s Planning Reform Working Paper: Development and Nature Recovery, could work well for national issues such as pollution. For protected species and habitats, however, impacts must be accounted and compensated for locally.

 

  1. The current District Licensing for great crested newts delivered at a local level by NatureSpace demonstrates how an effective species and habitat conservation scheme can be enacted.

 

  1. Furthermore, substantial evidence illustrates the benefit of strategic licensing schemes delivered by local public/private/NGO partnerships, with NatureSpace’s District Licensing solution resulting in faster development, long-term income for landowners and more effective local nature recovery – all at no cost to the taxpayer.

 

  1. Existing species and habitat conservation at a local level should not be superseded by centralised delivery. This appears to be a suggestion in Planning Reform Working Paper: Development and Nature Recovery, which explores the creation of National Restoration Fund supported at least in part by public funds.

 

  1. The creation of a Nature Restoration Fund mechanism for species would seem to require a fundamental dismantling of the Habitat Regulations 2017 and Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 species protections, including the irreversible loss of three fundamental principles – the mitigation hierarchy, the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle.

 

  1. NatureSpace recommends the government role out the Nature Restoration Fund for nutrients and pollution but leave biodiversity net gain to operate for habitats and expand District Licensing for species conservation at a local level so that environmental loss in a District is compensated for in that District. This notwithstanding, the Nature Restoration Fund could potentially act as a last-resort back-stop for species issues without local delivery solutions, in the same way that Natural England operate a ‘national credits scheme’ for BNG.

 

  1. No new legislation nor national body is needed to prevent protected species and habitats blocking development. Instead, existing schemes which are already working should be promoted through policy and extended to include other species.

 

  1. In summary, the NatureSpace District Licensing scheme for great crested newts, regulated by Natural England but delivered by a public-private-NGO partnership, is providing a cost-effective, efficient, local and frictionless solution which is meeting developer’s needs. It is better for taxpayers, better for the environment and fully legally compliant.

 

  1. NatureSpace has demonstrated an effective model to channel private sector funds into the natural environment, at no cost to the taxpayer and with no liability for government or the public sector.

 

INTRODUCTION TO NATURESPACE

 

NatureSpace District Licensing: how does it work?

 

  1. NatureSpace has for the past seven years been successfully delivering District Licensing for great crested newts across 68 Local Planning Authorities and, through Organisational Licensing, for several major infrastructure providers including Network Rail.

 

  1. NatureSpace delivers a quick, certain route to development with expert-modelled impact risk zones which identify where newts are most at risk.

 

  1. In the NatureSpace District Licensing scheme, developers commission a report which they receive within ten working days, which they use to achieve their planning permission. Absolutely no developer-led surveys of sites, which can delay progress by months, are required.

 

  1. Planning consent is then conditioned on a proportionate habitat compensation fee which, if applicable, is only due at commencement, thus improving developer cash flows.

 

  1. Through the Newt Conservation Partnership, NatureSpace works closely with the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust and the Freshwater Habitats Trust to create and maintain habitats for great crested newts in the local area, using the compensatory fee from the developer.

 

  1. NatureSpace is directly integrated with Local Planning Authorities, embedding a dedicated specialist within planning teams to aid delivery:

 

“The integration of planning and licensing make it so much easier to quickly but properly account for the impacts, and the scheme contributes to local nature recovery targets. The specialist support for Local Planning Authorities ensure we can deliver licenses without delays.” – Abby Fettes, development manager, West Oxfordshire District Council

 

  1. Overall, NatureSpace is enabling the delivery of over 30,350 houses, 105 major infrastructure projects, and 281 Network Rail projects.

 

  1. 95% of developers say they would use NatureSpace’s District Licensing scheme again, with one developer commenting:

 

“The NatureSpace District Licensing Scheme was both time-saving and cost-effective. The process was seamless enabling us to progress the development without delay while positively contributing to local conservation. I would highly recommend their expertise to other developers looking for a certain and efficient solution.” – Georgina Mortimer, planning manager at David Wilson Homes (Barratt Redrow PLC)

 

  1. Through its Organisation License, Network Rail has cut costs associated with great crested newt conservation by 90%.

 

Comparison to other District Licensing schemes

 

  1. NatureSpace is the only private/NGO partnership offering a District Licensing scheme, although Natural England offer their own scheme in parts of the country with fewer great crested newts and less development pressure.

