OEP warns Planning Bill is regressive for nature

The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) has added its voice to the chorus calling for stronger green protections in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. According to chair Dame Glenys Stacey: “In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law. As drafted, the provisions are a regression. This is particularly so for England’s most important wildlife — those habitats and species protected under the Habitats Regulations.”

In a letter to Government, the OEP supported much of the Bill as “beneficial, if well implemented” — such as the more strategic approach proposed for nutrient overloading, and greater join-up between Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) and both the Environmental Improvement Plan and Local Nature Recovery Strategies.

However, it said the potential for the legislation to deliver a win-win for nature and the economy will be undermined without moves to address the reduction in legal protections for the environment. Dame Glenys commented: “Creating new flexibility without sufficient legal safeguards could see environmental outcomes lessened over time. And aiming to improve environmental outcomes overall, whilst laudable, is not the same as maintaining in law high levels of protection for specific habitats and species.”

The watchdog highlighted two particular concerns:

• The framing of the Bill’s ‘overall improvement test’ for adopting EDPs rests on a balancing exercise to decide whether negative environmental effects of development are likely to be outweighed by conservation measures taken under an EDP. Dame Glenys said: “As drafted at the moment, that exercise would allow considerably more subjectivity and uncertainty in decision-making than under existing environmental law. We advise that the overall improvement test should be strengthened to address this.” 

• Conservation measures can be located away from the protected sites affected by development. Currently, this is only permissible in limited circumstances and where the overall coherence of the protected site network is maintained. Dame Glenys pointed out: “Such safeguards are absent from the Bill. Undermining the network of protected sites could affect the Government’s ability to meet its legally binding biodiversity targets and ‘30 by 30’ objectives. We advise that the lack of safeguards for the overall sites network is rectified, given the role they play in efforts to meet statutory nature targets.”