In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, housing sits firmly at the base, second only to food and clothing. Ask your average millennial renter to choose between the welfare of fish in a local stream and owning a well-located house, and they’ll pick the house. The British state, however, is decidedly on the side of the fish. So we discovered earlier this year, when new rules requiring developments to prove they had a “nutrient neutral” effect on local waterways blocked planning approval for up to 120,000 homes across England and Wales — equivalent to 65 per cent the annual completion rate. 

This is not an isolated victory for Mother Nature QC. The Economist recently compiled a list of similar incidents, including a mulberry tree blocking the conversion of a derelict building into 291 flats in East London, and a nuclear power station being indefinitely postponed due to fears that a neighbouring tern colony might leave. 

Most small businesses have vacated the market

Straddling this trend is a thickening web of regulations. Got a plan for new homes in your neighbourhood? You’d best be prepared to cough up an environmental impact assessment, a landscape impact assessment, a tree survey, a newt survey, a bat survey, an owl survey, a ground contamination assessment, a noise assessment, an air quality assessment and, now, a nutrient neutrality assessment. Next year, a “Biodiversity Gain Plan” gets thrown into the mix — requiring developers to prove their proposals will create a “10 per cent gain” in biodiversity. For each new requirement, the risk of a perceived error — challengeable in court — increases. As delays are common and can bankrupt small businesses, most have vacated the market. Bigger firms survive by hoarding land to hedge against disruption. 

The costs of all this cannot be understated. According to Deloitte, Britain is building homes at virtually the slowest rate in Europe (at half the speed of France) and has the fewest dwellings per capita of all countries surveyed. A shortage of homes means unaffordable prices, lower salaries, fewer children and the strangling of successful cities and industries. 

Of course, protecting the natural world is a worthy cause. The public overwhelmingly support measures to boost Britain’s biodiversity, with 81 per cent believing more needs to be done. They also want affordable homes. How to square this circle?

Let’s start by re-framing the dilemma. The problem with planning rules is not that they protect nature; it’s that they do so in an unpredictable and deeply inefficient way. Efforts to improve biodiversity — such as filtering sewage for nitrate — entail specific monetary costs. Building homes creates significant monetary value. As such, new homes can boost biodiversity efforts. 

Consider the aforementioned tree that blocked 291 flats. At an average local price of £547,407 per flat, the development would have raised £4,327,272 in stamp duty — enough to plant 8,654 acres of forest (or 7 million trees). If just one per cent of the duty had gone towards planting, we’d still get 70,000 new trees.

It gets worse. Given the capital’s salary mark-up, the average full-time worker who moves to London will increase their annual direct tax contribution by at least £2,948. Assuming an average of 1.5 earners per flat, the development would have generated around £1.29m a year in additional payroll tax (one per cent of which could have planted 20,590 trees). Whichever way you cut it, that mulberry tree should get the chop.

You don’t need to live with your parents to help Mother Nature

Of course, we cannot apply this logic everywhere — some habitats are irreplaceable. Thankfully, we don’t need to choose between housing and wildlife. Demand for housing is highly concentrated, and buildings and infrastructure cover at most 5.9 per cent of Britain. By contrast, 57 per cent of land is agricultural. A pro-nature planning system would harness the value generated by building houses where they are needed to boost rewilding efforts where they are not. To achieve this, the Government should axe the paperwork. Instead, local zoning can give businesses clarity about where they’re allowed to build, whilst also designating rewilding zones. Tax gains from new homes can then be channelled into protected sites. 

Efforts can be further boosted by imposing a value uplift tax on land which is granted planning permission. As potential gains are massive — with a mark-up of up to 30000 per cent — syphoning even a tiny portion into biodiversity would have a significant impact. 

To ensure houses are built where they are needed, the Government could loosen planning constraints in a small number of high-demand areas, such as fields next to train stations within easy reach of major cities. Doing this could create millions of new homes, whilst protecting 99.5 per cent of the country from unnecessary developments.

In short, you don’t need to live with your parents to help Mother Nature. The narrative of man vs beast is an artefact of a failure to conduct a simple cost-benefit analysis. A future exists where you can claim an affordable home near a well-paying job, safe in the knowledge that doing so is protecting the environment. In the meantime, don’t blame those fish.