Nature is the bedrock of our entire way of life.
We are deeply connected to nature through the beauty of our ever-changing seasons and our treasured wildlife, from puffins to hedgehogs. Healthy ecosystems make our food systems and water supplies more reliable. They remove carbon from the atmosphere, cool our towns and cities, and improve public health. They help create thriving, healthier communities.
As we work to build the homes and infrastructure our communities need, there have been questions about whether the Planning and Infrastructure Bill might come at the expense of nature.
Many people care deeply about protecting our countryside, wildlife, and green spaces - and so does the Government.
In this post, we’ll share with you more about the Bill and the Government’s vision for a planning system that delivers for both nature and people.
Introducing the Planning & Infrastructure Bill
The current system of Environmental assessments and case-by-case negotiations often slow down housing and infrastructure delivery, and the condition of our environment and important habitats has continued to decline despite these protections. This is a lose-lose situation for our economy, communities and nature.
Currently, there is often little or no strategic coordination of the conservation measures deployed to address development impacts on protected habitats and species.
To grow the economy and recover nature we need new tools and a new approach, which is where the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill comes in.
The Bill has been designed to speed up house building without compromising nature.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill does not remove environmental protections
Some have expressed concerns the Bill could "erase" environmental protections or give developers free rein to damage habitats and wildlife.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill does not remove environmental protections but provides an alternative route to discharging existing obligations. But, crucially, this will only be possible where an Environmental Delivery Plan is in place which sets out how conservation measures will deliver better environmental outcomes for the environmental feature being addressed.
To ensure the delivery of these measures, the Bill requires developers to make appropriate contributions in respect of the environmental impact of the development. Natural England – England’s nature conservation body – will then use this funding to secure meaningful and lasting improvements to nature. This alternative approach will only be used when it can deliver better outcomes funded through levy payments.
Supporting a more strategic approach to nature recovery
A key feature of the Bill, designed to support both nature and the economy, is the new Nature Restoration Fund.
By capturing developer contributions through Environmental Delivery Plans Natural England will make better use of the millions of pounds that are spent each year on bespoke mitigation and compensation schemes, by using this money to fund strategic interventions that provide greater benefit for nature.
But we recognise that it is important that the new approach is supported with appropriate safeguards to ensure we secure the environmental outcomes we need. That is why Environmental Delivery Plans can only be put in place where the Secretary of State is satisfied the delivery of conservation measures is likely to outweigh the negative effects of development.
This test should not be seen in isolation from the rest of the Bill as Natural England will be tasked with setting out conservation measures that will both address the environmental impact of development and contribute to an overall improvement, and set out why they, the statutory nature conservation body in England, consider those measures appropriate.
By establishing this new approach, we're moving away from the current piecemeal approach offsetting harm and toward strategic, larger-scale environmental improvements for protected sites and species.
The Nature Restoration Fund will:
- allow builders to meet their environmental obligations related to protected sites and species more efficiently
- pool contributions to fund larger, more impactful environmental interventions
- remove time-intensive and costly processes
- enable building to proceed while securing wider environmental improvements
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill’s Environmental Delivery Plans will help with this new strategic approach.
In taking a strategic approach, it is important that Natural England are empowered to achieve the best possible environmental outcomes. This may mean taking a different approach to the design and sequencing of conservation measures than would have been adopted under the existing system. The government is, of course, focused on restoring nature in local communities, ensuring people benefit from accessing green space on their doorsteps.
Natural England will be able to create Environmental Delivery Plans either on its own initiative or at the request of the Secretary of State. Environmental Delivery Plans will allow Natural England to take a more strategic approach to conservation. Rather than focusing on individual projects in isolation, they can take a broader perspective that will help deliver better outcomes for nature while reducing planning delays.
This new approach means more for nature, not less. At the same time, developers will benefit from a streamlined process and simpler user experience with costly and time intensive processes removed.
The Government is committed to getting this right for nature and people
We're committed to delivering positive environmental outcomes alongside the housing and infrastructure our communities urgently need. But we are clear that Environmental Delivery Plans will only be brought forward where they will deliver better environmental outcomes for the environmental issues being addressed.
To make sure we get this right, we're actively engaging with nature conservation organisations, developers, local authorities, and communities and the Office of Environmental Protection (OEP). The OEP have recently provided their advice, which we are considering while noting their support for the intention behind the Bill.
By moving from piecemeal interventions to a more strategic approach for protected sites and species, we believe we can deliver more for nature, not less - creating a planning system that works better for communities and the environment we all cherish.
For more information, please read the Planning & Infrastructure Bill guidance and our Development and Nature Recovery Working Paper.
6 comments
Comment by Every Ecologist posted on
Not going to meet our net zero targets with all this gaslighting
Comment by Peter Drake posted on
Agreed. This article makes a simple question sound more complex than it actually is. We should identify those agencies responsible for the degradation of our environment and attack them with everything that we have. Peter DRAKE classroom science teacher Queen Elizabeth high school (QHS), Northumberland, UK (Great Britain).
