Nature protections ‘not the problem’ — so why is the government rolling them back?

The UK government's Planning & Infrastructure Bill aims to expedite housing and infrastructure projects by streamlining environmental regulations.

Central to the bill is the establishment of a Nature Restoration Fund (NRF), allowing developers to offset environmental obligations through financial contributions.

While the government asserts that these latest planning reforms will support development without compromising environmental standards, critics express concerns about the potential weakening of ecological protections and the lack of robust evidence supporting the bill's assumptions.

The Nature Restoration Fund: A controversial tool?

The NRF is designed to enable developers to fulfill certain environmental obligations by contributing to a centralised fund, which would finance strategic ecological improvements elsewhere.

This approach aims to replace the current system of project-specific environmental assessments and mitigations.

However, environmental organisations caution that this mechanism may lead to the degradation of local habitats.

Becky Pullinger, head of land use planning at The Wildlife Trusts, stated: "If implemented carefully, the Nature Restoration Fund offers a valuable opportunity for the UK Government to address some environmental impacts of development whilst also helping to drive nature’s recovery... but given the scale of the nature and climate crises, it needs to go further to ensure nature recovery is not left behind."

The Wildlife Trusts advocate for stronger safeguards within the bill to prevent the NRF from becoming a "get out of jail free card" for developers, emphasising the need for immediate action to protect vulnerable species and habitats.

Questioning the evidence base

The government's impact assessment acknowledges limited data on how biodiversity obligations affect development timelines.

Specifically, it notes: "There is very limited data on how environmental obligations affect development... This makes reaching a robust estimate of the impacts associated with the NRF... very challenging."

This admission has raised concerns among environmental professionals. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) commented: "The proposed Bill... threatens to cause unnecessary and irreparable ecological harm while simultaneously imposing additional costs, uncertainty and delays on developers due to the uncertainty around the nature and scope of the proposed Environmental Delivery Plans."

These Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs), to be developed by Natural England or another designated body, are intended to outline standardised mitigation measures.

However, the lack of detailed information on their implementation has led to calls for greater clarity and evidence-based policymaking.

Legal and democratic implications

The bill's provisions have also prompted legal challenges.

Wild Justice, a legal campaign group, has threatened judicial review, arguing that the bill undermines existing environmental protections. They contend that allowing developers to pay into the NRF instead of conducting site-specific assessments could endanger protected sites.

Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the bill's impact on public participation in planning decisions. Clause 47 states that "no person is to have a right to be heard at an examination" on Spatial Development Strategies, which The Wildlife Trusts argue diminishes democratic oversight.

The Planning & Infrastructure Bill is still in the committee stage and has not yet been ratified.