Development and Nature Recovery Planning Reform Fact Sheet

The Development and Nature Recovery Planning Reform Working Paper Fact Sheet

The Development and Nature Recovery Working Paper was published on 15th December 2024. It seeks to set out the potential for future changes to legislation and policy relating to how housing and infrastructure development can meet its environmental obligations and contribute to nature recovery.

The government has stated that this paper forms part of a series of working papers on different aspects of planning reform, designed to inform further policy development in collaboration with the wider sector.

The goals of this reform include:

• Cleaning up our waterways
• Reducing waste across the economy
• Planting more trees
• Improving air quality
• Creating nature-rich habitats
• Halting species decline

The reforms are proposed to address existing underlying environmental conditions (not caused by proposed development), which they note “can burden the developer with additional costs.” An example of nutrient neutrality has been provided (para 5).

Nutrient Neutrality

“Nutrient neutrality is a means of ensuring that a development plan or project does not add to existing nutrient burdens within catchments, so there is no net increase in nutrients as a result of the plan or project. The goal is to maintain (or reduce) current levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in water systems to prevent the disruption of aquatic ecosystems.”

It is key to note that further consultation is being undertaken, and so the information provided is subject to change. Temple is following the working paper as it goes through scrutiny and has compiled the key facts that we know of the proposals below.

Key Facts on Legislative Changes for Consultants and Statutory Bodies

• Environmental Outcomes Reports (EORs) have been confirmed as replacing the current system of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (para 12).
• Shift from project-specific assessments towards strategic assessments at an appropriate geographic scale (para 13a).
• Other environmental legislation is to be reviewed, with specific mention of targeted amendments to legislation like the Habitats Regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act (para 11).
• Introduction of a “delivery body” to identify environmental issues and produce “Delivery Plans” that are signed off by the state to target specific environmental issues strategically (para 21, 28, and 30).
• The delivery body would operate at the largest spatial scale appropriate to the environmental impact(s) (para 23) and use the appropriate branch for the relevant expertise (para 13b), for example, Natural England for nutrient pollution (para 20b).
• Delivery bodies will be provided with tools to secure outcomes, such as powers to acquire land (including by compulsory purchase) and recommend appropriate planning conditions. However, they will be required to work with market/private-based mechanisms (such as BNG offsite credits) (para 26 and 27).
• Delivery plans will:
  • Assess the underlying environmental issues
  • Set out the necessary actions
  • Present opportunities for further environmental uplift
  • Calculate and apportion the cost of these interventions (paras 22a-d)
• Delivery plans will be monitored, and this data will be published by the monitoring body (para 29). Underperforming plans will be revoked and revised if remedial actions are insufficient.
• Impacts assessed within delivery plans would not be considered in project-specific assessments (para 23).

Key Facts for Developers

• It is acknowledged that not all environmental effects, development types, or locations will be appropriate for the use of this model. These cases would be excluded from a Delivery Plan. Where exclusions occur, developers will continue to discharge obligations and assess environmental effects in line with existing legislation and practice (para 31).
• A mechanism will be created to secure payments from developers to fully fund the actions within a Delivery Plan (para 13c and 32), noting that the paper specifies this is not a new financial burden, as developers already have to meet the cost of project-specific mitigation (para 33). This fund is referred to as the Nature Restoration Fund.
• Once payment has been made, an EIA (which will become an EOR) would only be required to focus on project-specific assessments and effects that would not be covered by the Delivery Plan in the area (para 34).

At Temple, we are working across all our teams to deliver a meaningful consultation response on the information outlined thus far.