Planning has always been about balance – weighing housing need, economic growth, and infrastructure against environmental protection, community identity, and landscape integrity. But recent developments in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill raise an uncomfortable question: at what cost do we deliver new development?
Around two dozen MPs from within the governing party are reportedly preparing to challenge Part Three of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill – a section that proposes a fundamental shift in how environmental protections are handled in the planning system. The clause in question would allow developers to make financial contributions to a national “nature restoration fund” instead of meeting on-site environmental safeguards for some of England’s most ecologically sensitive areas.
The affected sites could include Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), chalk streams, ancient woodland and other rare habitats – many of which are irreplaceable. Under the proposed changes, the obligation to avoid or mitigate harm locally could be set aside in favour of contributing to broader, strategic conservation goals.
Supporters of the move argue that the current system is overly bureaucratic and piecemeal – difficult for developers to navigate and inefficient in delivering meaningful environmental gain. A centralised fund, they claim, would unlock large-scale restoration efforts and help achieve national biodiversity goals faster and more cohesively.
But at what cost?
Critics – including members of the government’s own party – argue that this approach amounts to a “licence to trash nature.” By enabling developers to bypass site-specific environmental protections, the policy risks encouraging destruction of high-value habitats with no meaningful local replacement. You can’t simply pick up a chalk stream and restore it elsewhere. Nor can you recreate centuries-old woodland or replicate the fragile ecosystems that thrive in SSSIs.
The issue taps into a broader discomfort with “offsetting” strategies in planning. While net gain policies have merit, especially when used alongside strong local protections, there is growing concern that these mechanisms are being used not to enhance environmental outcomes, but to enable trade-offs that would previously have been unacceptable.
We do need more homes – no one disputes that. The housing crisis is real and persistent. But removing the teeth from habitat regulations isn’t a silver bullet for speeding up delivery. Nor is it necessarily the root cause of delay. Planning delays are often tied to resource constraints in local authorities, unclear policy interpretation, or infrastructure capacity – not just to wildlife protections.
Once a habitat is gone, it’s gone. And we must be careful not to undervalue what’s at stake in the name of expediency.
Instead of weakening site-specific protections, why not invest in better, clearer guidance for biodiversity net gain, fund local planning teams properly, and support mechanisms that integrate environmental and development needs – rather than place them in opposition?
The planning system must remain a place where the long-term health of our natural environment carries equal weight with short-term development goals. If we truly want a legacy of “building back greener,” we can’t afford to sideline the very ecosystems that sustain us.
As planning professionals, it’s time to ask: are we solving the right problem? And more importantly, are we prepared to ask – at what cost?
