Newt‑clear power is back on the agenda
The Chancellor has seemingly confirmed an intention to ease the requirements to deal with bats, newts and other nature laws when undertaking new development and, in particular, in relation to new nuclear power plants. This appears to be despite warnings that it will potentially but the UK in breach of the post-Brexit trade deal.
It is something of a trope that many projects become delayed and significantly more expensive when some form of nature mitigation works are required. Two commonly raised examples that have received a lot of media attention are the fish-protection measures at Hinkley Point which cost around £700,000,000 and the HS2 “bat tunnel” which is now suggested to have increased by another £25,000,000 to £125,000,000. In particular, the Hinkley Point measures have received attention due to being estimated to save only 0.083 salmon and 0.028 sea trout per year. EDF did say that, overall, about 44 tonnes of fish will be likely to be saved per year (which is said to be equivalent to the annual catch of a small fishing vessel) although I am sure others will have higher estimates. Regardless, what this does highlight that nature mitigation measures for infrastructure can be extremely expensive and time consuming. Many people delivering infrastructure that the country vitally needs will be asking whether £700m is a good use of funds, time and energy to save one small fishing vessel’s catch of fish per year. Indeed, such questions have already been raised for quite some time.
What the Government have not yet seemingly opined on, is the exact shape and form the proposed changes would take. We have an increasingly developed Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) market with compulsory BNG requirements for developments of 10 homes or more now. Perhaps, the Government might see this as a useful framework to feed into the proposed changes, creating a system where infrastructure developers can use BNG credits to offset their ecological impact, rather than being slowed down by the need to undertake expensive mitigation works on-site or as part of the infrastructure delivery. I am sure many commentators will criticise this as “greenwashing” or just buying their way out of the environmental damage being caused but, if the BNG credit represents meaningful biodiversity improvement, perhaps this is the compromise that will enable infrastructure projects to move forward without completely losing the environmental angle.
I have heard many people saying that they always pray that their environmental surveys for developments do not reveal that any newts are present. With these proposals, perhaps they will not need to worry about them quite as much.
