How Natural England became a green dictatorship
The environmental regulator's 2023 decision means farmers in the Cornish idyll have to apply for consent for a raft of activities, including ploughing.
The confrontation has left 78-year-old Murley, who runs a 350-acre family dairy farm, hoping that the quango will one day reap what it sows. So, imagine his surprise when he found out last week that the Government is about to give Natural England the power to slap a compulsory purchase on his land.
The reason? It's because the quango lies at the centre of the Government's ambitious plans to spark a housing revolution designed to build 1.5 million homes.
Developers themselves will no longer be obliged to offset the environmental damage in the area of the building, with the inevitable delays. Instead, they'll pay into a national nature restoration fund. It will be Natural England's job to offset the environmental damage of the new large-scale developments by setting up nature reserves and rewilding land on a national as opposed to local basis.
To this end, the draft of the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, unveiled by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner earlier this month, gives Natural England powers to seize farmland, allotments and other green spaces for this environmental offsetting, which will free up sites for developers.
But critics fear this conceals a breathtaking power grab by Natural England. When it comes into force, the bill will give local authorities in England, alongside Natural England, the power to seize farmland at 'bargain' rates.
The backlash is hardly surprising: farmers have denounced the bill as a 'landgrab', 'Marxism', and the 'death of property rights', as well as another nail in the coffin of farming.
'Natural England? I wouldn't trust them with a barge pole to be perfectly honest,' says Murley. 'If they think they have a chance of getting it done, they'll come and jump in, regardless of the farmer. They aren't going to bother about us. They just push us aside.
'I have got no time for Natural England as a body at all. At all,' he adds. 'We have had several ministers down here over the last two and half years and every time I say to them 'Have you got any authority over Natural England?' And they say no.
'They are unanswerable. Look, can it be right in a democracy that a quango can effectively put a farm out of business?'
Murley is not alone in looking at Natural England's burgeoning powers with alarm.
'Natural England was originally meant to be the advisor to the Government, but over the years it has been handed a series of executive powers that have turned it into judge, jury and executioner,' says Victoria Vyvyan, the president of the Country Land and Business Association (CLA). 'Now no one can really challenge them.'
The bill reflects both Sir Keir Starmer, and Rayner's, determination to clear the planning logjam for a largescale housing and infrastructure programme. The move to hand Natural England its extended powers is designed to help avoid delays and often protracted and expensive mitigation projects. These have included the infamous bat tunnel on the HS2 route with European rules on protecting habitat and wildlife still in place. The bill ballooned to £100 million.
But what has particularly outraged farmers and landowners is that local authorities and Natural England will be able to buy the land at its agricultural value, which critics believe will impair the value of farms. The bill effectively removes 'hope value', or the potential development value of land.
'Housing and nature are not competing interests,' says Oliver Harmar, the chief strategy officer at Natural England. 'Sustainable development and nature recovery must go hand in hand, but the current planning system needs to change.
'We are working with the Government to deliver their ambition to grow nature and grow the economy for the benefit of everybody. This includes ensuring guidance is fit for purpose and moving toward better strategic planning to secure environmental improvements and enabling development. Natural England is fully accountable to the Secretary of State and Parliament.'
Experts have told The Telegraph that the exact mechanisms by which Natural England would exercise their powers under the bill has yet to be spelt out. But Murley worries that he, along with any other landowner, would be rendered helpless in the face of a compulsory purchase order from Natural England.
For Natural England's 'activist' chairman Tony Juniper, the decision to hand his quango such sweeping powers represents an extraordinary turnaround.
In 2022, only three years after Juniper was appointed, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs floated the idea of closing it down. Tory critics had become increasingly concerned with what they viewed as Natural England's 'activist' agenda.
Last year a group of Conservative MPs wrote to the then Defra secretary, Steve Barclay, urging him to strip Natural England of its SSSI powers.
'Natural England is completely independent and can make decisions without ministerial sign off, says Greg Smith, Tory MP for Mid Buckinghamshire. 'On the one hand we have Rachel Reeves attacking quangos and on the other they have given a quango with no democratic oversight the power to take land.
