This is a horrible idea, for…

This is a horrible idea, for a number of reasons:
1. You are being far too trusting of the sense and goodwill of developers. They are in the business of building and exploiting land for their own gain, and are historically unlikely to consider the environment that has been actively in place since the dawn of time.
2. Government has no business advising scientists about species at risk, nor what species should be protected. Scientists advise the government; if the government chooses to ignore scientific advice and evidence, they should have the guts to say that's what they're doing. Don't try to frame it as "advising the scientists".
3. Your definition of "habitat" is far too narrow. The den of an animal is a specific place, but a wide area around it is necessary for the raising of young, larger in some species than in others. This would require a definition of "habitat" that varies by species, which becomes a far more potentially-messy definition than the one this seeks to replace.
4. Just because you want to commit to building more homes does not mean you need to put species at risk to do it: but that is the end effect of this change. When it comes to environmental protection and endangered species, slow is good, and we should err on the side of caution.
I absolutely DO NOT SUPPORT this change.