Comment by Rachel Thompson MBE posted on
Noting that DEFRA has been far sighted in concluding what principles matter: CLIMATE, NATURE, PEOPLE, PLACE,
If government positively considered these 4 principles to all policies and processes including planning that would be a welcome start.
Applying DEFRA’s 4 principles to development and planning immediately points to the a) provision of eco services through environment net gain (ENG) on and off site, not just biodiversity (BNG) and
b) blending exchequer finance from multiple departments (environment (agri schemes / FiPL), health (improving lives / health), culture/media/ sport (heritage / sport funding) and transport (active travel funding - should be active AND recreational travel) with planning gain (S106 and CIL) and other local / regional / national investment funds to deliver green infrastructure routes needed by people / nature from developments into the wider local landscape.
During Environmental Land Management Tests 159 and 159A (2020 – 2024) The Trails Trust researched the willingness of land managers and investors to create / invest in a strategic connected accessible and safe multi user green infrastructure network that works for people and nature (very willing and excited about the strategic plan - particularly developers who thought how they could link developments into the network). The tests also researched how barriers to incentivisation, access and funding could be overcome. Many barriers are erected by government and strategic planning can happen anywhere in any landscape. In Mendip we are delivering the strategic network developed in the test, mostly through FiPL and Access for all funds. However if these funds were blended with other GOV funds and private investment 'that would be a very powerful tool' (Somerset Community Foundation) benefiting people, nature and climate in our place (Mendip Hills National Landscape).
Comment by Richard Watson posted on
I agree with the government's approach. We must have the housing and infrastructure we need, and at the same time we must restore nature at scale. Both these needs are urgent and there will inevitably be compromises. But I've decided to trust this new government's approach. I believe they genuinely care about both the housing crisis and the nature crisis and want to find a resolution that works for both.
Comment by Steve Whitbread posted on
Please could you explain why the Department is perpetuating myths and half-truths, and over-selling the suggested benefits of the approaches set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill?
The Government's own, belatedly published impact analysis clearly indicates that existing protection measures rarely get in the way of development.
Whilst it might not be the intention of the Bill to circumvent such protections it is most certainly written in a way that would allow this. It is not intentions but the letter of the law and actions or inactions which actually count. To date the Government's actions have been to strike down every amendment that has been suggested to mitigate the potentially disastrous effects.
It is not only the OEP which has raised concerns about regression in relation to existing protections and obligations but learned council, eminent ecologists and environmentalists and a sufficient number of representatives of the ecological profession, conservation bodies and and environmental NGOs (plus George Monbiot) that is they were laid end to end they would reach to the moon and back.
Moreover, the degree to which any likely level of charge on developers would actually fund adequate positive measures is highly dubious and the proposals put nascent biodiversity markets at risk and create uncertainty all round, with a particular development proposal potentially being caught by several EDPs and needing to address existing requirements not covered by these were they ever actually to be produced.
Whilst the Bill includes a number of positive measurements, Part 3 is a shoddy, poorly researched and almost entirely unsupportable piece of legislation. Whilst it could happily work for environmental issues such as Nutrient Neutrality it is entirely unsuited to much of what the Government is proposing it should cover.
Successive governments have failed to address nature conservation and climate adaptation issues. The measures introduced by recent legislation - notably LNRSs or those such as the SuDS requirements that have yet to be brought into force, together with what should result from the Land Use Framework Consultation, proposed Local Environmental Improvement Plans, and a well constructed ELMs programme (assuming wise use of new technology and a well-supported Environmental Information Infrastructure - lack of which will continue to undermine efforts and waste resources) could make the difference and put an end to the too little, far too late approach pursue in the UK since the 1980's.
Whatever their utility in paving, even good intentions are not what is urgently needed. England and the UK require a strategic Plan for Nature , that draws on the above and works from the very local to national level, that will support sustainable development, strengthen our natural capital, provide additional housing in appropriate locations and help meet our 30x30 obligations.
Simply saying we need a new and strategic approach because what is in place isn't working isn't actually the same as providing such an approach or giving any sector confidence that it is viable.
Attempting to push on as the Government is, entirely in the face of evidence and objections, not only brings the party of Government and individual ministers into disrepute but the whole country.
Given all that is at stake, it would irresponsible and reckless to proceed on the current course, and I am sure that many others would say the same and more eloquently (+George Monbiot).
Comment by Danica Priest posted on
You are making it so funding for nature protection is reliant on destroying Nature. Do you not see how that doesn’t work? This is not the win/win for nature that you think it is. The current system is not good enough but you are making it much much worse! Listen to the ecologists who are telling you how catastrophic this will be for nature. They know more than you. If you don’t drop this you will regret it. Your own reports show there is zero evidence that nature protections block development so stop using protected species as a scapegoat. You will never build 1.5 million homes by removing species surveys.