Drive on country roads at the moment and you’ll see a lot of signs saying ‘no!’. “NO to the Family Farm Tax!” “NO Farmers, NO Food!”
There’s anger in the shires at the Labour Government, who swept to power following a resounding election victory in July 2024.
A whole swathe of policies, from how farming grants and subsidies are paid to changes to inheritance tax, have left farmers feeling threatened and angry. But it’s not just farmers who are furious. The nature community had hoped the much-heralded Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) would help reverse decades of wildlife declines on farmland. The Soil Association had high hopes that its organic growers – who work to strict rules around sustainability and nature-friendly practices – would be rewarded for their diligence. But the sudden cancellation of the scheme in early spring left conservationists dismayed and farmers bewildered.
- “People are cynical about making money out of nature.” We desperately need to rewild the world. But who’s going to foot the bill?
- An English estate the size of Athens is up for sale – and David Attenborough is supporting a pioneering proposal to save it
To rub salt in the nature wound, many fear that the Government's flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill – hailed by ministers as a vital stimulus to growth and prosperity – could override protections for many important sites for nature and once-protected green spaces. The Guardian front page of 3 June stated: “More than 5,000 of England’s most sensitive, rare and protected natural habitats are at high risk of being destroyed by development under Labour’s new planning bill, according to legal analysis of the legislation.”
Has the Government found itself entrenched in a war against nature, the countryside and farmers? Or is its position being misrepresented? Here we have gathered the thoughts of farmers, conservationists, opinion formers and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), that oversees these policies, to shed some light on the controversial measures proposed by Labour, starting with its plans to solve the housing shortage.
What is Labour's Planning and Infrastructure Bill?
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is being presented as “central to the Government’s plan to get Britain building again and deliver economic growth”.
The bill “will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, supporting delivery of the Government’s Plan for Change milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament.”
As part of the bill (Part III), there is “a proposed nature restoration levy payable by developers”. Essentially, this is a fund to offset the impact of development on protected sites and species. By paying the levy, developers can be exempt from some environmental obligations.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer commented on the issue: “For too long, blockers have had the upper hand in legal challenges – using our court processes to frustrate growth. We’re putting an end to this challenge culture by taking on the NIMBYs and a broken system that has slowed down our progress as a nation.”
Why are some people against the Bill?
For many, especially those in the nature community, this is a danger sign – a licence to kill nature and an open door to a ‘cash to trash’ model for developers. Writing in The Guardian, environmental journalist George Monbiot said: “The bill is the worst assault on England’s ecosystems in living memory. It erases decades of environmental protections.”
Sustainable development campaigner Jonathan Porritt commented: “Starmer and [Chancellor Rachel] Reeves seem determined to prove that protecting nature is a middle-class luxury – something brushed aside in the race for economic growth.”
Even the Government’s own Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), has expressed concerns. Dame Glenys Stacey, chair of the OEP, wrote: “In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law. As drafted, the provisions are a regression.”
Unsurprisingly, nature NGOs are worried. The RSPB, one of over 30 environmental organisations to oppose the bill, released a statement saying: “The Government has identified the wrong obstacle to development, and it has led to the wrong solutions. It’s time they accept this, and step back from the brink.”
Defra’s defence
Is the Government selling nature out to developers, as critics of the bill would have us believe? DEFRA told me: “Nature and development have been unnecessarily pitted against each other for too long. This has blocked economic growth but done nothing for nature’s recovery. That is why we are introducing the new Nature Restoration Fund to enable developers to meet their environmental obligations faster while also accelerating infrastructure projects.
“Under current rules, infrastructure projects must secure mitigation or compensation for environmental harm to some protected sites and species before being granted planning permission, adding costs and delays to the planning process. Developers are required to identify and meet environmental obligations, typically on a project-by-project basis, and this misses opportunities to find strategic solutions with the greatest benefits for nature.
“Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) offer an alternative way for developers to discharge environmental obligations, without reducing overall levels of environmental protection. They will only be put in place where Natural England and the Secretary of State are confident that conservation measures will be sufficient to outweigh the impact of development. Where this is not the case, the existing Habitats Regulations system will remain. By moving away from piecemeal interventions to a more strategic approach under EDPs, we can deliver more for nature, not less.”
Funding to help protect nature, DEFRA says, will also come from the developers themselves. “The Government will set up a Nature Restoration Fund… pooling contributions from developers to fund larger strategic interventions for nature. Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.”
Will this reassure those in the nature and conservation communities? Judging from the articles, social media posts and NGO blogs, the calls for Part III of the bill to be scrapped seem only to be getting louder.
And in another headache for the Government, the campaign group Wild Justice has now applied to the High Court to take forward Judicial Review proceedings against then-Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner’s claims that the bill would not weaken environmental protections. The permission hearing for Wild Justice’s case will take place on 6 November 2025.
Discover more stories from around the UK
- Spider hunters find "epic lost species" on the Isle of Wight
- Texas tornado and giant ocean waves: spectacular images from Weather Photographer of the Year 2025
- “Unbelievable”: huge animal longer than bus seen leaping from Irish waters
- 1970s crisp packet found on UK beach "both fascinating and deeply concerning"
Top image: construction continues on new houses that sit on what was previously classed as agricultural land, in Midsomer Norton, Somerset. Credit: Getty
