Let’s not bulldoze wild animal welfare

Planning is a complex and specialist discipline.  Possibly, this is why animal welfare organisations do not always get involved in planning policy discussions, even though these can have far-reaching consequences for animal welfare. 

In an overall sense, nature and the environment are very adequately represented in the work of conservation organisations such as Wildlife and Countryside Link, whose Land Use Planning Group aims to “work to promote a positive, evidence-led vision for nature-positive planning that aligns development, climate action and nature recovery.” Welcome as this is, the work of conservation organisations generally focuses on population protection - which is their job -  rather than promoting the needs and interests of individual, sentient, wild animals – which is ours.

The UK Centre for Animal Law (ALAW) and the Wild Animal Welfare Committee (WAWC) recently commented on the UK government’s proposed national planning framework for England (consultation closed 11 March 2026) . This was an enormous consultation, with around 200 questions, and our two organisations felt unable to comment on many of the more specialist aspects.  Nonetheless, given the risk that welfare might otherwise be overlooked, we undertook to make the case for the individual wild animals who often face disturbance, destruction and damage due to construction and other developments.

Current planning policy already takes account of the need to safeguard protected or threatened species.  In our view, however, protection of nature should not be confined only to those areas or species already designated as protected.  As we stated in our submission, free-living populations of animals, whether protected or not, consist of individuals who are vulnerable to harm due to human activity.  All animals living in a location scheduled for development are at risk of being killed, injured, displaced or otherwise harmed when their habitat is altered and vehicles and machinery enter their living spaces.  Individuals of both protected and non-protected species are equally vulnerable to welfare harms as a consequence.

We pointed to the concerns set out by the Animal Sentience Committee (ASC) in its letter of 24 June 2025 to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee regarding planning policy changes, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.  The ASC noted that: “Planning policies and decisions will impact the lives and welfare of countless wild animals, and they also have the potential to affect the welfare of companion animals. Paying due regard to animal welfare requires that these potential impacts are considered alongside the benefits of streamlining planning policies for humans.”

Examples of potential harm cited by the ASC included direct killing by machinery, indirect killing due to destruction of burrows or food sources, or displacement to unsuitable habitat.  Crucially, “These severely negative welfare impacts apply whether the animals are of high conservation concern (like newts and bats) or relatively common (such as rabbits, voles, wrens and three-spined stickleback).”

The draft national planning framework includes a specific policy on improving the natural environment, stating that development proposals should “consider environmental qualities of land proposed for development, including habitats, landscape character and the natural beauty of the countryside, and identify opportunities for those qualities to be conserved or enhanced (including through requirements for biodiversity net gain where these apply”.  At the more specific end of the spectrum, the policy requires development proposals to incorporate swift bricks into their construction unless there are compelling technical reasons which would prevent their use or make them ineffective.

While this is a welcome development (and one heralded in the Animal Welfare Strategy of December 2026), there is little or no further consideration of measures relevant to animal welfare.

In our response, we suggested that the measures required of developers by the nature policy did not go far enough and should better reflect the already critical state of wildlife in the UK and the lack of compliance with existing law. Among other things, we called for a stronger focus on implementation and enforcement and for the planning regime to ensure that environmental impact assessments, including impact on animals, are carried out thoroughly.  Planning permission (including permitted development) should be conditional on the accuracy of the impact assessment, even if additional impact is discovered during or after development. Where “green infrastructure” is provided as part of a scheme, it should explicitly require consideration of the preservation and wellbeing of individual animals living in a habitat or transiting through.

The promotion and preservation of biodiversity is entirely laudable and we welcome the consideration that has been given in the draft planning framework.  However, we need to remember that a biodiverse environment is one made up of myriad individuals, each with a part to play and entitled to live without avoidable, unnecessary stress and harm from humans.

Read our full response here.