There is little evidence that conservation of nature is a barrier to development, the government acknowledged in its impact assessment of the controversial new program and infrastructure bill.

The analysis of Whitehall officials provided no data or research to support the government's central argument that environmental legislation could build construction.

Ministers said the new bill would speed up housing development and large infrastructure projects by allowing developers to avoid fulfilling environmental obligations to protect habitats and species such as barn owls, otters, bats and Newts, which will be paid to their Central Natural Recovery Fund (NRF) for environmental improvements that have improved elsewhere.

Officials acknowledge that this improvement of nature may be different from where the building occurs, which raises concerns that it will reduce the chances of nature.

In Part III of the bill, the NRF was criticized by leading economists, ecologists and former government advisers as "the license to kill nature" and there is no evidence that it would promote the economy. They hope to withdraw the third part of the bill for further consultation.

Environmental protection regulators have issued a legal opinion that the new bill in the current draft will eliminate safeguards for nature and put protected sites at risk.

Now the main reason the government provides for the new legislation is that nature is a barrier to development brought about by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Prime Minister Rachel Reeves and Housing Minister Angela Rayner - damaged by the government's own impact assessment.

Officials have tried to study the impact of an environmental obligation (nutritional neutrality) on building delays, but officials said: “There are very limited data on how environmental obligations affect development.

“This makes it possible to make a strong estimate of the impacts associated with the NRF, which will simplify the process of fulfilling environmental obligations and is very challenging.”

They have not yet analyzed other environmental obligations, including the requirements for protecting locations of special scientific interests (SSSIs) rather than harming threatened species such as bats or barn owls, and observing water neutral rules to ensure that development in the region does not overwhelm the water demand in a certain area because of the “lack of these effects on the homes that these holds have”.

Robert Oates, CEO and founder of eco-advisory firm Arbtech, said: “The government’s impact assessment bill on programs and infrastructure reveals the truth that many in many of our industries doubt: they don’t know how the bill will affect vulnerable species such as Barn Owls and Otters.

“Through its own candid acknowledgement, there are “very limited” data on how environmental obligations affect programs and assume that they are based solely on nutritional neutrality.”

He said that despite the lack of any evidence, the entire species now risked sacrifice under the false premise that nature hindered development. “Time and time again, the government has failed to provide any evidence to support this claim,” he added.

The impact assessment also pointed out that the government said the natural and developmental solutions provided by the bill were already possible in the current system without the need for new legislation.

Officials listed the Nature Recovery Fund’s ability to run Nature Recovery Fund and create environmental projects in a timely manner as a risk factor to allow developers to avoid conserving wildlife and habitats at each project site.

“The government has not accelerated the construction of houses, but has paved the way for ecological destruction while creating new planning bottlenecks,” Oates said.

Becky Pullinger, head of the Land Use Program at the Wildlife Trust, said: “After ministers reject strong evidence that there is no delay in development with the current environmental protection, the UK government’s own impact assessment confirms that there is “very limited data” to support their argument that their nature is the stopper.

"It's time for ministers to follow the evidence and modify the plan and infrastructure bill to destroy nature in the name of false diagnosis. We can protect nature and build houses, but we can't pass the current bill."

The impact assessment was acknowledged because Environmental Audit Committee Chairman Toby Perkins said the government had risked its failure to meet its commitment to protect 30% of the land between 2030 and 2030 and to provide greater natural opportunities for communities.

In a report released Wednesday, the EAC said the efforts of developers to pay the NRF are exacerbating speculative promotion ministers’ commitment to net biodiversity benefits may promote their commitments, which drives investment in nature by encouraging developers to increase biodiversity by 10% or paying 10% from “indemnification.”