41: The Role of Ecologists in Wildfire Prevention with Harri Webb

Moving on then, the next news item we have is on the MPPF, the National Planning Policy Framework.

So in August, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, MHCLG, published a revised National Planning Policy Framework for England.

This is following a consultation that SIEM responded to, but overall the government received around 20,000 responses.

So kind of understandable that it took them a little while to get this out.

The new framework, the headline I think I suppose for this is the new framework strengthens the presumption in favor of development, introduces a default yes for housing within reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations, and also supports the government's ambitions for AI growth zones.

and data center development.

There's an update on biodiversity net gain in the MPPF as well.

So it introduces a new limit on what local planning authorities can set for biodiversity net gain requirements.

So that is at 10%, which is what was set originally in the Environment Act.

Under this new wording, any local authority that wants to go beyond that will have to justify that and show that it can be fully justified and deliverable.

which is unfortunate in a way because there's some authorities were already requiring more and leveraging more investment out of the private sector for nature recovery.

Now they're going to have to justify that.

So slightly disappointing one there, but that has been put in as a cap.

Local nature recovery strategies, LNRS, these are the spatial strategies for nature established under the Environment Act as well, are giving greater prominence in the new frameworks, plan making and decision making policies, which is a really good move.

And they explicitly require their consideration now.

The new MPPF confirmed an amended grey belt definition, which removes the exclusion previously protecting lands such as designated wildlife habitats and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change from this new grey belt status.

It's a change that's been carried through despite significant opposition, including from ourselves.

Elsewhere, the government has partially reversed course.

So some good news, wording on major development in protected landscapes.

So that's national parks, national landscapes and the broads has been strengthened back to should be refused rather than the software should only be supported if tested during consultation, which restores a strong presumption against major developments in these areas.

And this is an overriding reason to do it.

Irreplaceable habitats also receive more explicit recognition and protection in the final text with the MPPF stating that development proposals which would entail the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused.

Not every MET was asked however though so the definition of ancient and veteran trees hasn't been changed despite stronger protections haven't been consulted on and chalk streams, upland hay meadows and floodplain meadows have not been added to the irreplaceable habitats list as many have been asking for.

And for the first time, the MPPF sets out an expectation that development proposals should incorporate integrated nest boxes, so swift boxes, unless there are compelling technical reasons preventing their use or making them ineffective.

The new climate change chapter requires development proposals to take account of both current and future climate impacts over the scheme's lifetime.