logo
How a £1.5bn ‘wildlife-boosting' bypass became an environmental disaster

How a £1.5bn ‘wildlife-boosting' bypass became an environmental disaster

The Guardian7 hours ago
Lorries thunder over the A14 bridge north of Cambridge, above steep roadside embankments covered in plastic shrouds containing the desiccated remains of trees.
Occasionally the barren landscape is punctuated by a flash of green where a young hawthorn or a fledgling honeysuckle has emerged apparently against the odds, but their shock of life is an exception in the treeless landscape.
The new 21-mile road between Cambridge and Huntingdon cost £1.5bn and was opened in 2020 to fulfil a familiar political desire: growth. One of Britain's biggest infrastructure projects of the past decade, it was approved by the secretary of state for transport over the heads of locally elected councillors.
National Highways, the government-owned company that builds and maintains Britain's A roads, promised that the biodiversity net gain from the construction project would be 11.5%; in other words, they pledged the natural environment would be left in a considerably better state after the road was built than before.
But five years on from the opening of the A14, the evidence is otherwise, and National Highways has admitted biodiversity and the environment have been left in a worse state as a result of the road project.
Empty plastic tree guards stretch for mile after mile along the new road, testament to the mass die-off of most of the 860,000 trees planted in mitigation for the impact of the road. Culverts dug as a safe route for animals such as newts and water voles are dried up and litter-strewn, while ponds designed to collect rainwater and provide a wildlife habitat are choked with mud and silt.
With concerns that the rollback of environmental protections in Labour's planning and infrastructure bill will make it easier for developers to destroy nature, Edna Murphy, a Liberal Democrat on Cambridgeshire county council, is calling for MPs on the environmental audit committee to investigate the multimillion-pound failure of the A14 project.
'National Highways has resisted attempts by local representatives to discover what it is up to,' Murphy said.
'We have struggled over years to find out basic facts about the death of nearly all of the 860,000 trees that were originally planted and what has happened subsequently in terms of replanting.
'How can they be allowed to get away with this? How can anyone have confidence in promises about environmental mitigations in any national infrastructure projects in the future?'
Murphy and her Lib Dem colleague Ros Hathorn believe the failure of the environmental improvements created in mitigation for the A14 are a shocking example of how powerful developers make environmental pledges in order to gain planning permission, which are then not upheld.
They began asking questions of National Highways in 2021 when it became obvious from the scale of the tree die-off that something had gone wrong. They asked for details of how many trees were planted, how many had died, and for regular reports on the tree planting.
A slide presentation in 2022 to Murphy and Hathorn indicated 70% of the 860,000 trees originally planted had died.
In late 2023, Martin Edwards, a National Highways project manager, suggested to local councillors the die-off may have been only 50%. He said two re-plantings had taken place since the die-off, both of which had also subsequently failed. He blamed this on the policy to replant the same tree in the same place 'and keep your fingers crossed'.
Edwards insisted that lessons had been learned and that in 2023 National Highways had carried out a full soil survey and a three-month tree analysis.
This revealed they had planted the wrong species in the wrong place, and provided valuable lessons about the most appropriate season in the year to plant a tree, he said.
Nicole Gullan, principal ecologist at the ecology consultancy Arbtech, said she was surprised by the approach: 'Tree planting on this scale should have been underpinned by ecological due diligence, including soil sampling, hydrological and geotechnical surveys, and an adaptive management plan to address potential failures. Proper reporting and mapping of planting locations is also essential for long-term monitoring and accountability.'
A third replanting of 165,000 trees – at an estimated cost of £2.9m – took place over the autumn and winter of 2023-2024. National Highways promised to share details of their surveys and a new planting plan with Cambridgeshire council's biodiversity team.
Sign up to Down to Earth
The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential
after newsletter promotion
But in a report this June, council officers said the information had never been passed to them despite repeated requests.
'Documents that were provided to the group were basic overviews and did not contain the detailed information requested,' the officers said. 'The council therefore did not have evidence of where and why the planting had failed, which would be crucial to inform the replanting strategy, ensuring improved planting success.'
Today, parts of the A14 where trees should be thriving still resemble a desert, and the whereabouts of the 165,000 new trees remain a mystery.
'The council does not know where replanting has taken place,' officials said, adding that officers had driven along the route to try to find them, but only found a few limited areas where replanting appeared to have taken place.
Some residents have begun planting their own saplings. Vhari Russell from Brampton said she had grown various different trees in her garden in pots and planted all of those into the A14 embankment. 'I think we've probably put in 150,' she told local reporters.
National Highways, which has been reprimanded by the office of roads and railways for failing to fulfil a key metric on biodiversity gain, has admitted that the A14 project has left nature worse off despite having pledged to improve it.
In an evaluation report National Highways said the impacts on biodiversity 'were worse than expected', as were the impacts on the water environment. National Highways has faced no sanction for these failures.
From 2026, biodiversity net gain will be mandatory for big infrastructure such as the A14 road. But Becky Pullinger, head of land management for the Wildlife Trusts, said developers had to be held to account once the mandate came in, so that recreated habitats had a fighting chance of survival. A recent report showed that only a third of ecological enhancements promised by housebuilders were fulfilled.
Pullinger said the example of the A14 showed how important it was that harm to wildlife was avoided in the first place, reducing the need for compensation planting.
'The failures highlight the challenges of trying to recreate mature habitats: it takes years, if not decades, for saplings to turn into woodland and provide much needed spaces for the wildlife [affected] by development,' she said.
A National Highways spokesperson said: 'We take our responsibility to the environment very seriously. The A14 upgrade project was not limited to just improving the road; our ongoing environmental work remains a long-term project that we will continue to monitor and support. Between October 2023 and April 2024 – the optimum planting season – 165,000 trees and shrubs were planted. These comprised 16 different species specially selected to enhance the surrounding areas and habitats. Our latest survey showed that nearly 90% of these trees have survived. Nationally, we continue to monitor, evaluate and adapt our practices to respond to a rapidly changing climate to meet the challenges that it brings.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Angela Rayner to put 'BANTER POLICE' in your office: Watch what you say by the water cooler! Workers' rights Bill pressures firms to spy on 'inappropriate' conversations
Angela Rayner to put 'BANTER POLICE' in your office: Watch what you say by the water cooler! Workers' rights Bill pressures firms to spy on 'inappropriate' conversations

