Last week, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves delivered a speech pledging to drive economic growth across the UK. Having previously positioned herself as “Britain’s first green chancellor,” Reeves reiterated her belief that “net zero is the industrial opportunity of the 21st century.” However, her support for projects like a third runway at Heathrow and her dismissal of natural ecosystems have now raised questions about whether her vision leans more towards unrestrained expansion than genuine sustainability.
During a webinar hosted by the Green Alliance, Shaun Spiers, Executive Director of the Green Alliance emphasised this discrepancy. Despite Reeves’ promise to invest in clean power, public transport, and EV infrastructure, Spiers acknowledged an emerging narrative that prioritises “growth at any cost”. Indeed, when asked by The Times to choose between newts or bats, Reeves answered, “Neither, because I want growth.”
East West Rail: A Case Study in Growth vs. Sustainability
This focus on growth is particularly relevant to major rail infrastructure projects such as East West Rail (EWR), which aims to reconnect Oxford and Cambridge via Milton Keynes. The project has been championed as a vital step toward enhancing regional connectivity, boosting economic productivity, and encouraging a modal shift from cars to rail. Given the rail sector’s crucial role in reducing transport emissions, EWR has the potential to support the UK’s net-zero ambitions while addressing capacity constraints on existing routes.

However, the project has also faced criticism over its potential environmental impact, particularly concerning biodiversity and local ecosystems. Critics have raised concerns about habitat loss, disruption to wildlife corridors, and a lack of robust environmental safeguards in planning. What’s more, Reeves has not committed to full electrification of the line, meaning diesel trains will likely run on the route. In response to such concerns, Reeves has insisted that she wants to “focus on getting things built, and stop worrying about the bats and the newts”.
This stance—prioritising construction over ecological considerations—has sparked fears that necessary environmental protections may be bypassed in the rush to deliver large-scale infrastructure.
Streamlining Planning: A Double-Edged Sword for Rail
Reeves’ priorities include more efficient planning procedures, as delays caused by environmental reviews and regulatory hurdles are currently barriers to growth. This approach could help accelerate vital rail infrastructure projects like EWR, ensuring they are delivered on time and within budget. However, industry experts warn that framing environmental considerations as obstacles rather than integral components of infrastructure planning could backfire.
For example, Rachel Solomon-Williams, Executive Director at the Aldersgate Group, noted that pitting nature and net-zero objectives against each other is counterproductive and contradictory.
Rachel Solomon-Williams, Executive Director at the Aldersgate Group said:The government understands that planning needs to be improved, but coming after the bats and the newts is truly counterproductive. I think there's a bit of a concern that if that's the approach we're taking to the natural environment, then maybe the consensus around net zero is a bit more fragile than they’re saying.
This contradiction is arguably augmented through mixed messages in Reeves’ broader policy approach. Indeed, Areeba Hamid, Executive Director at Greenpeace UK argued that Reeves has spread unclear signals throughout her career. For example, despite promising to be “the first green Chancellor,” her first budget as Chancellor included policies such as a 50% increase in bus fares, which received criticism from green organisations.
Now, for rail projects like East West Rail to be truly sustainable, the government must strike a balance between economic development and ecological preservation. While investment in rail infrastructure is essential for reducing carbon emissions and supporting regional growth, dismissing environmental concerns as bureaucratic hurdles risks alienating stakeholders and undermining public trust.
Acknowledging Reeves’ difficult position, Sam Alvis, Associate Director at IPPR, noted that infrastructure projects require significant financial backing, and with the UK’s fiscal constraints, attracting private sector investment is critical. By cutting red tape, Reeves aims to create a more attractive investment environment. However, as emphasised by the panellists, businesses also require clear, consistent strategies rather than fragmented and reactive policymaking. Many companies have already incorporated nature-positive commitments into their operations, and government policies should reinforce rather than undermine these efforts.
As a result, the panellists expressed concern that Reeves is framing ecological protection in opposition to economic expansion. Rather than viewing conservation efforts as barriers, the government must improve the integration of biodiversity considerations into infrastructure planning.
For East West Rail, this could mean incorporating enhanced environmental mitigation measures, prioritising sustainable construction practices, and ensuring transparent stakeholder engagement. If executed correctly, EWR could serve as a model for green growth—demonstrating that rail expansion and biodiversity preservation can go hand in hand.
Ultimately, if the UK is to meet both its economic and environmental targets, Reeves’ policies must move beyond growth-versus-green rhetoric. Infrastructure projects like East West Rail should not become symbols of ecological disregard but rather exemplars of how sustainable development can be achieved in practice.