As the committee stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill draws to a close, the Government stands firm in its uncompromising stance on environmental protections. 

Environmental organisations, ecologists, policy specialists, and lawyers have voiced several concerns about the weakening of environmental protections in the Bill and have engaged constructively in talks and by offering a range of amendments. 

There has also been cross party support for stronger environmental protection - from the Greens, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and even Labour’s own MPs. Yet despite these efforts, no significant changes have been accepted.

The Minister of State for Housing and Planning claimed to be in ‘listening mode’ but it quickly became apparent that his ‘acceptance mode’ appeared to be firmly in the off position. Amendments that have seen support from across the house which would have ensured protection for chalk streams, peatbogs and other irreplaceable habitats were asked to be withdrawn.

Ellie Chowns, Green MP for North Herefordshire, stated, referring to one such amendment, “[it] reflects public expectation, ecological and scientific evidence, and policy consistency. It would give clarity to developers and comfort to conservationists, who are deeply worried. Most of all, it would honour our obligation to protect the natural heritage we cannot afford to lose”. 

It was ultimately voted down. 

Take a short scan down Labour’s most recent manifesto and we can read that they “will take steps to ensure we are building more high-quality, well-designed, and sustainable homes and creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery…without weakening environmental protections.”

However, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) – whose primary function it is to oversee government compliance with environmental law –has reported that the Bill represents a regression in environmental protection.

MPs on the committee repeatedly drew the OEP’s analysis to the attention of Ministers. In response they offered only a vague gesture, merely indicating that the Government will be “considering the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection”. 

Not only have the legal provisions been assessed as a regression, but also the evidence-base undergirding the Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) seems shaky. The Government's own Whitehall impact assessment of the Bill notes that they relied solely on data about nutrient neutrality to estimate the impacts of the nature restoration fund “[as] such, there are expected to be wider unquantified impacts of the final scheme”. It's foundations of this kind that we should be cautious of building 1.5 million homes upon.

Marian Spain, Chief Executive of Natural England, stated in the first committee session, “We have already run versions of the nature restoration fund for recreational impact, for great crested newts and for nutrient mitigation, so we have seen enough that these schemes can work”. But many are concerned that strategic level mitigation and compensation does not necessarily work for all species and habitats in the same way.

Nutrient pollution is a prime example of an environmental challenge that can be effectively addressed by a mitigation strategy operating at a large geographic scale. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus can cause algal blooms and reduce water oxygen levels, which is extremely harmful for ecosystems. Through creating and restoring habitats, retrofitting better drainage systems, and improving wastewater treatment facilities, proper mitigation and offsetting of nutrient pollution can be achieved.

However, strategic level mitigations strategies have not been shown to work for all so-called ‘environmental features’. Species such as barn owls, and herons who return to the same location each year to nest, badgers who remain in the same sett for generations, and otters who are nomadic all live different lives. These creatures should not be treated as though they are equivalent. 

When considering strategic-level mitigation, the answer to whether it is a) feasible and b) effective will vary between species and such strategies require large amounts of data to understand species-specific ecological requirements. 

For example, due to the way badgers live and forage, mitigation strategies that operate far from the harm done to a sett may cause greater precarity for an already persecuted species. 

Similarly, damage to habitats of principle importance like 400-year-old ancient woodland, ancient grassland and peatbogs cannot be offset in the same way that nutrient pollution can. Such habitats are irreplaceable. That is to say, by definition, it is impossible offset harms incurred by them. 

Not all species and habitats operate in the same way so should not be treated as if they are like in kind. The logical gap that the Government is attempting to leap here by suggesting otherwise is cavernous to say the least; more should be provided to support the claims that the NRF will work. 

If this Bill reaches royal assent, it is imperative that the Government together with Natural England codify the procedure for how different species and habitats will be brought under a strategic level mitigation strategy. Clear, robust and scientific review will be required but as it stands this has not been provided.

Because of this, we have submitted a freedom of information request to Natural England asking for this evidence. 

We are seeking clarity on what reports, correspondence and data they have used in considering whether the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will have effects on reducing the level of protection of existing environmental law. Without rigorous scientific backing, data, and precise understanding of the ecological needs of species strategic mitigation might simply be a strategic mistake. 

Ironically, the Government has done well so far to apply the environmental principles of mitigation hierarchy to the legislative process by avoiding engagement with amendments and minimising legal risk. 

Although constructive, pragmatic and effective amendments that would have prevented a regression in environmental protection without hindering developers were put forward all have been rejected. 

Additionally, the Government has failed to provide adequate evidence that this scheme will work, and they have so far failed to address concerns raised by their own environmental advisors. 

Because of this wholly inadequate response from the Government toward genuine grievances, The Wildlife Trusts are calling for Part Three of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to be pulled.