Daily Mail​

time15 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Angela Rayner to put 'BANTER POLICE' in your office: Watch what you say by the water cooler! Workers' rights Bill pressures firms to spy on 'inappropriate' conversations

has been accused of plotting to censor workplace banter by deploying a network of spies in businesses across the country. Under new laws drawn up by the Deputy Prime Minister, firms will be pressured into bankrolling 'diversity officers', whose jobs would include protecting staff from the content of overheard conversations. Last night, the Tories warned that the so-called 'banter police' would have a 'chilling effect' on businesses already struggling under the weight of high taxes and excess regulation under Labour. Under Ms Rayner's Employment Rights Bill, employers must try to protect their staff from harassment by third parties. It means, for example, that a worker could take an employer to tribunal if they feel jokes or banter they overhear was offensive on grounds such as race, sex or religion if their bosses didn't do 'all they could' to prevent it. That is likely to lead to firms taking on more diversity officers to monitor what people are saying to help them prove they had taken sufficient steps to protect their workers. The Bill fails to stipulate any ring fence allowing the expression of opinions on political, moral, religious or social matters – which the Tories said they would have insisted upon. Ms Rayner's legislation also paves the way to greater unionisation in the workplace, which companies fear will take Britain back to the dark days of the 1970s, making it more burdensome to employ workers and leaving the firms vulnerable to ruinous strikes. The Bill requires bosses to give trade union representatives time off for matters 'relating to equality in the workplace' – further adding to costs, and to the number of potential busybodies monitoring speech. Ms Rayner's political opponents point out that she has received thousands of pounds in donations from unions which will benefit from the legislation. Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith said: 'Employers are already bleeding out because of Labour's war on business, and this will make matters much worse. Pressuring private firms to hire diversity officers to pursue woke agendas has so far gone under the radar – but it will be the final nail in the coffin for many. 'Innocent office banter will be spied on by wokerati thought police. These banter tsars will have a chilling effect in workplaces. 'We can already see in Rayner's own Whitehall department how taxpayers are footing the bill for this divisive political agenda. With her personally bankrolled by the unions, this is clearly a grubby deal that feathers both nests.' The number of employment tribunal claims relating to 'banter' in the workplace rose by 45 per cent in 2021 alone, and bosses fear the new legislations will cause this to spiral even faster. The changes would be a boon for outfits such as Inclusive Employers, which offers 'banter workplace training'. It states: 'Banter, when unchecked, can escalate into harmful behaviour, including bullying, harassment, and discrimination... Harmless banter can quickly cross the line and lead to more serious issues.' The new laws will also roll back moves by the last Conservative government to stop Whitehall spending taxpayers' money on 'diversity, equality and inclusion' initiatives. Central to the plans are the repeal of Tory trade union laws which will reduce the threshold for strike action and make union funding of the Labour Party automatic. It will also end zero-hours contracts, strengthen redundancy and flexible working rights and allow companies to be taken to employment tribunals even if the employees concerned do not want to sue. The laws will make it far easier for unions to infiltrate workplaces and to operate even if just 2 per cent of the staff join. The Bill says: 'Introducing explicit protections from third-party harassment will ensure that victims can be confident that they have recourse to legal redress if their employer has not taken all reasonable steps to protect them'. A government spokesman said: 'The Employment Rights Bill will not affect anyone's right to lawful free speech, which this Government stands firmly behind. 'Upsetting remarks do not fall within the definition of harassment. 'We are strengthening workplace protections to tackle harassment and protect employees from intimidating and hostile abuse as well as sexual harassment.' A government source added: 'Courts and tribunals will continue to be required to balance rights on the facts of each case, including the rights to free expression.'