'At the end of the day this all points in the direction of less food security, loss of natural beauty and loss of rural areas.'
A former minister, who did not want to be named, says: 'The main issue I had with Natural England was the gold plating of the powers they had, which, along with other quangos is becoming quite a threat to democracy.'
He adds that he has come across 'farmers who were unhappy with Natural England' but when he went to Natural England 'Tony Juniper said, 'We have got the act… if you don't like it, ministers can change legislation'.'
A life-long environmentalist and former Friends of the Earth director, Juniper has a long history of attacking governments on environmental issues.
In 2011, before he joined Natural England, he was signatory to a letter that accused the Government of being 'on a path to become the most environmentally destructive government to hold power… since the environmental movement was born.'
Since joining Natural England in 2019 Juniper has repeatedly promoted 'net zero' on social media despite Natural England's code of conduct's requirement for political neutrality.
Juniper has also attacked Brexit and in a Tweet last month appeared to issue a coded dig at Kemi Badenoch's scepticism around net zero when reposted a tweet by Badenoch, marking Margaret Thatcher's election as Tory leader 50 years earlier. 'Baroness Thatcher was the first Prime Minister to take a political lead on climate change, & Teresa [sic] May when she was PM enacted the net zero goal for 2050,' he said. 'These distinguished climate leaders hopefully provide inspiration for their successors.'
In 2023 it emerged that Natural England was accused of stalling plans to build up to 145,000 homes thanks to concerns about potential pollution of rivers.
Natural England has a 'nutrient neutrality' policy, which derives from the European Court of Justice. These block development in designated areas unless it can be shown they would not increase levels of nitrogen or phosphorous in the rivers. Yet construction companies have long claimed that the bulk of waste flowing into rivers comes from farms, not housing and infrastructure projects.
In the same year, Juniper was accused of failing to declare his membership of the National Trust, Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB before a key vote. The vote saw Natural England designate a large swathe of Penwith Moors an SSSI despite widespread objections. At the time Natural England said it 'strongly rejected' claims of conflicts of interests and that all board members had observed the relevant rules.
Because of the SSSI designation, farmers, including Murley, said they were told that they would no longer be able to spread lime on the land to neutralise soil acidity and allow farming.
'So, in effect, they were stopping us from farming,' says Murley. 'They can effectively put a firm out of business with no compensation, because there is no compensation with SSSI.'
The Cornishman is convinced that Natural England's management was determined to drive through the SSSI as a flagship development.
'We are going to make a big splash in West Cornwall,' says Murley. 'It was going to be a big deal for them, and they were going to force it through come what may.'
'I run this business with my wife and three sons,' he says. 'My sons now say to me... do we really need to be bothering with farming, and I've never heard this before. Talking about this still upsets me now.'
Natural England says that Penwith SSSI was chosen on scientific evidence and reflected its statutory duty to protect areas of special environmental interest. The quango also says it always seeks to work with farmers and landowners and that it will provide consent for the majority of established farming activities.
Murley says that Natural England had recently written to farmers in the SSSI to say they could now use lime, but he says that the damage had been done.
Still, the Cornishman has some sage advice for any farmers should Natural England come rattling their front doors with their new expanded powers.
