Is Labour about to put its historic link with National Parks at risk? – Inside track

At last year’s Labour party conference the prime minister spoke about the beauty and wonder of the Lake District. Visitors to this year’s conference are greeted by six Labour history information boards dotted around the conference venue. Number five proudly and rightly trumpets the historic role Labour played in the creation of National Parks as part of the rebuilding of Britain after the second world war. The 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was landmark legislation and led to the protection of cherished landscapes like the Peak District and the Lake District, the creation of National Trails across the country and a public right to access open countryside.

Labour has sought to build on these achievements in government. In 1999, the then deputy prime minister John Prescott saw the political opportunity presented by the 50^th anniversary of the 1949 act and announced new National Parks in the New Forest and the South Downs at the party conference. Labour governments were responsible for the Countryside and Rights of Way Act in 2000, which increased public access to the countryside, and the Marine and Coastal Access Act in 2009, which resulted in the soon to be finished continuous walking path around the English coastline.

Media reports that some in government want to weaken protections for protected landscapes are at stark odds with this proud history. They suggest the government may be considering undoing an important protection for these areas that was introduced by the last Conservative government, a duty on public bodies to respect the reasons areas were designated, including the conservation and enhancement of nature. This would set back plans for nature recovery and undermine Labour’s historic custodial role.

Protected landscapes recover nature for the good of people too Protected landscapes – which comprise National Parks and National Landscapes – could play a decisive role in the government’s nature recovery plans, if they are properly protected and funded. Take the government’s target to protect 30 per cent of land and sea for nature by 2030 for instance, which recent figures suggest is woefully off course. Protected landscapes in England cover around 25 per cent of the land area so boosting their role in nature recovery would put the target within closer reach. In December 2024, the new government recognised the potential these areas offer to be the nature-rich areas it says it wants to see across the country.

The majority of National Parks and National Landscapes are privately owned, with many different actors involved in their management and decisions about the use of the land. In 2023, the Conservative government recognised this and adopted a recommendation of the independent review of protected landscapes for a stronger duty on public bodies and public utility companies. This duty was included in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act in 2023 and means public authorities must take a more active role in the protection and stewardship of protected landscapes.

In December 2024, the new government published guidance on this duty, clarifying the intentions to facilitate better outcomes for England’s protected landscapes and not prevent authorities from discharging their legal duties and other responsibilities. Instead, it should ensure the reasons for designating protected landscapes are recognised in decisions and activities that have an impact on these areas.

The duty has begun to have a positive impact, with greater collaboration between public bodies and the managers of protected landscapes. Early conversations around achieving common goals result in better decision making in the public interest and, crucially, help to avoid delays. The court judgment following the first test cases of the duty suggests it sits well alongside planning policy.

So why would the government seek to undo this good work? The answer may lay in the divisive ‘builders vs blockers’ debate that has been raging since Labour came to power. Some government departments appear to have an overly simplistic attitude, with a dim view taken of environmental duties, as they require judgements and discretion to be exercised through a thoughtful rather than a gung ho approach.

While airport expansion is deeply problematic from a climate perspective, and is unlikely to deliver the economic benefits the chancellor hopes, the government’s decision letter on a new runway at Gatwick makes several references to the protected landscapes duty, demonstrating that it is not creating a barrier to infrastructure development. The duty has prompted meaningful discussions on how the harm to the dark skies and tranquillity of the nearby protected landscapes should be mitigated, resulting in £750k investment in them. This is a fraction of the overall cost of Gatwick expansion – which will be in the region of £2.2 billion – and will be invested locally. It does not impinge on the delivery of the major infrastructure.

If the government thinks further refinement to how the duty operates in decisions on major infrastructure is needed, it should update the guidance on the duty instead of removing it outright.

Last ditch amendments disrespect parliament and the public  Labour has made no secret of its plans to accelerate housing and infrastructure development. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill was one of the first bills introduced when it came to power. It is seen as central to the government’s plan to deliver economic growth, including the target to build 1.5 million homes in England and fast track 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this parliament.

The bill has already courted controversy. It seeks to establish an alternative approach for developers to meet certain environmental obligations relating to protected sites and species. Environmental organisations and practitioners were concerned the changes would weaken important safeguards and remove clarity. The Office for Environmental Protection found the proposals to be a regression and recommended several changes. In response, the government brought forward a package of amendments to address these concerns.

When the bill returns to parliament in mid-October, the government could face new backlash if it brings forward an amendment to remove the protected landscapes duty. Introducing such a significant legislative change without consultation at the tail end of an unrelated bill would undermine the parliamentary conventions which Labour sought to defend in opposition. Why play by different rules once in power? Parliament is likely to unite against such a change, which could result in a rare defeat for the government on one of its own amendments, on an issue where Labour has traditionally been the progressive party.