Even poorest OAPs face paying income tax in new stealth raid on state pension - in Labour plans that could come as early as next year
Even poorest OAPs face paying income tax in new stealth raid on state pension - in Labour plans that could come as early as next year

Daily Mail​

time15 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Even poorest OAPs face paying income tax in new stealth raid on state pension - in Labour plans that could come as early as next year

Labour was last night accused of betrayal after it was revealed that everyone on the full state pension will be forced to pay income tax as early as next year – even if they have no other income. Millions of Britain's poorest pensioners face being dragged into an 'old-age tax trap' as Chancellor Rachel Reeves desperately attempts to fill a growing black hole in the public finances. The extraordinary prospect, which threatens to spark a 'grey revolt' among furious older voters, arises because the personal allowance – the level at which income becomes taxable – is stuck at £12,570 at least until 2028. But the state pension, which pays 12.9 million men and women over the age of 66 up to £11,973 a year, is on track to breach that limit before then because of higher-than-expected growth in wages – especially in the public sector. Under the triple-lock system, the state pension increases by the rate of inflation, annual earnings growth or 2.5 per cent – whichever is the highest. If average earnings continue to grow at their current rate of 5.2 per cent, next year's state pension will rise above the income tax threshold for the first time since it was introduced more than a century ago. This will force pensioners who rely entirely on the state pension to pay the basic tax rate of 20 per cent on any amount above the personal allowance limit. The exact figure will be confirmed later this year. The hardest hit will be those who retired after 2016 and have paid a full 35 years of National Insurance contributions. Last night Dennis Reed, director of Silver Voices, a campaign group for pensioners, accused Labour of a 'mean approach' and betraying the triple lock pledge it made at last year's election. 'If triple lock increases start being taxed it obviously is a betrayal because Labour promised to keep the triple lock at the existing formula for the whole of this Parliament. It's a rather sneaky way round of undermining the triple lock.' It comes days after Ms Reeves was seen openly crying while sitting next to Keir Starmer in the House of Commons. An extraordinary Government U-turn over welfare reform last week, in the face of a Labour backbench rebellion, has blown a £5 billion black hole in the Chancellor's financial plans. Combined with weak economic performance, Ms Reeves may have to impose further punishing tax hikes, possibly as high as £30 billion, later this year. Mr Reed accused the Treasury of an 'anti-pensioner approach'. He said pensions minister Torsten Bell called for the triple lock to be phased out when he ran the Resolution Foundation think-tank. Shadow Chancellor Sir Mel Stride last night told The Mail on Sunday: 'Labour have shown where their priorities lie. Last winter, they deprived millions of vulnerable pensioners of their winter fuel payments. 'Next year they will start taxing people who rely on the state pension as their only income in retirement.' He added: 'At the election last year the Conservatives promised to protect the state pension from being dragged into tax – Labour chose not to match that commitment. 'They claim to be protecting pensioners through the triple lock, but this stealth tax will erode its value.' It is thought the pensioner 'tax trap' could hit Labour at the polls. More than 126,000 older people signed a petition urging Ms Reeves to stop pensioners reliant on the state pension being dragged back into the tax system.