 

  1. NatureSpace’s scheme is different to that offered by Natural England in six key aspects:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Newt Mark: demonstrating sustainable development

 

  1. NatureSpace is calling for a government-endorsed Newt Mark for developers who made use of the District Licensing scheme to aid compensatory conservation in their local area.

 

  1. As reported by The Mirror, “developers who use the scheme would carry the Newt Mark on their hoardings when projects are under construction, reassuring new residents that nature has considered while also confirming homes and other infrastructure are being built at speed.”

 

  1. NatureSpace’s Newt Mark proposal has already received endorsement from conservationists and developers alike, demonstrating the wide appeal of such a scheme:

 

“We strongly support the NatureSpace scheme and the Newt Mark, it’s a brilliant idea and a great example of nature conservation that doesn’t slow down development.” - Professor Jeremy Biggs, chief executive of Freshwater Habitats Trust

 

“The NatureSpace scheme has helped us to easily and positively contribute to local conservation. We think the idea of a ‘Newt Mark’ is fantastic because it strengthens the industry’s commitment to environmental responsibility and helps build a sustainable future.” - Jonathan Ordridge, senior planning manager, Thakeham 

 

“The NatureSpace scheme has been a great time, cost, and effort saver for us, while also making a positive impact on local conservation efforts. We believe the concept of a ‘Newt Mark’ is brilliant.” - The Park Lane Group

 

RESPONSE TO INQUIRY TERMS OF REFERENCE (ToR)

 

ToR 1 and 3: The potential changes to environmental protections and planning regulations being considered, focused on the delivery of species and habitat protection

 

  1. NatureSpace fully supports the government’s aspirations to reform the planning system to benefit both development and nature recovery and are pleased to see government acknowledge the success of the strategic approach taken for protected species via District Licensing, such as the scheme delivered by NatureSpace:

 

“Taking a strategic approach to species licensing is more efficient and reduces the proportion of expenditure directed towards surveying – as evidenced by the success of District Level Licensing for Great Crested Newts.” - Planning Reform Working Paper: Development and Nature Recovery, paragraph 60, page 14

 

  1. Yet, government is apparently considering a Nature Restoration Fund, which could centralise the compensation paid by developers to restore and protect habitats at a national scale.

 

  1. For workstreams where impacts are widespread and regulation/policies are national, proposals for national schemes offer clear advantages.

 

  1. Dealing with national scale impacts and recovery is helpful and legally compliant for national constructs like networks of marine areas or sites of special scientific interest, which are already regulated and delivered by government bodies.

 

  1. It should work also for pollution management where impacts are both widespread and diffuse, where a levy-based system could be fairly applied, and where existing land management is incentivised nationally (e.g. through agri-environment schemes).

 

  1. However, for both protected species conservation (e.g. District Licensing) and habitat conservation (e.g. Biodiversity Net Gain), nature recovery must be delivered at a regional level – not national.

 

ToR 6 and 8: The importance of local delivery of nature conservation and recovery

 

  1. NatureSpace’s District Licensing scheme supports local nature recovery by ensuring impacts are compensated in for in the right places. Compensation habitats are always delivered in the same region in which the developer’s ecological impact has occurred and compensation has been paid.

 

  1. A strategic approach does accelerate development and promote nature recovery for protected species conservation through District Licensing, especially when planning and licensing are integrated locally with Planning Authorities to offer a ‘one-stop-shop’ for developers.

 

  1. The regional delivery of protected species should be left out of any changes to primary legislation. Instead, existing local strategic licensing should be promoted, widened and accelerated. Local impacts should be assessed and compensated for regionally but regulated nationally.

 

  1. Compensating for a newt pond lost in Kent by creating a pond in Northumbria is ecologically nonsense - and probably legally challengeable. National oversight of regional schemes must ensure consistently high delivery standards. This regional approach to

 

delivery complements the emerging local nature recovery strategies mandated under the Environment Act 2021.

 

  1. NatureSpace therefore recommends a hybrid approach for species, with a competitive local delivery model backed up by a national last-resort mechanism that steps in should local delivery struggle.

