Published: 21st March 2025

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill was published on 11 March, and here we provide an update on ARC’s views. 

The Bill seeks to make the most significant changes to wildlife law in a generation, on the basis that our legislation creates regulatory barriers to economic growth. In particular, the Bill seeks to establish a parallel track of regulation via which developers will be able to discharge their environmental responsibilities via a “pay and go” approach. This involves paying a levy into the newly established Nature Restoration Fund. Natural England would create an Environmental Delivery Plan that contains conservation measures to offset the harm caused by development and to contribute to nature recovery. Natural England, or those commissioned by it, would deliver this plan and monitor its effectiveness. The usual regulatory permissions, including species licences, would be deemed as granted in areas subject to an Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP). These EDPs would not apply everywhere, however, and some “environmental features” – including species – could be excluded, such that the existing regulatory mechanisms would continue to apply under some circumstances in areas subject to an EDP.

It appears that this bill has not followed due process and there are concerns over its governance. This legislation has been rushed through the initial stages, has ignored consultation and has removed key principles from our current national environmental legislation.

Despite what the government and governing bodies may be saying, key stakeholders, such as conservation NGOs and species experts are actively against this bill as it currently stands.

ARC, and other NGOs, would be happy to work constructively with the government to advise and consult in order address the points raised in this statement. We will continue to raise our concerns and suggest amendments as this bill passes through parliament.

We think the Bill should be scrutinised closely by MPs as it passes through Parliament, and we also invite the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) to advise Government. The OEP’s role includes giving advice on any changes to environmental law proposed by government, and this Bill deserves that treatment. In particular, we suggest it would be helpful for the OEP to assess how well the Bill and associated proposals would satisfy the duty relating to Environmental Principles, set out in the Environment Act 2021.

Alongside the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Government has signalled that it will be reducing the level of regulation for environmental matters, and continues to claim, at the highest levels, that it sees wildlife as a blocker on development (for example, see the Prime Minister’s speech delivered on 13 March 2025).

 

ARC’s views are as follows:

1. ARC is not opposed to change and indeed will actively support new ideas that benefit wildlife conservation. The new Bill, however, threatens to undermine nature conservation, through weakening legislation and mandating the use of untested mechanisms, introducing considerable uncertainty and potentially even creating systems that end up more complex and expensive than current approaches if they were to be implemented. 

 

2. We disagree with a key assumption behind the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the move toward de-regulation, in that we do not believe that protected wildlife is a major hindrance to development. Given our focus, we especially object to the characterisation of great crested newts as a problem, and again request that Government abandons this unreasonable rhetoric. We believe that Government’s framing of “nature vs growth” is incorrect and unhelpful. We point for example toward the highly respected Government review undertaken by Lord Dasgupta, which concluded that nature is a valuable asset, as well as having intrinsic importance. Over the last two decades Governments have often claimed that regulation is hindrance to development and economic growth, and yet detailed reviews have failed to back up that claim.

 

3. Our view is that nature and economic growth can – and indeed should – be viewed as working together. That is not to say that all development should be allowed, but rather that a carefully designed system should be able to consider the needs of people and wildlife, reconciling conflicts where they arise. The current systems of land use planning and species licensing should be in a position to do this, if well-structured and resourced. Unfortunately, however they have been under-funded and poorly supported. We think that the delays in securing development, to the extent they occur, are largely due to factors other than environmental protection. These include issues with land use planning and the market for land purchase.

 

4. We are extremely disappointed that the Bill does not appear to have addressed in any meaningful way the representations from ARC and others in the nature conservation sector in response to earlier briefings. This does not bode well for generating the trust and co-operation likely to be required for the Bill to succeed. We are also alarmed that the Bill has been drafted in such haste that, as well as apparently ignoring the concerns of well-intentioned stakeholders, it has even triggered a “Statement of Lateness” by the Regulatory Policy Committee. This independent body helps departments ensure that the evidence and analysis in them is sufficiently robust.

 

5. The measures set out in the Bill are, in our view, a significant retrograde step for nature conservation. We do not agree with the Secretary of State’s assessment that the Bill “will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law” and would be interested to see the analysis to support that statement. In our view the Bill will incontrovertibly reduce environmental protection in practice.

 

6. In our view, there are issues with compliance with the integration, polluter pays and precautionary principles. We think there is also a case that the Bill risks a breach of the Bern Convention, which requires the UK to protect a range of species – including several reptiles and amphibians. It is difficult to see how this Bill could work effectively for conserving species - it is highly unlikely that there would be a sufficient understanding of the impacts of development on the majority species groups or there to be sufficient confidence that proposed mitigation measures will work. The mechanism proposed even appears likely to undermine the ability for established approaches to great crested newt conservation, where the District Level Licensing is being heralded as a model to follow.

 

7. Space precludes an examination of the mechanics set out in the Bill here. In sum, we believe that the design of the NRF and EDP, and how they interact with nature conservation, create unnecessary risks. There appears to be no need for any sound impact assessment, and the mitigation hierarchy looks to be subverted. There would likely be a long time-gap between the impacts of a development and the measures to offset harm. We think the proposals appear to bypass the role of Local Planning Authorities. Our reading of the Bill is that the mechanics will take years to be completed, at considerable cost. Any benefits to developers and regulators are, we believe likely to be marginal and distant. If the Environmental Delivery Plans are properly costed, we think developers might baulk at the outlay, though we note with some consternation that there is a financial viability test – indicating that Natural England will likely be under pressure to keep costs – and hence standards – low.

 

8. We are concerned at the suggested governance and its consequences. Natural England would be responsible for writing, delivering, evaluating and regulating Environmental Delivery Plans. This creates a clear conflict of interest and will result in unfortunate dynamics in regulation. We can envisage a situation in which Natural England would, for example, set lower standards in order to allow its own activities to be permitted. We are further concerned that the predicted substantial income to Natural England – separate from its Grant In Aid – will create a temptation for Government to reduce its funding for Natural England. The Bill might also create a perverse incentive for more development. We do not think that the Bill as drafted sits well with Government’s nature conservation commitments, in particular the Environmental Improvement Plan.

 

9. We find it puzzling that the Bill seeks to impose at least some the costs of general nature recovery on developers, rather than restricting costs to the impacts of the development so permitted. This appears to go against the “polluter pays” principle and may considerably complicate the production of EDPs.

 

10. If the aim of the Bill is to reduce delays in planning due to environmental matters, we believe that there are viable alternatives that are much more likely to generate results quickly, based on sound evidence, and without incurring the substantial costs and uncertainties for developers and regulators that will inevitably result from this Bill. In summary, we believe that Government should (a) rectify the existing fragilities in the planning infrastructure, notably regulator resources and skills, policy and guidance; (b) introduce some amendments to make certain regulatory processes more efficient; (c) engage further with the construction industry to make it routine practice for early engagement on environmental impacts, and to address systemic issues in land purchase and construction; (d) undertake greater investment in monitoring the status of reptiles and amphibians, and in setting goals for nature recovery more widely. Any changes must be made with a clear-eyed view toward improving outcomes for the environment.

 

If you wish to influence the Bill’s passage through Parliament, the best route is to engage with your MP. If writing to your MP, we suggest you stress that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill represents a serious threat to nature conservation and should be substantially revised. You can find out more about writing to your MP here: https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-an-mp-or-lord/contact-your-mp/.