LORD ASHCROFT: Humiliating U-turns. Broken promises. A Prime Minister deemed so weak that he can't even control his own party. As Sir Keir Starmer marks his first anniversary, voters issue their damning verdict
LORD ASHCROFT: Humiliating U-turns. Broken promises. A Prime Minister deemed so weak that he can't even control his own party. As Sir Keir Starmer marks his first anniversary, voters issue their damning verdict

Daily Mail​

time22 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

LORD ASHCROFT: Humiliating U-turns. Broken promises. A Prime Minister deemed so weak that he can't even control his own party. As Sir Keir Starmer marks his first anniversary, voters issue their damning verdict

As Labour limps to the end of its first year in office, the marks are in and the verdict is brutal. My latest poll finds that based on what they have seen so far, nearly four in ten voters would give Keir Starmer an F for 'fail'. Among the rest, the average grade is a C minus. Even Labour voters can only bring themselves to award a C plus. It's not just that many disapprove of the Government's agenda. Half the electorate, including nearly as many 2024 Labour voters, say they don't understand what it is. This is hardly surprising, given the start they made. We can imagine Keir Starmer's first meeting with his senior officials a year ago this week. 'Congratulations, Prime Minister,' opens Sir Humphrey. 'Might we discuss your early priorities for government? I assume you'll want to focus on economic growth and improving public services.' 'All in good time,' says Starmer. 'First, cut the winter fuel allowance. Then find a way to make it more expensive to employ people. Oh, and make farmers pay inheritance tax.' 'I see,' Sir Humphrey replies hesitantly, casting a nervous glance at a puzzled colleague. 'Anything else, Prime Minister?' 'Yes. Give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. And rent them back.' If the scene seems fanciful, it's probably because it exaggerates the sense of purpose with which Labour assumed power. A series of U-turns – a feature of Starmer's administration since the early days but now so abundant it's hard to keep up with them – has only added to the sense of incoherence and confusion. Broken promises to the 'Waspi women'; Sue Gray's brief tenure as No 10 chief of staff; reversals on winter fuel, the grooming gangs inquiry, and whether excessive immigration is or is not turning Britain into an 'island of strangers' – these combine to show a Government with little sense of direction. Starmer's colossal turnaround on welfare reform compounds the damage, for three crucial reasons – both political and practical. First, even at its most moderate, the Labour Party has never fully shaken voters' suspicions that it is too soft on welfare and can't be trusted with taxpayers' money. The backbench rebellion and the Government's retreat in the face of it show these doubts to be well founded. Second, Starmer's climbdowns will cost real money: some £4.5 billion, according to ministers' own figures. That means (even) higher taxes or (even) more borrowing, or probably both, at a time when Britain needs neither. It also makes it harder to hit the new Nato target of spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence within ten years – a policy which most voters support, as does (so he currently says) the Prime Minister. Third, while an occasional pivot can show a government that listens and learns, a succession of them erodes confidence and credibility. 'We need somebody strong at the head of our country to go head-to-head with Trump, but he can't even keep control of his own party,' as a woman put it in one of my recent focus groups. 'What's he going to do on other policies?' asked another. 'When he makes hard decisions and gets challenged, he just seems to flip.' In a dangerous world, people want a leader they can rely on. Despite all this, a fair but dwindling chunk of voters still gives Labour the benefit of the doubt. They argue that 12 months isn't long to correct the mistakes of 14 years. But listening to those who turned out for the party, it's clear that many are struggling to look on the bright side. Few see any tangible signs that Starmer's team has started to turn things around. As one of the party's previous backers told us, 'There's no noticeable change that says, "Labour's in, this has happened".' If the Government lacks a sense of purpose, many feel the same is just as true for the Conservatives. More are starting to notice Kemi Badenoch and to like what they see. But the party has yet to break through and her overall grade from voters was a D. They recognise her conundrum: how to be visible and relevant without claiming to have all the answers so soon after being booted out of office. One answer is to show a proper understanding of what they got wrong and what is needed to put it right. Another is to rediscover what one former voter called their 'North Star', the guiding principles that animated and united the Tories when they were at their best. Nigel Farage tops the grade table for the year – the only leader to get an A from his own voters, and a B overall. He has picked up the extra marks by being visible, getting people talking, articulating people's frustration and turning it into local election votes. People see that his party is branching out beyond immigration to talk about energy, industry, welfare, policing and more. But Reform-curious voters wonder about the practicality of some of their ideas – such as reopening Welsh coal mines, or charging non-doms a £250,000 fee in lieu of tax and sharing the proceeds among low-paid workers – and note the party's expensive plan to drop the two-child benefit cap. Some acknowledge Farage's need to win over voters from all sides, but many will want something firmer when choosing the next government. 'Be a bit more grown-up, tone it down. You've got my attention now. Win me over,' one potential supporter said. Attention brings scrutiny. This year was just the mocks. As the final exams approach, the questions will get harder.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store