Yes, that would be unrealistic, but we haven't said that.

Our proposals would retain the principle that, for protected wildlife, harm should be avoided wherever possible. Where not possible, it should be reduced, and if development still needs to go ahead there should be effective compensation.

That's simply not the case, Zach. Many nature charities work with developers to deliver housing without harm for nature. We're totally behind zero carbon energy infrastructure too. It was HS2's bad management that led to the tunnel. We think Government's aim of a win-win is possible but needs work!

Hi Tom, the mitigation hierarchy (requirements to avoid & reduce harm first) could be applied at project/plan level and still make things much simpler. This could work with eg zoning or with average pollution loads depending on the feature. The key is ensuring developers don't skip straight to harm.

Here's our letter expressing the scale of risk in the current version: wcl.org.uk/docs/2025/20...

Here are our suggested changes: wcl.org.uk/proposed-ame...

We're grateful to MPs across Parliament for tabling amendments: @elliechowns.bsky.social @gideonamos.bsky.social @chrishinchliff.bsky.social

Thanks, I'll take another look!

But please don't stop there! We need:

💚duties on public bodies to grow & manage a Public Nature Estate across holdings
💚requirements for big private landowners to disclose major nature impacts
💚much bigger incentives to manage land for nature (and polluter pays for harm)

Here's the CEFAS analysis, published today: www.gov.uk/government/p...