← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Planning System Reforms: Wild Belt Designation
22 June 2021
Lead MP
Claire Coutinho
East Surrey
Con
Responding Minister
Christopher Pincher
Tags
HousingTransportClimateForeign AffairsBusiness & TradeBenefits & WelfareAgriculture & Rural AffairsLocal Government
Word Count: 8982
Other Contributors: 14
At a Glance
Claire Coutinho raised concerns about planning system reforms: wild belt designation in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
I propose a new designation called wild belt to safeguard nature recovery investments and provide longer-term protection for lands being managed for environmental restoration. This would help in creating connected wildlife-rich habitats and ensure that development is sustainable alongside environmental improvements.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
I am concerned about the significant decline in UK species, with a 41% drop since 1970 and one in eight species threatened with extinction. Wildlife habitats are fewer, smaller, and more isolated, which is detrimental to biodiversity and climate change mitigation efforts. Current land designations like sites of special scientific interest, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and the green belt do not directly protect biodiversity value.
Andrew Griffith
Con
Arundel and South Downs
Congratulated the Member for East Surrey on securing the debate and supported the proposal for a wild belt designation. Andrew highlighted successful rewilding efforts in his constituency, including the Barlavington estate's rare Duke of Burgundy butterfly population and the Norfolk estate's grey partridge conservation work. He endorsed the idea of integrating a wild belt into the planning system to protect precious species and natural environments.
Anthony Browne
Lab
Weston-super-Mare
Congratulating the lead MP on initiating the debate, Mr Browne drew attention to the stark contrast between the UK's current state of nature depletion and Norway's extensive wilderness. He pointed out that the UK has only 11% tree cover compared to a European average over 30%, impacting biodiversity negatively. He supported Government initiatives aimed at stopping biodiversity loss by 2030 and advocated for the inclusion of wild belts in future planning policies.
Caroline Nokes
Con
Romsey and Southampton North
Highlighted the importance of rewilding efforts in her constituency, mentioning specific projects such as Fishlake Meadows and the Wilder Wallops project. She advocated for a strategic approach to integrate wildlife corridors and green spaces with development, stressing the need for designated areas to protect local wildlife. Caroline also emphasised the significance of enforcement measures to combat pollution incidents affecting natural environments. The MP suggested the possibility of introducing green belts in Hampshire, expressing a desire for such designation.
Stressed the importance of incorporating green spaces into planning decisions for health benefits and environmental protection. Highlighted initiatives like the East Midlands Development Corporation's work on green growth and the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust's research hub to support nature recovery.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
The London suburbs provide important green spaces that support a wide range of native species. The planning process should protect and enhance wildlife by requiring bat tunnels and newt ponds in developments. A wild belt designation can further support biodiversity.
Duncan Baker
Con
Worcester
The UK, along with nearly 90 other countries, is committed to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030. Creating wild belts as areas set aside for nature recovery and providing green corridors for wildlife movement can significantly benefit biodiversity and public wellbeing.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Broadland and Fakenham
Called for improved agricultural practices and the rewilding of marginal land to address biodiversity loss. Advocated for a wild belt designation that would bring natural recovery principles into the planning system.
Jo Gideon
Lab
Stoke-on-Trent North
Emphasised the importance of including waterways in wild belt designation and highlighted plans to reconnect urban communities with nature through public transport corridors. Proposed the rewilding of Fowlea brook and advocated for a focus on blue-green routes for both environmental and economic benefits.
Judith Cummins
Lab
Bradford South
Called attention to changes in debate procedures due to hybrid arrangements, advised on camera and microphone requirements for virtual participants, reminded about mask-wearing rules in Westminster Hall, and provided instructions on seating arrangements.
Derby North
Supporting the designation of wild belts within a legal framework, Ms Fletcher emphasized the importance of defining and ensuring effective implementation. She highlighted the need for viable habitat and wildlife corridors to support biodiversity, stressing that time is crucial for ecosystem development.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Emphasised the need for responsible planning to provide appropriate housing while protecting local character and environment. Advocated for local plans, neighbourhood plans, and designations such as wild belts to achieve this balance.
Supported the Wildlife Trusts' proposal for a wild belt designation, highlighting its potential benefits in securing restored natural habitats. Raised concerns about proposed bridge construction near the Welsh Harp site of special scientific interest and called for better data management and enforcement resources.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
Emphasised the urgent need for action to protect biodiversity, noting significant declines in native species and habitats. Advocated for protecting agricultural land as a habitat and called on the Minister to assure that such protection will be prioritised.
Ruth Cadbury
Lab
Brentford and Isleworth
The MP highlighted the need for effective legislation to halt and reverse nature depletion in the UK, noting the failure to meet UN biodiversity targets. The planning system is crucial for achieving net zero emissions and improving biodiversity. She questioned whether proposed amendments commit to reversing species decline and expressed concerns about funding cuts to Natural England.
