What do the UK Government’s changes to the Planning Bill mean for nature?

In March 2025, the UK Government introduced the Planning and Infrastructure Bill with the aim of speeding up the delivery of new infrastructure and housebuilding. However, together with other experts and conservation organisations, we warned that this proposed legislation threatened to weaken nature protections in England.

Thanks to a successful campaign, backed by many thousands of RSPB members and supporters, in July the UK Government announced a number of amendments to the Bill to address these concerns. In this article we dig into the detail of these amendments. 

Firstly, a quick recap on how the Bill is proposing to reform the planning system, and why the RSPB was concerned enough to call for Part 3 to be scrapped. The Government’s intention is to use a ‘big picture’ approach, meaning that alongside the normal planning requirements to ensure any possible ecological harm resulting from development is mitigated, developers also pay for restoration measures for protected sites and species.

Through the creation of Environmental Development Plans (EDPs), development impacts and the required restoration measures will be considered together over much larger areas at the same time. This is a new and different approach to that currently required in law which typically tackles impacts on a site-by-site basis.

The RSPB is, in principle, supportive of shifting to bigger-picture approaches because we believe they can result in better overall outcomes for nature. That’s especially the case here where additional restoration measures will be required for proposed development to be given the go-ahead. 

But it depends entirely on having the correct safeguards, checks, and balances in place to ensure those better outcomes actually happen. The scale of changes proposed by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill were immense, and we were concerned there were significant risks that had not been addressed.

Our assessment was that, as originally drafted, Part 3 lacked those crucial safeguards which ensured nature actually ended up better off. Along with other wildlife groups, our key concerns were that Part 3:

1. Did not require harm to protected sites and species be avoided as a first priority, or that any ecological measures for unavoidable harm were delivered upfront;
2. Did not require scientific safeguards be applied to ensure EDPs are only used where they will actually work ecologically;
3. Did not restrict Ministers to amending EDPs only to deliver greater environmental benefits.

Having now assessed the detail of the amendments made by the Government to the Bill, overall, we have concluded they address the majority of our concerns in each of these three areas.  However, this is very much dependent on further strengthening both in the Bill itself, and through associated guidance, policy, and secondary legislation, plus ensuring there are sufficient resources to enable effective delivery. More on that later…

In terms of avoiding harm, whilst not a perfect solution, the amendments do include several welcome measures.  Additionally, an accompanying Written Ministerial Statement confirming the Government’s intentions for the Bill sets out that ‘irreplaceable habitats’ cannot be included in EDPs (and therefore cannot be put at risk through this route), and that where EDPs do apply the ‘precautionary principle’ must be had regard to.  Essentially, this means that a lack of scientific certainty that damage could be caused is not a reason to fail to implement measures to prevent that damage – i.e. “better safe than sorry”.  

The concept of irreplaceable habitats already exists in the planning system, codified in the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF), and relates to those habitats that are impossible to recreate within a reasonable timeframe – places like ancient woodland or limestone pavement. It’s important that this definition is more tightly defined for the Planning and Infrastructure Bill’s EDPs in future.

EDPs will now contain requirements to avoid or, if that’s not possible, reduce harm upfront. In cases of possible irreversible damage conservation measures must be in place before that harm occurs. Crucially the EDP must also now include the sequencing in which conservation measures will be carried out.

This is important because for some species if their habitat is destroyed before suitable new habitat is recreated, they will be lost altogether as the wildlife will have nowhere to go. This will result in more safeguards around the use of EDPs, with the Secretary of State only allowing those capable of passing these additional requirements to proceed.

For developments not included within EDPs the principle of first avoiding harm will continue to apply as set out in the NPPF, and we will need to make sure that remains a core principle.

On scientific safeguards, the amendments also include improved EDP monitoring requirements and if the benefits for nature fall short of what was envisaged then additional measures must be added.

The amendments also contain crucial additional measures to ensure that when developing EDPs, Natural England must have regard to how developments included will impact the overall conservation status of the affected species, as well as the effective functioning of the network of protected sites, and ensure conservation measures are included to take account of this.

This overall responsibility lies with the Secretary of State and one of the most important amendments mean they can only allow an EDP to proceed if the best available science shows the measures will “materially outweigh the negative effects” of the developments included. This gives much needed strength to the test that needs to be passed – the ‘Overall Improvement Test’. This also means an EDP cannot be approved unless Natural England can provide clear independent evidence this new strategic approach will mean nature is in a better state by the end than when it started. This is important for all protected sites and species, especially species that are hard to support in new locations.

The Office for Environmental Protection had assessed the Bill as originally drafted as an environmental regression compared to current requirements. The watchdog, in response to the UK Government’s new amendments, stated it is pleased to see the significant steps the Government have taken. The OEP added the amendments substantially allay concerns, and taken in the round the additional safeguards would make the Government’s desired ‘win-win’ for nature and development a more likely prospect. But they, like us, have flagged that there are still risks that need to be addressed.

The Bill still has a way to go with its passage through Parliament. Your support has helped us make the case to the Government that nature matters, and that the Bill had to change.

We will need your help again to ensure these key safeguards remain in place and any outstanding gaps are filled. If this significant change to England’s planning system is to work for nature, there are elements of the Bill that must still be strengthened; plus safeguards included in secondary legislation, and in the accompanying guidance and policy, to ensure the new laws are correctly interpreted and applied.

The UK Government has stated that, “Instead of environmental protections being seen as barriers to growth, we are determined to unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature”. We hope the Government will truly deliver the win-win it keeps promising, and gain the confidence of the nature-loving public.