Planning Reform Bill and the environment: Key lessons from UKELA’s conference 2025
Last week, our Planning and Environment Team attended the UK Environmental Law Association’s (“UKELA”) annual conference in Bristol. Claire Petricca-Riding, Partner and National Head of the team, opened the first in-person plenary sessions by chairing a lively panel titled “Planning Reform: what does this mean for the environment, developments and critical infrastructure.”
The panel brought together expert voices from across the sector, James Stevens (MRTPI - Director for Cities, Home Builders Federation), Alexa Culver (Legal Counsel, RSK Wilding), Neil Beamsley (Group Head of Biodiversity, Bellway Homes), and Odette Chalaby (Barrister, Landmark Chambers).
The discussion centred on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (the “Bill”), introduced in March this year (available here). The bill has three parts. Part 1 covers “Infrastructure”, Part 2 “Planning”, and Part 3: “Nature Recovery”.
This Bill has quickly become a hot topic, sparking widespread debate across the planning and environmental sectors. So much so, that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government felt compelled to publish a blog on 2 June 2025 titled “Inaccurate Reporting of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill” (available here), which asserts that reports of the Bill removing environmental protections are not true.
The panel discussion focused on Part 3: “Nature Recovery” and gave useful insights on several environmental aspects of the bill including Environmental Delivery Plans and the Nature Restoration Levy.
Environmental Delivery Plans
Currently, under the Habitats Regulations, planning consent can only be granted if a proposed development poses no risk to EU-protected sites – or if no viable alternatives exist. Moreover, additional permits are required where protected species may be harmed.
The Bill proposes a significant shift in this regime through a new strategic approach centred on Environmental Delivery Plans (“EDPs”).
EDPs aim to deliver environmental mitigation in predetermined geographic areas in a more coordinated and strategic way, relieving developers from having to tackle complex issues—like nutrient neutrality—on a project-by-project basis. EDPs will be prepared and implemented by Natural England. Once an EDP is established, developers can opt to pay the Nature Restoration Levy to Natural England instead of implementing on-site mitigation measures themselves.
To support their implementation, Natural England would gain new investigatory powers, including rights of entry onto land.
However, the rollout of EDPs has raised practical concerns. Alexa Culver pointed out, developers remain in the dark about when EDPs will be introduced and what species or habitats will be covered. This uncertainty, she argued, has already stalled some development and could weaken environmental protection by replacing current safeguards with a more ambiguous system.
Critics have also raised procedural issues. Claire Petricca-Riding asked whether the government had done enough to reassure stakeholders, while Odette Chalaby observed that much of the operational detail is being left to secondary legislation. "Even within this Parliament, there may be no practical difference on the ground", she noted. Alexa Culver further questioned the legitimacy of using emergency procedures—typically reserved for crises like pandemics—to pass such a significant environmental reform.
Nature Restoration Levy
The EDP system is to be underpinned by a new mechanism: the Nature Restoration Levy (“NRL”), which is a tax intended to fund habitat improvement measures from the EDPs. If a development satisfies an “environmental improvement test” and the developer agrees to pay the NRL, no further assessment would be required.
Claire Petricca-Riding asked the panellists for their opinion on the following quote from the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, “It is plainly nonsense to suggest that the nature restoration fund would allow developers simply to pay Government and then wantonly harm nature. Instead, it takes payments from developers and hands them to Natural England, a public body with regulatory duties to conserve and enhance our natural environment, to develop environmental delivery plans, setting out how various conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to demonstrate how they will improve the conservation status of the environmental feature.”
James Stevens echoed this sentiment, calling the reforms “perfectly reasonable” and “essential for economic growth.” He also emphasised the voluntary nature of the scheme and stressed that small-scale harm could be balanced by broader environmental gains. He mentioned that for example, agriculture is the main contributor nutrient issues, while housing development contribution is less than 1%. However, several housing developments are on hold due to nutrient neutrality issues. James considers that the NRL would greatly assist this situation as it would allow housing development to continue after paying the NRL, while work is being carried out by Natural England to deal with the biggest source of contamination.
Yet, scepticism remained amongst the panel. Alexa Culver warned that a chronically underfunded Natural England may lack the capacity to uphold its expanded responsibilities. Odette Chalaby echoed this concern, questioning whether the private sector alone could realistically fund the rollout and enforcement of EDPs under Part 3 of the Bill.
Is there a win-win for environment and economy?
The panel explored the tension between economic development and environmental preservation, with a particular divergence emerging around the role of the NRL. This debate echoed a pressing question posed in a Government FAQ on Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill: “Won’t this lead to environmental regression?” James Stevens characterised Part 3 as a pragmatic and necessary reform to support economic growth, arguing that it enables development to proceed while directing funds toward environmental enhancement.
On the other hand, Alexa Culver was critical of the shift from direct impact assessments to a compensation-based model, which she described as weaker and more fragmented. She warned that such a model risk institutionalising minimal compliance and could undermine environmental safeguards.
Neil Beamsley, drawing on his experience as a principal ecologist, acknowledges the pressing need to address neutrality issues. However, he emphasised that the real challenge lies in the lack of detailed guidance from the government, which contributes to uncertainty and impacts public perception. The need to strike a balance between safeguarding the environment and the economy is clear, the government’s mandate to deliver economic and housing growth remains relevant.
Concluding remarks
The panel closed by reflecting on the key challenges ahead: ensuring clarity, securing sufficient funding, and maintaining institutional independence. Neil Beamsley offered an optimistic point, whilst cautioning against polarisation, that the strength of opposing views could be viewed as a great chance to find common ground. Perhaps there is potential for the proposed development framework to align with existing local nature recovery strategies.
Whether it brings a sense of frustration or reassurance, there is no doubt that a lot of detail has been left to be dealt with by secondary legislation. As the second reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is set for today 25th June, further updates should be expected!
