The NFB has analysed research that it argues is “disinformation” when framing what really holds up development progress.

Here, the trade body pointed at an often-shared fact about the 17,433 planning appeals last year.

Of these, environmentalists argue just 0.8% and 2.48% of these concerned news and bats, respectively.

However, the NFB has called the use of appeals data as a “flawed justification” and pointed to the impact wildlife regulations play in the due diligence of a site.

This refers to the steps developers and housebuilders are legally required to undertake, with special surveys required to find traces of newts and bats on land slated for development.

These surveys’ timings can clash with the scheduling of Local Planning Authorities, which can often require assessments from the most recent survey season.

•   Guildford's green belt most at risk in England
•   Trade bodies' relief as Climate and Nature Bill fails
•   Local authority trading companies and the challenge of building like it's 1977

If a planning process takes longer than 24 months, then this could render some surveys invalid, therefore requiring more time and expense from developers.

The nesting and breeding schedules of wildlife can also complicate this work.

In a blog setting out this research, NFB head of policy and market insight Rico Wojtulewicz argued that any data suggesting bats or newts do not disrupt development is “misinformation and in some cases disinformation.”

“Planning requires surveys, survey periods are restricted, local planning politics can invalidate expert surveys and new evidence can rightly require further surveying (this is typically the appeal data which gets cited),” wrote Rioc.

“This means a bat or newt might delay a development by two years before a planning application is submitted and, once submitted, the same period again should new evidence be found, or survey requirements made outside a practicable surveyable period.”