 

  1. For regional delivery, there is a helpful precedent whereby License applicants (in NatureSpace’s case, Local Authority partners) each submit a regional Delivery Plan to Natural England, along with specific delivery mechanisms and quantitative milestones and targets.

 

  1. The government simply needs to enable regulated market competition to the private-public-NGO sector suppliers for operating District Licensing across all protected species – requiring and monitoring high standards, efficiency and value without cost to the taxpayer.

 

  1. For species conservation and habitat conservation, Natural England should act solely as regulator, setting assessment frameworks and standards through either registration or licensing systems, but allowing the private-public-NGO sectors to deliver innovative and cost-effective solutions.

 

ToR 9: The use of data to improve efficiency and inform local delivery

 

  1. District Licensing relies on data, using satellite technology and eDNA which is updated every year, and modern Species Distribution modelling to produce incredibly accurate (97%) and granular (to 10m) models on exactly where great crested newt habitat is. These

 

incredible maps remove entirely the need for developers to commission long-winded surveys of individual sites during the planning process.

 

  1. The result is that developers are guaranteed to receive coverage under a District Licence in just ten working days, all year round, in a report which outlines the investment needed to compensate for any disruption to the newts that a development may cause.

 

  1. As such, the integrated NatureSpace District Licensing scheme completely removes delays for developers. It combines national regulation with local democracy and delivery as the Licence is held by the Planning Authority (County, Unitary or District).

 

  1. Furthermore, a data-informed approach is the basis of key principles which have evolved over 70 years of legislation to protect rare species in the UK, including:

 

 

 

 

 

  1. These principles fundamentally dissuade developers from destroying UK wildlife because they have to account for it and pay for it when they do. However, such principles are impossible to uphold without proper regional and local data.

 

  1. Replacing current local District Licensing for species and habitat protection with a centralised UK Nature Restoration Fund risks deprioritising these principles due to a fundamental lack of local data. Without local infrastructure and expertise, it would be far more challenging to understand what environmental impact was taking place, where it was taking place, and what local mitigation measures are required.

 

  1. In the absence of reliable local data, all developers might pay equally for the actions of a small minority. Without fine-grained data enabling the accountability of developers for their impact a local area, there would also be far less dissuasion for developers causing significant yet avoidable negative impacts. Important places (roost sites and breeding ponds) could be destroyed that have impacts far beyond the site itself.

 

  1. There is simply no rationale or benefit in replacing laws with a levy because strategic solutions for species conservation already exist – District Licensing.

 

  1. Data about species populations should be built upon and integrated with the National Land Data Framework to inform responsible, rational development and conservation choices.

 

  1. Data about protected species other than great crested newts and their habitats could also be collected and used to enable widen local District Licensing compensation and conservation. For example, NatureSpace is currently trialling District Licensing in Sussex for dormouse. Similar approaches will work for many other protected species.

 

ToR 10: Potential impact of proposed DEFRA reforms to habitat and species conservation

 

  1. The existing examples of strategic schemes for species - regulated nationally by the state but delivered regionally by the private-public-NGO sectors – are working well and operating under five-year licences.

 

  1. A shift towards devolution in the form of local delivery and national regulation further complements the existing regional approach.

 

  1. However, any legal or policy proposals that seek to replace local habitat and species recovery and conservation with a predominately centralised approach to delivery - as suggest by the Nature Restoration Fund - could threaten:

 

a) existing commercial licences (which generally last five years and under which the NatureSpace District Licence has a £20m contract backlog of developers signed into the scheme), or

 

b) existing 25-year Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act agreements between Natural England and delivery partners.

 

  1. Such proposals would undoubtedly be intensely challenged given the significant private investment that the policy and legal framework around District Licensing has attracted.

 

  1. Replacing or subsuming existing schemes would therefore take considerable time to implement, leave insufficient time in this Parliament to demonstrate outcomes and actually reverse all the recent improvements for developers.

 

CONCLUSION

 

  1. NatureSpace hopes this response - which fundamentally points to effective regulation enabling regional delivery through the private and NGO sectors - will help government formulate its strategy and policy response.

 

  1. In conclusion, there are several reasons to build on and expand the existing NatureSpace model for District Licensing rather than replace it with a centralised Nature Restoration Fund.