'My advice would be to politely tell them to get stuffed.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
AICPA survey shows US tax relief need post-natural disasters
A recent survey by American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has highlighted the need for improved tax relief measures for Americans affected by natural disasters. The findings suggest that American populace is in favour of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) extending its tax relief measures beyond the initial timeframe set following emergency declarations. The survey, conducted by The Harris Poll, revealed that 35% of respondents see value in a prolonged period for filing taxes and payment relief from the IRS after a natural disaster. This viewpoint is underscored by the recently revealed finding that nearly 32% of Americans have not taken measures to secure their financial interests against such calamities. Additionally, the survey suggests a room for improvement in IRS processes, with 29% of participants requesting tax filing extensions in disaster scenarios would be beneficial. Another 21% believe that the IRS could better manage the situation by setting staggered deadlines for tax relief for individuals and businesses after a disaster. The experiences of Americans who have previously faced natural disasters were also examined. Among the 43% who reported being affected by such events, a diverse range of experiences with federal tax relief was noted: 11% received assistance in under a month, 25% within one to six months, 28% in six months to a year, and 14% waited more than a year. Notably, 22% did not receive any tax relief from the federal government. AICPA tax policy & advocacy vice president Melanie Lauridsen said: 'These poll results clearly show that Americans are in need of additional and more immediate relief from the federal government during these challenging times.' Congress has passed a bipartisan law with unanimous support, which is now pending presidential approval. This legislation is intended to address the need for more relief mechanisms following state disaster declarations, potentially offering a framework for those impacted by natural disasters. Lauridsen added: 'This new law is a win for taxpayers nationwide. The timeliness of tax filing and payment relief following a disaster, especially when disasters strike close to filing deadlines, can give taxpayers one less thing to worry about as they begin the process of rebuilding.' "AICPA survey shows US tax relief need post-natural disasters " was originally created and published by The Accountant, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio


Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Influential lawmaker demands 'old guard must go,' calls for 'rebirth' of Democratic Party
Rep. Ro Khanna sounded off on the Democratic Party establishment in his address to the Voters of Tomorrow Summit for young progressives in Washington, D.C. "How can we trust government to do big things when government has been corrupted? My friends, for those who want a progressive future, for those who want a government that works to build security and opportunity for the working class, we must get rid of the big money in politics," Khanna said in his address on Friday afternoon. The California Democrat then mentioned the Jeffrey Epstein files, which have become a major point of debate in Washington as some demand more information about the case. "We must restore a government for the people, by the people, of the people. The release of the Epstein files is not a magic cure for trust, but it is a first step. It's a first step to say we will have a new era of transparency," he continued. Khanna then bluntly called out his party's establishment in his closing call to action. "I'll end with this clear point: The old guard needs to go. The old ways have not been working. This party needs a new rebirth. This party needs a rebirth to stand for human rights," he said. "This party needs a rebirth to stand for the working class. This party needs a rebirth to stand for people over the donor class." Former Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to give virtual remarks at the summit on Friday, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi was also a major speaker at the event. "We have no doubt that we will win the election with the House of Representatives," Pelosi said during her speech. "No doubt." "It's important to be strong in the year in advance, because that's when the troops line up. We have our messaging, we have our mobilization, we need the money to do it, but they go only next to a school to hold up the most important part: the candidate," she continued. Younger Democrats, like freshman Arizona Rep. Yassamin Ansari and Illinois congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh, took part in panels at the summit. Khanna's address comes as the Democratic Party is striving to navigate the second Trump administration and adapt to the major shifts that occurred across voter demographics in the 2024 election, including among Generation Z. The 2026 election is being seen as an opportunity to get more information about Gen Z voters, as many voted for the first time in 2022 and 2024. Some in the party have encouraged a more moderate direction, while others have echoed Khanna's populist sentiment. "This party needs a rebirth to find our courage in standing up for immigrant rights instead of running away when people talk about immigration. This party needs more people like you in Congress than the current people we have in Congress," Khanna added. "I'm here to say that a new Democratic Party, a reborn Democratic Party, a populist Democratic Party, a multiracial Democratic Party, a Democratic Party that centers the working and middle class, a Democratic Party that looks like the future is a Democratic Party that can lead us back to victory and lead us to a better America. It's time to take back our party and then to take back our country," he continued.


E&E News
3 hours ago
- E&E News
Trump's wildfire agency plans draw concern from state foresters
State foresters are pushing back — gently — against the Trump administration's moves to revamp how the federal government fights wildfires. In a set of policy recommendations, leaders of the National Association of State Foresters urged a more thoughtful approach to combining wildfire responsibilities between the Forest Service and the Interior Department. The association hasn't taken a position on the administration's proposal to move wildfire management from the Forest Service to a new agency that would be created at the Interior Department. But the document, obtained by POLITICO's E&E News, reflects challenges that the idea presents. Advertisement The organization's recommendations may add to a narrative — echoed in the latest spending measures advanced in congressional committees — that the Trump administration floated the idea without fully weighing the implications. The relationship among the two federal agencies and state authorities has developed over decades in the face of worsening wildfires.