Mandatory swift boxes under consideration?
Even if they were, providing nesting sites would be just part of reversing huge declines
An article in The Daily Telegraph yesterday titled “Houses could require special bricks for endangered species despite Chancellor’s fight against ‘green tape’ led with “Every new home in England will be fitted with swift boxes for nesting under government rules to protect the endangered birds.” According to the paper, “the swift bricks will be treated as a requirement for new homes and developers will be compelled to include them unless there are mitigating circumstances preventing their use.”
A version of the same story was also carried in The Times. So, good news for Swifts on the face of it, especially given that it was just eight weeks ago that The Guardian was reporting that Steve Reed, the Labour Housing Minister, had u-turned “on support for bird-friendly swift bricks in new homes” and was refusing to back mandating fitting them to new builds, despite giving support while he was Environment minister.
However, long-term Swift campaigner Hannah Bourne-Taylor was less than impressed. She posted a scathing rebuttal on Instagram that described the new policy as ‘meaningless’ and laid into the mainstream media, describing political correspondents as ‘ignorant’. She tagged a second post with “#Greenwashing #Bullshit”.
So what is the truth?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, we agree with Hannah Bourne-Taylor’s take. The Telegraph’s opening paragraph was misleading - not maliciously so but inarguably.
Their article was referring to a 16 December government announcement on a consultation about the snappily named National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which runs until March 2026 and “sets out government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.” Through an accompanying pdf, the consultation seeks views on a revised version of the NPPF. Its scope is essentially opinion-informing, the government suggesting it might be used “to revise national planning policy to support our wider objectives”.
Swifts are mentioned just twice in the 123-page consultation, and then simply as part of a proposed package of changes to support ‘nature recovery’: once on page 16 (“We want to make a number of changes, including to reflect Local Nature Recovery Strategies, to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features, to incorporate swift bricks and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature”) and again on page 100 (“Policy N2: New development should also include improvements for nature, through the application of biodiversity net gain where relevant, using actions from Local Nature Recovery Strategies, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions, and adding features for wildlife – with a new requirement for swift bricks in developments”). The latter is presented as a question with multiple-choice answers asking if respondents “Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree” with the proposal as a whole - not about swift bricks specifically.
So what is going on?
How did journos from the Times and The Telegraph turn a press-release about a planning consultation into a policy announcement about Swifts? It’s not immediately obvious. In fairness to The Telegraph they have written about Swifts a number of times, but that doesn’t of course translate into actually knowing anything about these amazing birds beyond the headline statistic that severe declines in the breeding populations of Swifts in the UK led to the species being added to the Red List of UK Birds of Conservation Concern in 2021.
Perhaps more likely, though this is speculation on our part, is that The Telegraph is generally in favour of relaxing rules on housing development. Its editorial stance and commentary frequently highlight what it labels Britain’s “mad planning system” and advocates for deregulation to tackle the housing crisis and boost housebuilding rates. While the article doesn’t lean into swift bricks ‘holding up development’ in a heavy-handed way, it’s not impossible to read it that way…
Swift bricks - an easy win for government
Swifts, once very familiar in urban settings, screaming in loose flocks over rooftops before hurtling into tiny gaps under roof tiles, eaves, or soffits, have disappeared from towns and cities across the UK. Breeding numbers fell by 62% between 1995 and 2021, and that followed losses in earlier decades (it’s not just Swifts we’re losing of course: the UK has lost around 600 million breeding birds since 1980).
Why the population has plummeted like this has often been attributed to the ‘tidying up’ of old buildings. Fixing holes, removing the spaces in roofs that Swifts used to nest, even actively blocking remaining entrances because some residents don’t like ‘the mess’ that the birds make, has undoubtedly contributed to the decline. An easy (and inexpensive) solution would be to put those ‘holes’ back - which is where the Swift bricks come in.
Designed to replace just one standard house brick, they are hollow ‘nest boxes’ which can be built directly into building walls to provide safe, permanent nesting sites for swifts and other cavity-nesting birds. Current costs (which would surely come down if the bricks were mandated and mass-produced) is just £35 each.
