Simon Marsh talks to us about Planning for Nature.
Could you tell us a little about your background and what led you to write Planning for Nature?
I’ve been a town planner for more than 30 years and working in nature conservation for more than 20, mostly for the RSPB. Currently I work part-time for the Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust as its Planning and Policy Manager, and I spend most of my time looking at local plans and planning applications. The book was partly inspired by Sir Peter Hall’s Great Planning Disasters, published in 1980, which was often referenced when I was a planning student. The original title of my book was going to be Great Planning Disasters for Nature. But, as I was working for the RSPB, I wanted to tell the story of many RSPB planning casework battles around the UK. Some really were, or would have been, planning disasters for nature. However, there are also positive examples of planning for nature and I include some principles of good spatial planning for nature. It’s also something of a personal memoir as I weave in stories from my own career.
The book focuses on planning battles that have occurred since the turn of the millennium. What major shifts have you observed in how the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), other wildlife bodies, and local communities fight these proposals today compared to twenty years ago?
A big change has been in the rise of digital technology and social media. Some of the earlier case studies pre-dated social media. If you wanted local people to sign a petition you would have to go out to where people were and physically collect signatures, like the Friends of North Kent Marshes did in the fight against Cliffe Airport. Contrast that with a more recent case like the London Resort and you see the very effective use of social media by local campaigners using the #SaveSwanscombe hashtag. A very recent development, which I didn’t have the opportunity to discuss in the book, is the increasing use of AI to generate objections. This is a mixed blessing and should be used with caution, as accuracy can’t be guaranteed.
Another shift has been the ‘arms race’ between developers and conservationists. Again, I didn’t have space to discuss this in the book, but it’s no longer good enough for conservationists to simply present the wildlife evidence and expect it to be taken into account. Maybe it never was, but developers have upped their game, and conservationists need to find increasingly sophisticated ways of presenting their arguments. At the same time, planning legislation has constantly evolved, usually in favour of developers and narrow conceptions of economic growth. So it’s a constant battle.
Planning for Nature covers an incredibly wide range of development types—from airports and windfarms to housing schemes and golf courses. Is there a specific type of development that you find poses the most complex challenge for modern conservationists to fight?
That’s a very interesting question. It’s not just about the type of development, although there are some uncommon or novel developments that may be more challenging – I think of Severn tidal power for example, where little was known about the wildlife impacts of a new type of turbine. But I think it’s got as much to do with the legislative route. Most people are familiar with how the Town and Country Planning Act works for locally-determined development like housing and golf courses. The process under the Planning Act 2008 for major infrastructure (known as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects) is more challenging, in part because of the very strict timescales. It’s also something local groups are unlikely to come across very often. That’s in England; it’s slightly different in the rest of the UK. I’d say the most complex challenge in the book was HS2 because it was progressed through a Parliamentary bill (or bills, actually), which meant it was dealt with through Parliamentary procedures rather than planning ones. That made it much more difficult to influence.
You look at both the successes and the failures in these planning battles. When a community or wildlife charity loses a hard-fought battle to save a special place, what is the most constructive way for them to process that loss and look toward the future?
There aren’t many outright failures in the planning battles I cover. Even where a development went ahead, the objective wasn’t always to stop it but to mitigate its impacts on nature. The nuclear power station at Sizewell C is a case in point where the wildlife debate boiled down to how to compensate for the impact on Marsh Harriers. It’s harder for communities than for wildlife charities, because they are often concerned about more than just wildlife and may just want to completely stop the development. Again, Sizewell C is a case in point where the local community groups campaigned on a broad range of issues to stop the development happening. However, even when planning permission is granted, it may be possible to influence some of the outstanding issues such as how planning conditions are implemented, and mitigation and monitoring measures. There may also be lessons learned which can be transferred to other projects, or there may be compensation funds available for community groups to tap into. I appreciate that can be hard to do when you’ve been fighting a development, but at some point you may need to accept that a development is going ahead and you need to make the best out of the situation.
Including windfarms as a case study highlights a fascinating tension: balancing the macro-need for renewable energy to fight the climate crisis against the micro-need to protect local habitats. How would you suggest we navigate this "green vs. green" dilemma?
I wouldn’t characterise it as macro-needs against micro-needs, as both can be of global significance, as in the case of Scottish seabirds affected by offshore windfarms. But I agree it’s a ‘green versus green’ dilemma. I deal with this in the chapter on windpower because it’s exactly the question that the RSPB faced. It resulted in the publication of the RSPB’s 2050 Energy Vision at a time when there was a huge surge in windfarm proposals. The study showed in some detail, using spatial mapping techniques, how it might be possible to reach renewable energy targets without significant harm to wildlife. As with all development proposals, it’s about good spatial planning and putting things in the right place where ecological impacts are minimised. Our need for renewable energy shouldn’t trump the need to protect wildlife. Unfortunately, governments haven’t always learned the right lessons; since I wrote about the Forth and Tay windfarms (which got approved despite RSPB legal action), the Government has approved a huge windfarm known as Berwick Bank in the Forth estuary, which is predicted to cause significant damage to seabirds.
Beyond outlining the history of these battles, Planning for Nature serves as an inspiring guide packed with hints and tips for everyday people. If a local community group discovers a valued nearby habitat is suddenly threatened by a bad development proposal tomorrow, what are the first steps they should take?
It’s hard just to pick one first step! I’d say it would be time to forge alliances. Your question assumes that there’s already a local community group, which is great, but if there isn’t it would be time to form one. For major development there is often a pre-application process, which is a time to gather as much information as possible about the scheme and its possible impacts on nature. You should engage as early as possible, whether it’s with a developer’s consultation process or one run by the local authority after the application is submitted. Even better, engage with the policy that sets out the need for the development, which could be a national policy statement or the development plan. There are more hints and tips in the book, but I’d also recommend looking at the RSPB’s Planning for Nature Toolkit online, which is an excellent guide on how to engage with the planning system to protect wildlife.
Order your copy of Planning for Nature here.
