At the end of March the Planning & Infrastructure Bill took it’s next step on its way through Parliament, with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government describing the proposals as a ‘win-win for development and for nature’, which would ‘get Britain building’ and enable action ‘not just to avoid further decline in our natural world, but to bring about improvement’.

We disagree with this position, and we want to share why we are concerned, what we think should happen next and how you can help.

The Bill’s second reading  saw Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green MPs all  welcoming change, however, clearly asking for more detail behind the rhetoric and an explanation of exactly how the proposals would contribute to nature’s protection and recovery.

In our view, the Bill will alter major mechanisms of the planning system, which currently operate, albeit imperfectly, to give some protection for nature when new development is proposed. The proposals will change the process for delivering, energy and transportation infrastructure, housing and commercial development, it will change the way compulsory purchases are made and the fees charged for submitting planning applications. What is most concerning for us is the content in ‘Part III’. This is the section which effectively tears up the last lines of defence for our common and rare wildlife. 

What is Part III about?

The positive intent of the Bill to accelerate and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure projects, supporting economic growth and improving living standards.

In part III the focus is on how to change the approach to nature’s recovery. Again, the positive intent is to bring a strategic perspective to nature’s recovery, rather than the piecemeal approach which currently exists. In theory, we agree there is potential to improve things, however, we are very concerned that the complexity of getting the new approach to produce Environmental Delivery Plans right needs more thought.

What is an Environmental Delivery Plan?

These Plans are intended to design nature’s recovery at a strategic scale, for example nutrient pollution across a river catchment. nothing wrong with this idea, however, they will remove the requirement for site level surveys to be undertaken by developers, meaning detailed assessments of the wildlife currently living on a site are not likely to be made. Instead developers would then be able to pay a Levy into the Nature Restoration Fund, which would fund pollution reducing projects, to meet legal environmental requirements. 

Why are we concerned about it?

By doing this, the proposals remove three strategic principles that have long done their part to protect nature from unchecked development. The ‘precautionary principle’, which means don’t destroy something until you know what’s there.  The ‘mitigation hierarchy’, which means avoid having an impact if you can, rather than just paying to compensate for it, and the ‘polluter pays’ principle will also be undermined, because all developers will pay into the fund for every development.

We are also concerned that Natural England who will lead on the production of the EDP’s will not be sufficiently resourced to undertake this role, indeed a mere £14m has been allocated for the first year for the whole of England. It is also the case that delivering nature’s recovery at a strategic scale is different to the work they currently undertake and some development and upskilling is likely to be needed, which will inevitably take time.

This is a seismic shift in the way the natural environment is seen by the planning system with no proper consultation, impact assessment, or pilot.

In conclusion

Sadly, this proposal is far from the win-win it claims to be. By removing the need to complete proper site-by-site assessments, the Government will do more harm than good — undermining years of conservation progress and offering a weak and limited alternative to solutions that already exist. This new system will mean we could risk losing species that our State of Yorkshire’s Nature Report shows are already in trouble, without even knowing what we’ve lost.

What should happen instead?

By attempting to slash the “red tape” of proper environmental protections, as the government has also tried to do with the Corry Review, the sixth review into environmental regulations since 2010, we are moving away from sustainable economic growth. We don’t need more quick-win economics - we need housebuilding which supports healthy communities, and which is built on a foundation of nature’s recovery. 

Fundamentally, this change of approach isn’t needed as development can be delivered under existing protections, when developers, ecologists and planners work closely together. 

How you can help

We will work with other Wildlife Trusts and conservation organisations to call for a ‘Pause Part III’, until we can be assured that this approach will maintain the protections our wildlife so desperately needs. You can join us in giving nature a voice in this debate by raising your concerns with your local MP and local Council Leaders as development planning is lead locally by Local Government.