It’s hard to argue that mandating developers to incorporate one Swift brick into the 5,000 to 7,000 bricks that are used in the average house build would restrict the government’s loosening of planning regulations in any way at all. It is such a ridiculously easy win, it makes no sense whatsoever to deny themselves it.
Yet, as Hanah Bourne-Taylor and the RSPB have pointed out, there is still no policy which legislates for Swift bricks, and as we are pointing out right now yesterday’s announcement was part of a consultation and ‘guidance’ not a change in the law
Declines are not down to just one thing though
We’re all in favour of mandating Swift bricks. But we’re also not naive enough to think they are the sole answer to turning around the fortunes of Swifts. There are typically multiple reasons why a species is declining, and the fact is that unless other equally important problems are addressed they will make little difference. Call us cynical, but not wanting to do very much about these other issues may well be why governments have been reluctant to support such an obvious ‘solution’ as Swift bricks. Claiming to solve ‘one’ problem might just draw attention to the lack of action on others.
Firstly, Swifts are exclusively insectivorous. They catch insects in the air. Older descriptions describe Swifts as flying through an ‘aerial soup’ of insects. They don’t so much as hunt down individual prey items as swoop through swarms of them open-mouthed. Only those ‘clouds’ are no longer there. Invertebrates like flies, midges, moths etc are disappearing even faster than birds like Swifts. These are groups that have traditionally been less well-studied than birds, but it’s clear that massive habitat change, the profligate use of pesticides (which despite the labels hit all insects indiscriminately), and climate change are having enormous and catastrophic impacts on insects. For a government wedded to loosening regulations to allow more development, which appears to be in the pocket of pro-pesticide lobby groups like the NFU, and which has done next to nothing about climate change (and even has pushed through policy adjustments on and delays to specific net zero initiatives), reversing insect decline appears to not only be difficult but off the table completely. And - critics will say - why bother giving Swifts somewhere to nest if they have nothing to eat…
Secondly, Swift boxes are not a simple ‘Field of Dreams’ (build it and they will come’) answer to the Swift housing crisis. Like many birds, Swifts don’t just roam around the place hoping to find somewhere suitable. They are only in the UK for a few weeks of the year (‘our ‘Swifts’ are actually African, visiting us for very short breeding seasons) and mature birds in particular are site-loyal. If they have no ‘history’ of nesting in your high street, no longer pass your way on migration, and aren’t imprinted on your region, why would they come rocketing back there now? And if they can’t reproduce now, there will be no birds coming back anyway. This is the dilemma that explains why suitable habitat in the west country is no longer occupied by Turtle Doves and why so much effort has to go into translocating Ospreys to Poole Harbour. It is far easier to lose a breeding population of a species than it is to bring it back.
It is (theoretically) possible to attract Swifts to new areas by playing recordings of them. Very loudly. And that’s the third issue. The general public have spent decades knocking down nests, blocking up holes, and complaining about birds waking them up in the morning. We may say we’re a nation of animal lovers, but the truth is that typically means as long as animals (including birds) stay ‘over there’ and ‘don’t bother us’. Those bricks will remain empty (or will alternatively be occupied by sparrows) unless the government makes an enormous effort to educate us all why Swifts matter and why they need our support. That will be far more expensive than manufacturing bricks, and will no doubt be left up to charities and organisations which are already struggling to sound the numerous alerts wildlife face. When it comes to the environment we see nothing but mixed messaging coming from the government and see little to suggest that will change anytime soon.
On top of all of that, the long migration journey the birds undertake every year, involves crossing continents and navigating potential dangers like extreme weather events: research indicates that climate events like the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle and associated precipitation anomalies (e.g., severe droughts or heavy rain in Eastern Africa) can significantly reduce swift survival probabilities. The availability of airborne insects, their sole food source, is directly linked to these weather patterns, and the general global decline in insect populations due to pollution, pesticides, and habitat changes poses a major threat to swifts both in their breeding grounds and wintering areas.
