Two developments in Rushcliffe – East Leake and Keyworth formed part of the report Wild Justice.
Planning permission for housing is granted by Local Planning Authorities (LPAs). When developers are given this permission, it comes with a set of legally binding conditions, including promises to install a range of ecological enhancements to help nature cope with the change in land use.
From the report:
‘We looked at whether these promises to mitigate harms to nature had been kept:
‘We surveyed 42 developments across 5 LPAs.
‘We surveyed nearly 6,000 houses and over 291 hectares of land.
‘We searched for 4,654 trees and 868 bird and bat boxes.
‘We surveyed many hectares of what were promised to be wildflower grasslands, ponds, and hedgerows.
‘We found that only half of the ecological enhancements (53%) that had been promised were there on the ground. When we excluded newly planted trees, this fell to a third—just 34%.
‘We are currently in the midst of a global ‘nature emergency’, in which the UK now ranks as one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. The causes are many and complex, but urban development of the kind that falls under the planning system’s remit is a known driver. On paper, the planning system looks as though it is doing a good job of mitigating the harms to nature caused by development. Over the last 20 years, an ever-growing list of international, national, and local ecological policies has been written to ensure that ecologically sensitive sites are protected.
James Naish MP made a speech on this in a Westminster Hall Debate on Responsibilities of Housing Developers below:
“I want to speak briefly to highlight the fantastic work of one of my constituents, Sarah Postlethwaite, who is a senior planning ecologist. In March this year, in her own time, Sarah conducted a detailed audit on the implementation of ecological planning conditions in her home village of East Leake.
“I have a copy of her report here, and it makes for fascinating reading. She looked at 11 built-out sites from the past decade, and the headline figure is that the overall compliance rate for ecological planning conditions was 9.5 out of 36 conditions, or a meagre 26%.
“At one development by Persimmon Homes, which had 294 homes built out, there was an inadequate number of bat and swift boxes, which were badly installed and/or in inappropriate locations.
“It was also not possible to determine whether the promised meadow grassland and flowering lawn mixes had been sown appropriately. At sites by other developers, hedges were removed despite commitments to retain them. Grassland areas were not created as required, and sustainable drainage systems were not fully built, despite people occupying nearby houses.
‘I commend Sarah’s work, which was reported by the BBC and which, as a result, secured apologies from both Barratt Homes and Persimmon Homes. Miller Homes said it was finalising its ecology measures at the time of reporting.
“I sympathise, to an extent, with the position of local authorities that have neither the resources nor the expertise to hold developers to account as they would wish. Nonetheless, councils need to take their enforcement responsibilities seriously and be appropriately financed and resourced, so that we can ensure developers meet their ecological and other varied and important commitments; if not, swift and effective remedial actions should be taken. I would welcome hearing more from the Minister on how we empower councils to do that.”
A Rushcliffe Borough Council spokesperson said: “The Council continues to work with developers to ensure that ecological requirements of developments are delivered and monitored as required.
“It has increased its ecological expertise and capacity in recent years to ensure the new requirements of the mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain can be met. Should any issues of non-compliance of ecological planning conditions be brought to light, it will investigate and take the necessary action.”
