The Planning and Infrastructure Bill: a small but significant win for nature

This ‘Inside Track’ blog was published by Green Alliance on the 10 December 2025

By crossbench peers Lord Krebs and Baroness Willis of Summertown

When the government unveiled the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it was pitched as the legislation that would finally “unleash economic growth” by cutting through the red tape that, in its view, held back housing and infrastructure projects. In the words of some ministers, the Bill would ensure that “newts and bats” no longer stood in the way of progress, a soundbite that spoke volumes about its underlying approach to environmental regulation.

At the heart of the Bill sits a new scheme for managing environmental damage: the Nature Restoration Fund. The idea is simple on paper: developers will pay into a central fund and Natural England, tasked with administering the scheme, will be responsible for offsetting or repairing the damage caused by development through something called an Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP).

Alarm bells rang

The government insists that this streamlined system will make the planning process faster and more efficient, while still delivering benefits for nature. However, for those of us who have spent our careers trying to safeguard the natural world, the proposals set alarm bells ringing.

Our first concern was clarity. How would these new EDPs fit with the protections long established under the Habitats Regulations? What would happen to existing mechanisms like Biodiversity Net Gain, a hard won tool intended to ensure that development leads to measurable improvements in biodiversity? And, crucially, how would anyone know whether an EDP was actually working?

We were also struck by the practical implications. Would Natural England have the resources, capacity and expertise to carry out these new responsibilities at scale? And, if it struggled, would the quality of environmental outcomes suffer? None of these questions had clear answers as the Bill passed through its stages in parliament.

We worked collaboratively across the political spectrum

Recognising the limits of the Lords’ powers and the strong majority the government holds in the Commons, some of us sought to work constructively to improve the Bill, strengthen environmental safeguards and minimise the risks.

The House of Lords, after all, can scrutinise, amend and delay, but not ultimately block legislation. The so-called ‘ping-pong’ process, where amendments bounce between the two Houses, inevitably favours the elected chamber, as it should. That shaped our approach. Rather than stage a dramatic but doomed confrontation, we chose to engage intensively with ministers and officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

Over many hours, both in the chamber and in private discussions, we tested, debated and redrafted. The collective effort of peers from across the political spectrum began to bear fruit. Gradually, the government conceded ground.

There were meaningful wins for nature

One of the most substantial early wins came through the work of Baroness Parminter, whose amendment improved what is known as the ‘overall improvement test’. Under her revised provision, the nature conservation measures within an EDP must ‘materially outweigh’ the negative effects of development on each identified environmental feature. This wording significantly raised the bar compared with the original draft, setting a higher standard for what counts as acceptable environmental offsetting.

From there, we turned our attention to the scope and application of EDPs. The risk was that these new instruments could become a default route for developers seeking to avoid existing obligations under the Habitats Regulations or Biodiversity Net Gain. Without limits, the system could undermine rather than reinforce existing environmental law.

A cross party group which along with ourselves included Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour), Lord Roborough (Conservative), Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat), as well as both of us cross-benchers, secured four key concessions from the government. Each represented a small but meaningful safeguard for nature. They were:

1. Limited scope at the outset

Initially, the use of EDPs will be restricted to cases addressing nutrient neutrality. This prevents premature expansion into broader environmental contexts before the process has been tested.

2. Independent evaluation

The first wave of EDPs will be subject to transparent and independent evaluation, potentially by the Office for Environmental Protection, to assess their effectiveness and integrity.

3. Parliamentary scrutiny

The outcome of that evaluation must be brought before parliament for debate before any further rollout or expansion takes place.

4. Consultation on guidance

Peers will be consulted on drafting official guidance for developers, ensuring that the system’s rules and relationships with existing legal frameworks, Habitats Regulations, Biodiversity Net Gain, are clearly articulated and workable in practice.

The final point may turn out to be the most crucial. After months of discussion, even the most seasoned environmental legislators struggled to see how the different pieces of this jigsaw fit together. If experts cannot readily make sense of it, how can developers or local authorities be expected to?

Parliamentary compromise can deliver more lasting gain

Although these changes represent progress, the outcome has not been universally welcomed. Some environmental NGOs accused us of “caving in” to government pressure by failing to defeat the Bill outright. Such criticism is understandable, it reflects deep frustration at the erosion of nature protections at a time of mounting ecological crisis. However, it also oversimplifies the realities of how environmental policy is made.

The truth is that parliamentary compromise, however unsatisfying, often delivers more lasting gains than symbolic defiance. By engaging directly, we secured commitments that might never have materialised and preserved an opportunity to shape how the new system operates. The alternative – walking away from the table – would have left nature with no safeguards at all.

What happens next will depend on implementation. If the promised evaluation is rigorous, independent and transparent, and if the government genuinely listens to expert input, the initial phase of the Nature Restoration Fund could demonstrate what evidence-based ecological recovery looks like in a development context. But, if the scheme becomes a catch-all for sidestepping existing environmental laws, then the concessions won in the Lords will mean little.

The next phase will be crucial

Defra, Natural England and the Office for Environmental Protection must work closely to ensure that EDPs set measurable, science-based targets and their outcomes are monitored transparently over time. Investors, developers and planners will also need clear guidance and consistent expectations. Above all, the voices of those who understand the ecological stakes must continue to be heard, inside government, in parliament and within civil society.

In the end, this is not simply a battle over legislative wording, it is a test of whether the UK can marry its economic ambitions with genuine environmental responsibility. On a small, crowded island, where land, water and sea are under relentless pressure, learning to make that balance work is not optional, it is essential.

For now, we count these negotiated adjustments as a modest but meaningful victory. They show what can be achieved when political pragmatism is used in service of environmental principle. But vigilance remains vital. The challenge now is to ensure that the Nature Restoration Fund lives up to its name, and that progress never comes at nature’s expense.