[Abernathy]

A quoting error doesn't need to be the source of an argument. Pointless.

Who’s arguing? Not me. I’m simply seeking clarification.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The problem is that these amendments will make it harder to build houses, plus they seem to be very familiar to amendments put forth by Chris Hinchcliff.

Yeah but the starting point was extremely ambitious. Think they’ve staked so much on this that the environmental plans will have to work more quickly than the OP fears.

[The Weeping Angel]

The problem is that these amendments will make it harder to build houses, plus they seem to be very familiar to amendments put forth by Chris Hinchcliff.

Yeah but the starting point was extremely ambitious. Think they’ve staked so much on this that the environmental plans will have to work more quickly than the OP fears.

Here's the summary of the amendments

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ttee-stage

Dan Tomlinson tries to calm things down.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I hope he’s right.

[The Weeping Angel]

So do I.

[The Weeping Angel]

Some nuanced reactions here.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/what-happ ... e-builders

You can read the full changes here, but in short, while they do not get rid of the strategic approach to nature protection, they do make it harder to deliver. More evidence will be required to put a plan in place. Consultation will be needed when plans change. And the Secretary of State approving the plans will need to be even more confident that the plans will work.

In some cases, construction can’t start until a plan is already working for nature.

Some of the changes aren’t actually changes, but rather clarifications of what would have happened anyway.

Let’s be clear. The amendments aren’t as bad as Hinchliff’s. They don’t break the bill. But, they make the bill less effective.

In an ideal world, almost all types of development would be covered by this smarter strategic approach. Under the bill as originally drafted that would have been unlikely – there would still have been bat tunnels and fish discos in cases where ‘environmental delivery plans’ aren’t put in place. The new amendments mean such cases will be more frequent.

When plans are in place – as I suspect they will be for nutrient neutrality – the system will do better. But getting those plans in place will take longer, require more resources, and be more open to challenge.

Politically, I think this is a mistake. It is far from clear that nature groups are going to drop their opposition fully in response. The reaction from the NGOs is far from positive. Some are unconvinced that the amendments actually create any new meaningful protections (beyond added paperworks). Others welcome the amendments, but make clear they still don’t represent the ‘win-win for nature and developers’ that was promised. Campaigns against the bill are unlikely to stop – and if one group comes out strongly against the changes, you can expect others, afraid of looking like they’re selling out nature to win favour from an unpopular government, to follow.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This was all very clear before the election, so I think it’ll get through ok. Having seen the absurd reaction from charities to restricting the WFA, I don’t think we should worry too much about them. Given how much time and money was wasted pissing about on HS2, the nature people may have less support than they think.

[Tubby Isaacs]

“We’re getting stuff built” is potentially a huge card for the government. I know Lib Dems and Greens have made nimbyism part of their coalition, but I wonder how popular it actually is. I reckon a fair few young people in affluent Southern seats who vote Lib Dem might not be too keen on it.

[Boiler]

Given how much time and money was wasted pissing about on HS2, the nature people may have less support than they think.

Most of which came from affluent NIMBYs in the Chilterns.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I’ve looked a bit at Chris Hinchcliff and I’m unimpressed. He cites the “homes per capita is high” canard which doesn’t tell you much about demand. A married couple need one home. If they divorce, they probably need 2 homes. Good luck with telling them about “homes per capita”.

He’s also talked about “getting tough on developers”. We’re quite tough now in terms of where they can build and what they need to do. It hasn’t gone well.

[Tubby Isaacs]

He seems to be a nuisance on something made very clear in the campaign and manifesto. Maskell and Leishman are huge nuisances too, but probably counterproductive to suspend them.

[The Weeping Angel]

This was all very clear before the election, so I think it’ll get through ok. Having seen the absurd reaction from charities to restricting the WFA, I don’t think we should worry too much about them. Given how much time and money was wasted pissing about on HS2, the nature people may have less support than they think.

The reaction has been more like this.