Published: 30 January 2025

Government recently set out proposals for reforming the planning regime in England to accelerate development whilst ensuring it contributes to nature recovery (Planning Reform Working Paper: Development and Nature Recovery, MHCLG and Defra, 15 December 2024). Since then both the Prime Minister and Chancellor have emphasised the Government’s mission focused on economic growth and repeatedly referred to environmental regulation, and protected species specifically mentioning great crested newts and bats, as a ‘blocker’ to these ambitions.  Notably the Government narrative is shifting – from initially being overtly positive around enhancing nature, its growth rhetoric initially stated this should be alongside “supporting nature recovery and delivering the Environment Act” to “reducing the environmental requirements placed on developers... so they can focus on getting things built, and stop worrying about bats and newts”.  A combination of deregulation, including changing wildlife conservation legislation and the creation of a ‘Nature Restoration Fund’ are key elements of their proposals.

ARC, alongside many other environmental NGOs, has been considering the proposals closely, offering feedback to Government.  ARC is also preparing a full response to be submitted in due course. This note sets out our initial reactions to the working paper, along with some general comments on the relationship between land use planning and the conservation of reptiles and amphibians.

• Reptiles and amphibians in England have undergone periods of decline, in part due to the impacts of development. While Government and society at large expect more development in the coming years, it is important that the planning system has the right objectives, design and resourcing to properly balance the needs of society and nature. The land use planning regime, and the infrastructure supporting it, does not currently serve nature well. Whilst there have been some improvements, there remain substantial problems with policy, process, resourcing and skills. For example, a recent survey by government found that of all the many topics that Local Authorities deal with, the most acute skills gap was for Ecology and Biodiversity. This calls for leadership from Government, in particular to ensure compliance with commitments and legal responsibilities on nature recovery and for ensuring appropriate skills and resources are available to do the job.
  
  
• At the highest levels, Government has recently promoted an unhelpful narrative that pits societal needs against nature, at times highlighting great crested newts. Whilst this “people vs newts” position attracts media interest, it is both wrong and creates a misleading backdrop to the issues. These negative briefings risk eroding the good will in the ecology sector, that will be crucial to societal support and reaching policy solutions. This unfortunate position also conflicts with positive statements made by government itself, such as the welcome joint statement in July 2024 by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It is also not supported by evidence, such as the Dasgupta Review, which clearly outlined the positive economic case for nature. These sound-bites echo similar comments made by successive Governments over the last 20 years, and yet repeatedly it has been shown that that environmental protection is necessary and does not pose a significant barrier to development. We encourage Government to engage in discussions with the sector, and with society at large, without the divisive rhetoric it has deployed in recent months.
  
  
• The Working Paper sets out, albeit in loose terms, a radical reform of processes for environmental protection in land use planning. Essentially it proposes bypassing conventional protections and site-by-site impact assessments in certain geographic areas. Instead it advocates allowing development to proceed whilst requiring developers to pay into a fund that allows strategic nature improvement work directed by a state authority. The paper lacks the necessary clarity and detail to appreciate exactly what is proposed; this makes it challenging to submit substantive comments. That said, some broad assertions and proposals are clear and worth responding to.
  
  
• We agree that looking to address potential impacts of development in a more strategic manner can be valuable, looking at impacts beyond the level of the individual site, but only in those cases where this is both possible and applicable. We also welcome the commitment stated in the paper towards achieving the outcomes envisaged by the Habitats Directive, and to not reducing the level of environmental protection in law.
  
  
• Many of the other elements of the Working Paper generate significant concerns or questions, and indeed whether these proposals are consistent with adherence with Environmental Principles as required by law. In particular we highlight the following:
  
  
  • There are inherent risks to the mitigation hierarchy (avoid harm, minimise impact, mitigate, compensate) from these proposals. It is unclear how impacts will be identified and assessed and as such how the important mitigation hierarchy will be applied. This must remain a key element in land use planning and any new proposals must not undermine its use in decision making. Furthermore, the proposal for development to be allowed to proceed in advance of the compensating works is highly risky.
    