Government Response
Christopher Pincher
Government Response
Thank you, Mrs Cummins. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I will certainly leave as much time as I am able to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). I congratulate her on bringing forward this debate and on assembling such a passionate, wild bunch in favour of her wild belt designation proposals.
I will say a few words about our planning proposals before I turn to my hon. Friend's proposals. We have said that building back better from this pandemic means ensuring not only that new developments are greener and better for the environment, but that they support healthy, happy and flourishing communities and habitats. I want to be absolutely clear that one of the key purposes of our planning reforms is to leave a legacy of environmental improvement.
Our new planning system will improve both the quality and the standards of development. It will secure better outcomes, including for our countryside and the environment, alongside increasing the supply of land for new, beautiful homes and sustainable places—not least by getting local plans in place; as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) rightly noted, that is a significant contributor to preventing speculative development and building in the wrong places, rather than the right ones.
To deliver on our ambitions, we have announced a number of proposals for driving forward environmental benefits, through both the Environment Bill and our proposed reforms to the planning system. The Environment Bill, which has already come before the House, mandates, for the first time, a 10% net gain for biodiversity as a condition of most new developments. We are now proposing to extend that to the nationally significant infrastructure regime.
Recognising the relationship between the environment and development, we want to broaden the use of measurable environmental net gains beyond biodiversity to include wider natural capital benefits, such as flood protection, recreation and improved water and air quality, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) suggested. Alongside existing regulations that protect our most threatened or valuable habitats and species, that will allow us to establish a strategic, flexible and locally tailored approach that focuses, above all, on positive outcomes. We want to capitalise on the potential of local nature recovery strategies, including opportunities for new habitat creation, as we seek to make the system clearer and more responsive.
To complement this, we are examining the current frameworks for environmental assessment. They are often complex and lengthy, and we believe they lead to unnecessary delays, hindering opportunities to protect the environment and open up appropriate development. Our intention is to bring forward a quicker, simpler framework that encourages opportunities for environmental enhancements to be identified and pursued early in the development process. We will embed this approach through further updates to national planning policy, ensuring that environmental considerations feature fully in planning decisions, including their role in mitigating and adapting to climate change.
As several hon. Members have suggested, our reforms also encourage the sector to think more creatively about biodiversity and about how bee bricks, green roofs and community orchards can improve the quality of our air and the quality of our lives. We are taking action through the national planning policy framework to set the expectation that all new streets will be tree-lined, aspiring to the beauty of green infrastructure such as we see in the cherry blossom trees that line the streets of Bonn in Germany.
Protecting and enhancing the green belt is very much part and parcel of this. I said that yesterday in the debate on planning brought forward by the Opposition, and I say it today specifically to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who is keen on the green belt—she said as much in her speech. I trust that she will encourage her local council to be equally keen on the green belt. I can certainly assure her, as I assure the shadow Minister, that it is our intention to undertake a wholesale reform of local authority resourcing, including looking at the fee structure to ensure that local authorities have the wherewithal do the job we ask of them.
rose—
If she will be very brief, I will give way to my right hon. Friend.
In consultation with local authorities, I am happy to have that discussion with my right hon. Friend.
Before I turn to the issue of wild belt designation, our White Paper proposes a new approach to the categorisation of land, reflecting its potential for growth, for renewal and for protection. We are now considering responses to our consultation carefully, so I hope that hon. Members will understand that I cannot say overmuch about the proposals while they are still being digested. I can say, however, that I am open to some of the proposals that my right hon. Friend has suggested, but with this word of caution. It is not only roots and vines that creep; the scope of Government Departments and their arm's length bodies also creeps. We must be very careful that by giving statutory powers to such bodies, we do not allow them to make use of land—or rather, designate against development of land—that could be good brownfield sites, such as land close to railway lines. That simply places the weight of expectation of development on other places, such as greenfield sites. We need to be careful about what we wish for.
What we want to do is to build on more brownfield sites to protect the sort of land that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) talked about. That is why we have increased the local housing network calculation for the 20 largest cities in our country; that is why we increased brownfield regeneration funding by £500 million; that is why we have introduced an urban taskforce; and that is why we have introduced PDRs, to allow better and easier gentle densification of urban and town centre landscapes.
We are determined to support our environment through our planning reforms, we are determined to build on brownfield first and we are determined to take forward the views and aspirations of all in this Chamber who want wildlife to be placed first and foremost at the heart of our planning reforms. I appreciate that the fickle finger of time is ticking down the clock, so I am very happy now for my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey to retake her rightful place and close the debate.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.