Here at the Wildlife Trust we have always felt that economic interests often carry too much weight when it comes to planning decisions.

Now we fear that the credit crunch and resulting economic downturn may be used as a convenient "excuse" to give the green light to all manner of major developments.

Whilst the Government must seek to limit the impact of any recession, the perceived need for economic investment mustn't be allowed to weaken the effectiveness of planning guidance designed to protect our shared environment.

When it comes to emotive arguments between new development and loss of green space or wildlife habitat, all too often economic arguments win out. Especially when jobs are at stake.

Time and time again, the need for new houses, transport links and industrial development is given precedence, resulting our landscape being blighted and our natural heritage eroded.

With the natural environment already under tremendous pressure and, with the impacts of climate change only just becoming apparent, now really isn't the time to relax planning rules in the rush to boost the economy.

I'm not arguing that the Government shouldn't invest more in infrastructure in these difficult times – just that the rules in place to help limit the environmental impact of development are fully considered and adhered to.

With a new Planning Bill on the horizon, the Government has already set a major overhaul of the planning system in motion.

This looks set to make it even easier for major projects such as motorway-widening schemes and airport expansion to get the go ahead.

The aim is to "streamline" the planning process and speed up decisions.

But we mustn't forget why the planning system was established – it exists to protect the environment we all depend upon for clean air, plentiful water, and carbon storage.

We fear that the new system will give less regard to local impact and limit opportunities for local people to voice their concerns.

Ahead of this worrying shake up, the last thing we need is a more relaxed attitude towards environmental protection as a result of a determination to boost investment.

Boosting the economy and protecting the natural environment are by no means mutually exclusive. For example, by investing in public transport or providing employment and training in the environmental sector, the Government could boost the economy while safeguarding and enhancing the environment.

Decisions relating to major infrastructure projects must continue to be subjected to all the usual safeguards with full consideration given to possible negative impacts as well as the potential benefits.

This is vital because once these decisions have been made they can't be reversed.

Quality of life isn't measured in purely financial terms.

While people have real worries about the possibility of a long and damaging recession they also care about the environment and the legacy we are creating for future generations.

Vocal protests linked to developments such as the third runway at Heathrow, the Severn Barrage and, more locally, against plans to build houses on farmland next to Sharphill Wood, near West Bridgford, are testimony to these concerns.

In these testing times, those charged with making key planning decisions must stand up and be counted.

They must seek to balance perceived short term economic gains against long term environmental impact because, if they get it wrong, we will all pay the price for decades to come.