The Association for Consultancy & Engineering (ACE) and the Green 91黑料网 Board (GCB) have written to housing and planning minister Matthew Pennycook calling for a rethink on planning reforms.
The particular source of concern is Part 3 of the Planning & Infrastructure Bill, which proposes a nature levy acting as a 鈥榩ay to pollute鈥� buy-out mechanism. Developers would pay money to Natural England in exchange for destroying protected sites and species.
鈥淭he scale of proposed reforms found in Part 3 need more time to consult and develop,鈥� the GCB and ACE say in their letter.
Their letter landed on the minister鈥檚 desk just a week after similar concerns were also aired in a letter signed by 40 leading economists, ecologists and former government advisers. [See previous report here.]
Like the first letter, the ACE/GCB letter talks of 鈥渟ignificant unintended consequences both for developers and nature鈥�.
Both call for a pause on implementation of the legislation, rather than scrapping it totally, to allow time for trials.
Also weighing into the controversy is the Office for Environmental Protection, which said: 鈥淚n 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.鈥�
The OEP was created under the Environment Act 2021 to protect the environment by holding government to account. It proposed a raft of amendments to the draft legislation that it believes would maintain current legal environmental protection while still streamlining the planning system.
The ACE and GCB want more time before any changes are introduced. Their letter says: 鈥淲e are calling for Part 3 to be implemented to a timetable which would allow for full consultation with experts, piloting of the process and to investigate the potential for a different commencement date for Part 3 to the rest of the Bill, to avoid delaying the implementation of other reforms contained in the Bill.鈥�
It says: 鈥淢ore time is needed to evaluate the impacts of the proposed levy-based reforms, to determine where these can be most effectively applied, and to gain industry confidence in its administration by Natural England. We are concerned that otherwise developers may end up facing increased uncertainty, extended delays, additional costs, greater local opposition, and ultimately, a reduction in much-needed growth while at the same time nature loses out again. The narrative that nature is a blocker to progress is not supported by evidence. Indeed, well-planned green infrastructure improves wellbeing, increases property values, and delivers more resilient communities. The delays we see in planning are rarely the fault of environmental protections, but rather the result of underfunding, poor process and bureaucratic inefficiencies which we agree should be addressed.鈥�
It continues: 鈥淎 potential unintended consequence of handing these significant delivery responsibilities to Natural England is that it could increase bureaucracy and slow market-led solutions by introducing uncertainty. The private sector has already demonstrated its ability to mobilise rapidly in response to environmental requirements, from phosphate and carbon credits to biodiversity net gain. In contrast, government-led interventions, such as the statutory biodiversity credit scheme, have struggled over operating costs (spending more on administration than was received in payments in 2024-25) and delivery of nature recovery efforts. This approach will allow us to properly evaluate and prepare the industry for the proposed transition.鈥�
The ACE and GCB also say that the proposed pay-to-pollute levy puts at risk progress made by the UK construction industry in environmental protection.
鈥淥ur industry has invested heavily in developing expertise, standards, and best practices, including through biodiversity net gain, which are now being exported internationally,鈥� their letter says. 鈥淪idelining established processes, such as the mitigation hierarchy without a proper evaluation may become a setback for nature, but also for the profession and our international reputation.
鈥淲e encourage the government to clearly differentiate biodiversity net gain and the nature restoration fund to avoid a scale back of investment and a slow-down in growing the sector. The private market is pioneering the biodiversity net gain framework, and its continued independence is vital for maintaining trust and regulatory stability.
鈥淲e are likewise concerned about the social implications of this shift to centralising environmental compensation through offsetting, rather than encouraging on-site or local enhancements (as is directed in the biodiversity net gain guidance). A joint goal is to address green-space inequalities and ensure that communities in high-development areas have more access to nature and green spaces. The value of nearby nature and green infrastructure promotes public wellbeing and reduces long-term costs to the health and care systems. Piloting Part 3 would allow us to evaluate the potential to maximise these benefits and fully understand public equality implications.鈥�
Meanwhile, The Wildlife Trusts is working with Liberal Democrat and Green MPs on the Commons committee that is currently considering the bill to table amendments, including one that would only make nature levy payments a get-out option if the developer has first taken reasonable steps to apply the 鈥榤itigation hierarchy鈥� of prevention of harm to environmental features.
鈥淭he mitigation hierarchy, and its prioritisation of avoiding harm, is essential to arresting these declines,鈥� the Wildlife Trusts鈥� briefing document states. 鈥淚t is deeply concerning that this critical tool to protect nature is currently not recognised within Part 3 of the bill.鈥�
Got a story? Email news@theconstructionindex.co.uk
