May 2025
In March, the Government introduced its Planning and Infrastructure Bill, aiming to speed up development and make it easier to deliver new homes and infrastructure. Part III of the Bill seeks to change the way that the impacts of development on protected sites and species are addressed, replacing site-level assessment and mitigation of harm with larger-scale, ‘strategic’ approaches.
The Government argues that these changes will deliver a ‘win-win’ for development and nature recovery. However, the potential weakening of existing nature protections - along with anti-nature rhetoric from senior Government figures - has caused widespread concern amongst environmental experts.
Since 2018, Freshwater Habitats Trust and Amphibian and Reptile Conservation have worked together in the Newt Conservation Partnership, delivering the NatureSpace District Licensing Scheme* for Great Crested Newts. Through District Licensing, we create new, high-quality clean water ponds to compensate for those lost to development. The scheme is delivering consistently good outcomes for newts, and freshwater biodiversity at large. So far, the scheme has delivered 475 ponds and provided more than 1500 hectares of terrestrial habitat for Great Crested Newts - which have already been recorded at more than half of all the scheme’s sites.
District Licensing is a ‘strategic approach to the discharge of environmental obligations’ – exactly the kind of thing which the Government is aiming to promote through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Ironically, we’re as worried as anyone else about the Development and Nature Recovery proposals in Part III the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, because they’re not the same as District Licensing. District Licensing operates under the Habitats Regulations as they stand. It is supported by a robust evidence base and ongoing monitoring, incentivises avoidance of onsite impacts where practicable, delivers compensation before impact, and ensures a significant improvement in the conservation status of the protected species. At present, Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) are likely to fail on all these fronts.
Below, we outline key differences between District Licensing and the Government’s proposed Environmental Delivery Plans. We’re presenting a worst-case scenario here – but given the lack of safeguards within the Bill as it stands, we have good reason to fear that this is what we’ll end up with.
Evidence and monitoring
District Licensing was developed with robust upfront evidence, and monitoring is funded. The development of District Licensing involved several years of research and modelling - with input from external experts - to conduct thousands of eDNA surveys, develop Great Crested Newt distribution models and map ‘risk zones’ for development impacts. Before implementation, there was also a two-year pilot. The payment made by the developer funds ongoing monitoring of sites, to ensure sustained benefits for Great Crested Newts.
Environmental Delivery Plans could be based on questionable evidence, and monitoring is not funded. There is no clear legal evidence threshold for the development of EDPs. The Government plans to launch the first EDPs as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, leaving no time for external consultation or piloting.
Mitigation hierarchy
District Licensing respects the mitigation hierarchy. In District Licensing, developers pay less if their impacts are low: the costs are proportionate to the impacts. This incentivises developers to avoid or reduce their impacts on Great Crested Newt habitats.
Environmental Delivery Plans disregard the mitigation hierarchy. Where an EDP has been created for a particular environmental feature, developers discharge their obligations by paying the Nature Restoration Levy at a flat rate. There is no incentive for the developer to avoid impacts.
Local compensation ahead of impact
District Licensing delivers compensation ahead of impact, in the local area. Compensation habitat is created in advance of demand from developers, ensuring that Great Crested Newt populations do not decline due to development. This habitat is delivered within the same county, ensuring that any loss of habitat is outweighed by the creation of new habitat locally.
Environmental Delivery Plans don’t have to compensate for loss before impact, and could deliver compensation in a land far, far away. An EDP is not required to specify the timing of conservation measures. This means that measures could be delivered long after development impacts have occurred, resulting in a decline from which the site or species population cannot recover. In addition, conservation measures don’t have to be applied in the location impacted by the development, which could result in regional losses of protected species and habitats.
Significant overall improvement in conservation status
District Licensing outweighs the impacts of development. For every occupied pond lost to development, District Licensing creates four new ponds, along with suitable terrestrial habitat. Because these new habitats are designed and delivered by national expert organisations for amphibians and ponds, they are rapidly colonised by Great Crested Newts, and a multitude of other freshwater species.
Environmental Delivery Plans could barely compensate for the impacts of development. EDPs are only required to meet a weak ‘overall improvement test’, which is passed if the Secretary of State (for housing) is satisfied that ‘conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect caused by… development’. This low threshold is weakened further by the accompanying requirement for the levy to be set with ‘economic viability of development’ in mind.
The above issues could be largely addressed if the constructive amendments suggested by Wildlife and Countryside Link (many of which have already been tabled by MPs) are incorporated into the Bill.
Closer to home, we’ve been advised that only public bodies are expected to be able to produce EDPs under clause 74 of the Bill, which allows the SoS to give these powers to alternative ‘designated persons’ (other than NE). This threatens the continuation of District Licensing as an independent and highly successful scheme. We call on Government to change the guidance accompanying clause 74, to explicitly enable schemes like District Licensing to continue being developed by private entities, and cross-sector partnerships. This would enable continued extra-governmental innovation, and ensure the good nature outcomes of existing schemes aren’t derailed.
We are proud of our work as part of the NatureSpace District Licensing scheme, and believe that the same kind of approach could work in relation to other development impacts. At present, however, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill leaves too much to chance, and opens the door to hastily developed and poorly thought-out schemes, which grease the wheels of development whilst irreparably damaging our environment. The Government must strengthen the Bill, taking on board input from experts across the environmental sector, to achieve those much vaunted ‘win-wins’ for development and nature recovery.
Authors:
Dr Pascale Nicolet, Technical Director, Freshwater Habitats Trust and CEO, Newt Conservation Partnership
Pete Case, Technical Director, Freshwater Habitats Trust
Dr Sam Tasker, Policy Officer, Freshwater Habitats Trust
*Confusingly – NatureSpace’s District Licensing scheme is separate to Natural England’s District Level Licensing, and operates in different Local Planning Authorities. District Licensing is administrated by NatureSpace, a private company working in partnership with NGOs and regulated by Natural England, whereas District Level Licensing is administered by Natural England itself. Both schemes deliver offsite compensation where great crested newts are impacted by development, but the schemes work differently in various respects.
The opinions expressed in this blog are the authors' and not necessarily those of the wider Link membership.
Latest Blog Posts