After reading #PlanningForTheFuture & talking to people, here's my personal take on what it means for nature. (1 of 7)
1. All the most important places for nature seem to be protected, but MHCLG needs to clarify this includes international nature designations, as listed in NPPF

2. If you are making to easier to build in growth & renewal areas, why not make it harder to build in protected areas? And why not make it easier to restore nature anywhere?

3. It’s good to see a commitment to a national framework of green infrastructure standards. This must set improved, mandatory standards for accessible natural green spaces

4. We may be creating loopholes for developers to avoid delivering for nature in growth & renewal areas unless this can be linked to the provisions for biodiversity net gain in the Environment Bill. We also need this applied to NSIPs & development orders

5. Wildlife isn't restricted to protected areas. Sometimes you don't know where the wildlife is until you've done a detailed site survey. 'Simplifying' the environmental assessment process is fraught with risks

6. A digital revolution in planning is welcome, but we need to be careful that all parts of the community can engage with design details. 'Minor' details like swift bricks & wildflower verges can make a big difference to the nature on people's doorstep

Finally, I'm really pleased to see proposals for a comprehensive resources & skills strategy for the planning sector, and recognition of the shortage of ecology skills. This has been one of the key factors in holding back protection & restoration of nature through planning