Growing evidence that Planning and Infrastructure Bill amounts to regression of environmental protections

In what is now mounting evidence that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill does constitute a regression of environmental progressions, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) has also given their verdict.

This is despite Nature Minister, Mary Creagh MP, writing in the Guardian recently to support the Bill.

Previous legal views have already been given stating that the Bill is not fit for purpose.

Nature Space has published legal opinion of a KC they sought counsel from David Elvin KC. The legal opinion given by the KC states that the approach adopted in Part 3 of the Bill is a “significantly laxer approach to protection”, and that “the PIB as currently drafted which will replace the HR 2017 licensing where EDPs are made will not maintain the same level of environmental protection since it does not require compliance with the same level of protection as is currently in existence which will be true even if as a matter of discretion in some cases they are applied, since the tests are currently mandatory and universal (subject to exceptions).”

And in an exclusive for ENDS, scientists and legal experts have noted that the dangers of an untested roll-out of the Bill may court illegality under the Bern Convention.

Now the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) has said in their report on the Bill that “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.”

To add to pressure from within the UK, the EU has apparently warned that the UK could be in breach of the Brexit deal if it goes ahead with stripping protections for European Protected Species.

The Government is coming under increasing pressure to amend the Bill. Part 3 of the Bill is likely be debated by the Bill Committee next week, where CIEEM is hopeful that our six tabled amendments will be passed.