 

  1. Spatial scale: Whilst the issue of delivering nutrient neutrality may be best dealt with through a strategically applied tariff, this is not true for other ‘asset classes’ such as protected species, which are specifically locality-based and more complex to deliver. Not only would Local Planning Authorities’ duties, and political issues operating at the local jurisdictional level, be severely challenged were the state to take control of delivery at a national level, but the ecological outcomes would also be compromised. District Licensing must be assessed at a site level and delivered regionally.

 

  1. Operational benefits for developers: NatureSpace’s scheme (regulated by Natural England) provides clear benefit for developers because the NatureSpace District Licensing scheme funds Local Authorities which then integrate licensing into the planning system, providing a one-stop shop for developers with no delays. ‘State controlled’ delivery mechanisms cannot do this (because of Government funding rules) and continue to operate parallel regulation which delays development. Since NatureSpace’s scheme has been running, there has been not one published case in which great crested newt compliance has slowed up a development.

 

  1. Financial costs to the taxpayer: Since 2017, the NatureSpace scheme has delivered nearly 500 new ponds, at a capital cost of £3.5m and pre-funded their maintenance for 25 years, and enabled delivery of thousands of new homes, without a penny of taxpayer funding. The scheme is entirely funded by developer contributions and the funds for nature recovery are held in an asset-locked Community Benefit Society run by two partner NGOs. Unlike the Natural England scheme which, we are informed does not (and in fact cannot) recover its own costs, the NatureSpace scheme contributes to the public purse by fully reimbursing both the regulator (Natural England) and public delivery partners (the Local Authorities) for their services.

 

  1. Commercial 1: A state-controlled Nature Restoration Fund would destroy any private sector market – investors will not bring forward finance where government policy has a stronghold over the collection of money directly from developers. NatureSpace notes two of the key recommendations to DEFRA from the Office for Environment Protect on delivery of the Environmental Improvement Plan:

 

 

 

  1. Commercial 2: The NatureSpace scheme makes both capital and then ongoing annual payments to landowners in return for delivering nature recovery – the Natural England state scheme does neither. In contrast to the Natural England scheme therefore, the NatureSpace scheme is an important diversified income stream for farmers. Secondly, NatureSpace notes that its scheme has, under the existing suite of 5-year District Licenses issued by Natural England, a £20m contract backlog with 75 largescale housing developments who have entered the scheme and are expecting ponds to be ready when required. Any change to the current policy would both introduce severe delays to the existing housebuilding programme and need to address significant commercial liabilities.

 

  1. Legal: There could be significant conflicts of interest in Government extending its reach to financially benefit from those whom they regulate. Nor, under HMT rules, are they allowed to interfere in markets that can be or are being created and maintained by the private sector, of which protected species conservation through District Licensing is a clear example. At the outset, Natural England rightly sought to differentiate their conflicting roles as regulator and competitor by maintaining ‘Chinese walls’ within their operations. Yet, if these have broken down, Natural England could be legally exposed to a breach of CMA rules on competition. It is important that Natural England’s regulatory powers are not impaired by them also being a delivery partner on the ground - particularly when there is a proven, cost effective, cross sector delivery mechanism already in place.

 

  1. Environmental: The NatureSpace scheme is delivering significantly better environmental outcomes which are better monitored – 88% of NatureSpace’s mature sites are occupied by great crested newts, compared to 41% pond occupancy under Natural England’s scheme.

 

  1. Future expansion of strategic licensing: NatureSpace now intends to expand its habitat compensation delivery to a range of other groups and other protected species, at no cost to the taxpayer. NatureSpace would be delighted to continue to work with government to deliver high quality private-public-NGO sectors partnership opportunities for a range of other protected species that will benefit from the strategic model demonstrated and to showcase the strength of this approach in support of future policy development. NatureSpace is also seeking to raise awareness of District Licensing through a government-endorsed Newt Mark, signalling ecologically responsible development and habitat compensation to aid the conservation of protected species, beginning with the great crested newt.

 

  1. NatureSpace seeks clear assurance from government in support of locally delivered, nationally regulated District Licensing for species conservation, furthering the swift delivery of development and effective nature recovery through a sustainable financial model.

 

Please direct all enquiries to:

 

Michael Keating

Public affairs associate at Sodali & Co

 

Dr Tom Tew

Chief executive of NatureSpace

 

 

February 2025