Sir Keir Starmer’s Controversial Stance on Housing Development
“The dream of home ownership for thousands of families is being stymied by arachnids. It’s absurd. And we will put an end to it.” This statement from Sir Keir Starmer on Wednesday addresses the contentious issue surrounding a housing development in the Kent town of Ebbsfleet, which was halted due to the discovery of a colony of sitticus distinguendus, commonly known as the distinguished jumping spider.
Natural England has classified part of this brownfield land as a site of special scientific interest (SSSI), rendering it off-limits for construction. In his article for the Daily Telegraph, Starmer expresses his government’s commitment to “loosen the stranglehold on building in this country,” using the situation in Ebbsfleet as a glaring example of the “nonsense” inherent in our planning regulations. In terms of its rhetorical flair, it somewhat parallels Donald Trump’s grievances over government spending on unconventional initiatives, such as transgender mice. It appears that Sir Keir and his team believed this message would resonate positively with Telegraph readers, showcasing a Labour Prime Minister willing to challenge the green lobby and prioritize economic growth over environmental concerns.
However, the reception was far from triumphant. At the time of my review, over 2,000 comments had been lodged regarding his piece, with nearly all being critical. While it’s essential to approach anonymous online sentiments with caution, it’s clear that many are not convinced by the PM’s sweeping promise to “stop it.”
By “stopping it,” what exactly did he mean? Was he referring to the overarching legislation that empowers Natural England, a quango established in 2006, to “conserve, enhance, and manage the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations”? Or was he specifically addressing the situation at Ebbsfleet, where the previous administration had invested £35 million in a brownfield site with aspirations to create a garden city—a mere 17 minutes from central London via high-speed rail?
Regardless, achieving such changes would necessitate legislative action, which is often a lengthy and complex process. Currently, Natural England’s legal framework explicitly prohibits the consideration of economic factors when designating an area as an SSSI, strictly due to the presence of rare species.
This approach is fundamentally sound. The establishment of Natural England was intended to prioritize landscape and biodiversity protection, even if it meant that “progress” would be delayed by the discovery of rare species, such as a family of Bechstein’s bats, as seen during the construction of the HS2 rail line. Why should a group of environmentally committed public servants be placed in a position where they must weigh the nation’s housing demands against the preservation of endangered species, even if they are as small as jumping spiders?
The Implications of Starmer’s Proposal
So, what course of action does the Prime Minister (or his deputy, Angela Rayner, who oversees these matters) plan to take? Is the government contemplating a reduction of Natural England’s authority? If so, where would such changes begin, and what criteria would determine the boundaries?
- Jumping spiders may not garner significant public affection and are unlikely subjects for a blockbuster film.
- Nevertheless, they represent one of the rarest and most endangered native spider species, predominantly found in brownfield sites across Kent and Essex, near the Thames Estuary.
- Even the prospect of a British Disneyland (a feature of the Ebbsfleet proposal) could further jeopardize their existence, raising concerns about the long-term implications.
While it seems illogical that housing for 15,000 individuals could be impeded by a handful of spiders, Starmer is justified in his desire to address planning bureaucracies. However, this is not the appropriate battleground. The fundamental mission of Natural England is to protect the environment—our most vital asset—from exploitative developers, ensuring that future generations inherit a biodiverse and thriving landscape. This noble purpose should not be belittled or compromised.
If this government is genuinely intent on reevaluating our environmental safeguards in pursuit of its elusive goal of economic growth, it must proceed with extreme caution. Failing to defend the delicate ecosystems, including the airborne arachnids of Ebbsfleet, could lead to dire consequences.