    
  • The proposal suggests creating a new regime that expects developers to fund nature recovery; this suggests going beyond the impacts of the particular site they have an interest in. Fundamentally, this starts to create a challenging position as it may conflict with the “polluter pays” principle. A range of other sectors are and have been involved in activities with harmful environmental consequences, yet it appears developers alone are expected to foot the bill for nature recovery in the new approach. We can see wider problematic consequences, with a temptation to decrease the role of state finance in nature protection and recovery. We can also see the proposals creating a perverse incentive for more development simply to generate the resources to fund nature recovery, which must be avoided.
    
    
  • How the Nature Restoration Fund works is not well defined in the Working Paper but the few mentions raise concerns over its role, effectiveness and possible consequences. In particular, we think the governance issues are not well covered. It is important that Government or its agencies retain an independent and effective regulatory function, and not – as appears to be proposed – create a conflict of interest in which the state is both regulating and delivering the same function. This risks creating ‘perverse incentives’, favouring harmful (but lucrative) development impacts, encouraging corner-cutting, and complicates the situation for private and NGO investment in delivery. It is essential that nature has a robust regulator, and these proposals could undermine that.
    
    
  • The proposal to amend the Habitats Regulations could result in changes with negative consequences, and may prompt calls to weaken protections more broadly, regardless of government’s initial commitment to any changes being targeted. This legislation is well established and understood, and so changes will introduce uncertainty amongst all sectors. Any such changes may jeopardise our compliance with international agreements and obligations.
    
    
  • There is a risk that the proposals will exacerbate the disconnection between people and nature, by creating large-scale development that is devoid of wildlife, and creating off-site compensation habitat that is less accessible for the people directly affected by development.
    
    
  • We note that the Working Paper does not explore in any meaningful sense the important underlying causes of some current shortcomings with the planning regime, which are evident both from a nature conservation and developer perspective: the chronic under-resourcing in regulators (notably Local Planning Authorities and Natural England), the patchy policy and guidance landscape, and the apparent lack of awareness or reluctance among some developers to engage early with potential environmental impacts. We think the Working Paper is a lost opportunity to remedy these widely acknowledged issues.

Concluding these interim comments, we provide some general observations and suggestions for the next steps in these discussions:

• Government is required by law under the Environment Act 2021 (see sections 17-19) to consider the five environmental principles when designing new policy. These are, in summary: the integration principle, the prevention principle, the rectification at source principle, the polluter pays principle, and the precautionary principle. Further discussions about the Working Paper proposals should critically test them against those principles. The Section 40 biodiversity duty is also relevant here, both in terms of how government addresses any policy and legislative reforms, and the subsequent operation by public bodies. Various other domestic and international commitments on nature, such as the “30by30” pledge, may also be impacted by the proposals.
  
  
• In particular, we suggest that any new proposals must make clear how they will align with the Government’s Environment Improvement Plan. We also invite the Office for Environmental Protection to comment on the contribution that the proposals will make in this regard, given the latter’s assessment that government is “largely off track” with meeting its legal environmental commitments.
  
  
• We think there are alternatives for improving the planning regime to those set out in the Working Paper, which are more evidence-based and likely to be successful, in comparison with the highly uncertain approach proposed. 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) 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.
  
  
• We would like to see Government be more effective in the timely and sound design and operation of new regulatory initiatives on the environment. Examples of initiatives where we feel predictable design or operation problems have impacted on the effectiveness and coherence of nature conservation actions include Biodiversity Net Gain, Local Nature Recovery Strategies and Species Conservation Strategies.
  
  
• Great crested newt District Level Licensing is featured in the Working Paper as a basis for future strategic approaches to impact assessment and the mitigation hierarchy. Various implementation and Governance issues aside, we think that a strategic approach has brought welcome improvements to the way that development impacts on great crested newts are dealt with. However, extending a similar approach to other species needs very careful consideration, learning from the experience with the newt example, and critically assessing the taxon-specific issues and sometimes might simply not be appropriate. We stress that the particular method used for great crested newts is just one particular example of a strategic approach. Other examples including Low Impact Class Licensing, and Earned Recognition. In some cases a ‘strategic approach’ could be a major improvement, in others it will not be an appropriate option, and the existing site-by-site assessment and mitigation approach will be appropriate. We suggest that a necessary step would be to check any new proposals against their ability to help progress toward a desired end state, such as Favourable Conservation Status. It is critical that any new proposals do not compromise existing initiatives already in an operational phase such as great crested newt District Licensing.
  
  

---

Banner image: Great crested newt caught during a survey. by Jim Foster/ARC