"The long-standing irony is that this Bill creates more problems than it solves"
- Sally Hayns - Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
The Government’s flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill is being sold as a ‘win-win’ for the country: faster development, lower costs for builders, and a promise that nature will not be left behind.
Scratch beneath the surface, however, and you will find legislation that can deliver none of these things. Part 3 not only categorically undermines environmental protections but also burdens developers under fresh layers of complexity and cost.
For one, the supposed ‘win for nature’ has already been discredited – by the government’s own unconvincing and markedly deficient impact assessment, and by the Office for Environmental Protection, which raised reservations even after a raft of amendments aimed at quashing sector criticism. Yet ministers persist – clinging to the false assumption that fewer rules automatically mean faster growth. They do not.
Far from simplifying the system, Part 3 risks creating a cacophony of confusion. At its heart are Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) and a Nature Restoration Fund (NRF). Together, these are intended to allow developers to pay into a central pot rather than directly avoid or mitigate the environmental harm caused by their projects. On paper, it sounds like a neat workaround. In practice, no one can say with certainty how it will work.
EDPs may be drawn at any scale – local authority, catchment, regional, or even national – and it could take several years to produce them. In the meantime, developers could find themselves paying into the NRF in one area while still applying the traditional mitigation hierarchy in another – all while still meeting biodiversity net gain requirements. How exactly does that streamline planning and development?
The costs, too, will be far from insignificant. Contributions to the NRF must cover not only conservation measures but also Natural England’s administrative burden and the expense of remedial action if those measures fail. In some areas, payments will be mandatory – even if on-site avoidance or mitigation would have been cheaper. Worse still, developers could pay the levy only to be told they must still also mitigate on-site.
The challenges don’t end there. Across the UK, private investors – including farmers and landowners – have been developing off-site mitigation schemes to address nutrient neutrality, air quality, and recreational pressures. If an EDP is imposed in their area, those schemes risk collapsing overnight, because developers may be forced to use the government’s fund instead. Unsurprisingly, new projects and investments are already being paused. A Bill intended to unlock growth and investment is, in reality, driving it away.
There is also the reputational risk. Many developers have worked hard to present themselves as nature-positive. Yet those reputations are at risk if stakeholders see an apparent shift toward an approach that effectively allows developers to pay ‘cash to trash’ – with only vague promises of future nature improvements. Communities will not accept that logic. Ultimately, they will trust their own eyes: green spaces lost, species harmed and at risk – and only one clear culprit in sight: developers.
The long-standing irony is that this Bill creates more problems than it solves. The latest swathe of appeasing amendments does little to alter perceptions around Part 3. Weakening safeguards will not tackle the structural issues that are actually delaying development, such as a lack of resources and expertise in public bodies. It will only add new layers of confusion, uncertainty and cost.
There is a better way. Numerous processes and strategic solutions that would allow ecology to be considered much earlier in the planning process, genuinely delivering a “win-win”. Part 3 could then be focused on ecological features where the proposed approach might work – namely, diffuse impacts such as nutrient neutrality, recreational pressures, and air quality.
But frankly, and unfortunately, the Government remains uninterested in solutions that will work. Instead, we are left with a weak Bill – rushed through by an embattled government desperate to salvage its agenda and stalling policy programme. Developers should be under no illusions: this is not the answer to their prayers. It is magical thinking, and it will leave both business and nature worse off.
