The Architects Climate Action Network (ACAN) is deeply concerned about the ecological and social implications of the proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Despite its promotion as a balance of large-scale development with critical nature recovery, Part 3 (Development and Nature Recovery) of the proposal in its current form raises significant questions over impacts for local communities, ecosystemic consequences and species depletion.

This government came into power promising significant environmental action. However, increased housing targets without adequate safeguards, the expansion of Heathrow, deregulation of planning laws and weakening of environmental oversight suggest a troubling shift away from critical climate and biodiversity targets. Despite claims of a “win-win” for development and nature, this bill does not yet evidence that either goal can be met in a safe and meaningful way.

The premise of the bill’s approach to nature recovery centralises decision-making and removes species licenses and site consents, disincentivising onsite nature integration and bypassing the mitigation hierarchy. As such, the bill is in contravention with the five environmental policy principles of the Environment Act 2021. It decouples compensation from harm, putting many vulnerable ecosystems at risk of further degradation and placing increased demand on critical local and urban habitats.

Core aspects of the bill, such as the ‘overall improvement test’, set a weak threshold for Environmental Delivery Plan sign off and lack sufficient accountability in implementation, risking free passes for significant building development with no guarantee of delivery for nature. Furthermore, the proposed Nature Restoration Fund suggests an increased pressure on complex delivery mechanisms, with little evidence of how this would operate, how to ensure adequate resourcing and, as yet, without trial or pilot study.

The rapid pace at which this bill is being pushed through Parliament is incredibly precarious, proposing momentous changes to fundamental ecological principles. It has been fast-tracked with insufficient input from environmental experts or local communities, resulting in a proposal that lacks rigour, testing or consideration for the complex ecosystemic impacts likely to play out across interconnected communities over generations.

ACAN stands alongside many other environmental organisations to call for a pause to at least Part 3 of the bill until further consultation can take place, demanding full expert input with a clear evidence base. We call on all stakeholders, from local communities, to built and natural environment professionals, to policy-makers and decision-makers to demand a more thoughtful, inclusive and robust approach to sustainable development that ensures protection of our precious environment for all of us who depend upon it.

OUR DEMANDS

ACAN urges MPs to pause the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Part 3, for further consultation; citing concerns over its rushed process, insufficient evidence and lack of expert input.

The Bill risks undermining critical biodiversity protections, sidestepping local communities, and failing to deliver genuine nature recovery. We call for full consultation with experts, robust accountability and evidence-based analysis before proceeding further.

ACAN urges MPs to pause on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill until there is more clarity on the following concerns:

  • How will the proposed central fund benefit local communities if it can be spent elsewhere?
  • How will the Bill ensure that all species are protected on development sites and beyond?
  • How will Natural England be adequately resourced to manage the additional responsibilities imposed by this Bill?
  • How will levies be calculated to guarantee they reflect the full ecological value of impacted species and ecosystems?
  • How will the ‘overall improvement test’ guarantee that vulnerable species and habitats are protected and prioritised.

If a developer is not charged the full cost of mitigating environmental damage due to economic viability, who will pay the shortfall?

Architects Climate Action Network (ACAN)