‘Greenwashing’
So would mandating Swift bricks be ‘greenwashing’ (a deceptive marketing practice where companies falsely portray their products, services, or operations as more environmentally friendly or sustainable than they actually are)?
It is critical that birds (all animals) have somewhere to breed. Providing nest sites is always going to be ‘a good thing’ and Protect the Wild unequivocally backs any measure that would help Swifts. But on its own, providing swift boxes is only a fraction of what is required. Unless we do something about the crash in insect numbers too, provide habitat for insects to thrive in as well, it almost won’t matter whether there are holes in walls for Swifts. And unless people are aware of what has been lost and want to turn that loss around - right along the vast migration routes these incredible birds follow - again, it won’t matter either.
We are in the midst of biodiversity and climate crises, and they are NOT being addressed. If the government turns around and claims it is doing great things for nature without tackling all of the problems that wildlife faces - everything from habitat loss and pesticide overuse to scapegoating badgers and allowing rampant abuses by the shooting industry - then, yes, it could be accused of ‘greenwashing’.
Will it make announcements that demonstrate a proper awareness of how serious these problems are? Will it turn ‘guidance’ into legal obligations?
To be fair to the government, it did publish an “Environmental Improvement Plan 2025” this month. Within its 124 pages it does include a recognition of the value of nature (“We all need nature. It provides the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat”), but does labour rather hard on the financial importance of what they insist on labelling “nature services” and how “Nature is one of our greatest sources of national wealth”.
It is also full of paragraphs like these two we found under ‘Planning and Planning Reform’ that read well, but either seem to mean very little or that we find difficult to accept:
“Our vision is for a planning system that delivers win-wins for nature and communities. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which is underpinned by nature”
“The Planning and Infrastructure Bill provides for the creation of a Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) that will ensure developments support recovery of protected sites and species. By unlocking the positive impact development can have on improving our environment, the NRF will help deliver our climate and nature commitments, while ensuring the planning system is clear, fast and cost effective for developers”.
Either might have triggered The Telegraph and The Times into launching their alert about Swifts and swift bricks, but how often are Swifts and swift bricks specifically mentioned in this lengthy document? They’re not. Not even once.
We seem a long way still from the government delivering a ‘win-win’ for Swifts, but we will keep pushing…
I’m so pleased to say our 2026 British Wildlife Calendars are almost sold out! Featuring some beautiful photographs taken by our very own supporters, they’re proving vital in funding our vital work fighting for British wildlife.
A huge thanks to every single one of you that has already picked up a copy! You’ve certainly been keeping us busy sending them out :)
As an organisation that relies entirely on the generosity of our supporters, we’re genuinely grateful for every single calendar purchased. Each one makes a real difference.
Produced by the brilliant team at Anglia Print using vegan inks and some of the most environmentally friendly printing methods available, we couldn’t be prouder of how they’ve turned out.
👉 Calendars are selling fast, grab yours today for just £7.95!
Thanks for the thorough analysis - Tory papers skewing the case as ever. But as well as objecting to that, shouldn't wildlife groups be publicising this consultation so that all wildlife supporters dismayed by the P&I Bill can flood the government with comments urging them to actually adopt the (good) proposal on swift bricks that has commendably been included in the document?
HAVE SENT ARTICLE TO MY MP AND ASKED HER WILL SHE SPEAK IN PARLIAMENT ABOUT PROTECTING WILDLIFE AND THEIR HABITATS, I AM STILL AWAITING FOR REPLIES TO OTHER ARTICLES THAT I HAVE SENT. SHE IS A LABOUR MP AND SO CALLED ANIMAL LOVER. ALSO SENT ARTICLE TO ANIMAL AID AND WILDLIFE TRUSTS, IN THE HOPE OF GETTING OTHER GROUPS TO SPEAK UP ABOUT THE DIRE SITUATION OF ALL WILDLIFE AND THEIR HABITATS.