From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

This is a clear example of bureaucratic overreach:

New housing is being blocked unless councillors agree to introduce green schemes such as Ulez and low-traffic neighbourhoods, in an approach that the environment watchdog is preparing to roll out across the country.

Natural England, which is already accused of blocking up to 145,000 homes, has commissioned a review of “mitigation measures” that could be used to limit emissions associated with new properties in the vicinity of more than 330 designated areas across the country.

The approach is already under way in the Epping Forest district of Essex, where the local council has sparked anger among residents by drawing up plans to introduce a Ulez-style “clean air zone” from 2025, under which cars and other vehicles would be charged each time they enter the area.

The council said it had been “advised by Natural England, as the responsible statutory body”, that it would be unable to approve new developments unless it simultaneously introduced measures to control air pollution in the area.

The review by Natural England, together with the plans for the Epping Forest district, have sparked fears that the quango will effectively block new homes across the country if green schemes are not set up to mitigate emissions caused by vehicles that would be used by new residents.

The approach appears at odds with the Government’s insistence that it is not “anti-car”, amid fears of a war on motorists fuelled by net zero targets.

One insider familiar with the discussions accused Natural England of green “activism”. The source said “it feels very much like they are trying to put a stop” to people driving in certain areas of the country.

The Telegraph has seen documents in which consultants commissioned by Natural England set out how they were looking at “mitigating emissions from traffic/vehicles associated with new development (residential/commercial)”.

In emails sent earlier this year, the consultants, a firm called Ricardo Energy with a £40,000 contract with Natural England, list examples of potential mitigation schemes as including “low emission zones (LEZs) or clean air zones (CAZs)”.

In one email seen by The Telegraph the firm states: “While these are typically designed to mitigate the effects of traffic emissions on human health, there might be situations where they could be used to address impacts on ecological sites as well.”

The firm added: “Natural England is also interested in learning more about the potential use of ‘soft measures’ to address air quality impacts from traffic emissions.”

As part of its own brief to the firm, Natural England said: “Soft measures can be proposed to address air quality impacts,” and suggested such measures could include “improvements to local public transport such as bus and train services, improvements to walking and cycling infrastructure, low traffic neighbourhoods, 15-minute neighbourhoods, provision of electric charging points and restriction of car parking in new developments and route management strategies for HGV’s etc.”

The environment quango, which is chaired by Tony Juniper, the former head of Friends of the Earth, has asked for examples of evidence that such schemes reduce overall vehicle emissions.

Mr Juniper told The Telegraph: “We simply cannot halt and reverse the decline in nature or improve the quality of our environment – as the Government has legally committed itself to do and is rightly demanded by the public – if we don’t mitigate the impact of pollution sources.”

Approaching bodies involved in the planning process, Ricardo said its brief from Natural England, an agency of the environment department, was to examine potential mitigation schemes for developments near more than 330 so-called Natura 2000 sites, which are protected by regulations deriving from the EU. The sites range from the New Forest to the Rochdale Canal in Greater Manchester and cover more than five million acres.

Natural England is a statutory consultee for proposals that could affect such sites, meaning that it is offered the opportunity to recommend that individual plans are blocked. Councils fear that ignoring Natural England’s advice would lead to prolonged, expensive legal action.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/15/natural-england-block-new-homes-ulez-zones-ltns/

Natural England’s remit is quite clear:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/natural-england/about

Conserving the natural environment is one thing. But telling us how to live our lives, what cars we can have and where we are allowed to drive them is quite another.

Worse still, it is the public who are paying for Natural England and its 2000 staff.

It is thoroughly devious for them to claim that their role is only to advise. As the article points out, any local authority who ignores this “advice” is likely to face lengthy and expensive legal action, courtesy of Tony Juniper’s friends in Greenpeace and the rest.

It is a pity that Epping Forest Council did not just turn around to the government, and tell them that they would simply cancel all new developments, which would of course go directly against the government’s new homes agenda.