Agenda item
Motion D: The Impact of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on Local Planning and Environmental Protection - Proposed by Councillor Genny Early, Seconded by Councillor Andrew Prosser
Council Notes:
1. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposes new systems like Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) and a Nature Restoration Levy (NRL), which would affect how Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) handle development whilst protecting nature.
2. Under the Bill, Natural England will prepare EDPs , with decisions signed off by the Secretary of State for Housing rather than the SoS for the Environment. This takes away local council input , could ignore Local knowledge about wildlife /habitats, end the onsite mitigation and delivery of compensation within the district.
3. The Bill suggests EDPs could replace the need for on-site ecological surveys/ impact assessments, which ensure development doesn’t harm protected species or habitats.
4. Since 2024, councils are responsible for ensuring new developments achieve Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG),which requires developers to carry out habitat surveys, improve biodiversity by > 10%, and manage those improvements for 30 years. The Bill does not replace/remove BNG, but introduces extra layers without explaining how they will work together, risking confusion, duplication, and extra workload for councils.
5. The Government says the Bill will make planning decisions faster for developers, but centralising key decisions, involving the Secretary of State and multiple national bodies like Natural England, and still needing to consult councils, could increase complexity and time.
Council Believes:
1. The Bill should specify how the mitigation hierarchy will be applied so avoidance of harm to nature is always the first priority, closing loopholes that could make compensation the default.
2. Local councils/ communities should continue to play a key role in planning for biodiversity, using local knowledge. Pre-applications enable Local Planning Authorities to work collaboratively with developers to make planning applications and BNG proposals better quality.
3. Removing local control of environmental planning, relying instead on national agencies, could lead to worse outcomes for wildlife, and less accountability. Whilst landscape-scale conservation is needed, the EDP/NRL approach could lead to localised declines in biodiversity.
4. Without on-site ecological surveys/impact assessments, which ensure new developments follow the law and protect nature , information about the loss of locally important populations would not be recorded and national declines in species may be missed or inadequately compensated.
5. Any new environmental systems must be joined up with existing BNG requirements. Councils must get resources to manage them.
6. Species are rarely “blockers” to development - few developments are refused for ecological reasons in West Oxfordshire. However, EDPs could be beneficial if applied to diffuse environmental impacts such as air and water quality, recreational pressure and nutrient neutrality.
Council Resolves:
To request that the Leader of the Council writes to the relevant Ministers/local MPs, outlining the Council’s concerns, calling for changes to better protect wildlife while enhancing local democracy and planning accountability:
- Adopt the amendment proposals from CIEEM;
- Keep on-site ecological surveys/impact assessment as a key part of planning;
- Ensure councils are involved in EDPs, to reflect local knowledge and Local Nature Recovery Strategies;
- Explain how EDPs, the NRL and BNG will work together;
- Provide councils with support/funding to do this well.
Minutes:
Councillor Liam Walker left the meeting before this item was discussed.
Councillor Genny Early proposed the motion. The motion was read as follows;
Council Notes:
1. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposes new systems like Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) and a Nature Restoration Levy (NRL), which would affect how Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) handle development whilst protecting nature.
2. Under the Bill, Natural England will prepare EDPs , with decisions signed off by the Secretary of State for Housing rather than the SoS for the Environment. This takes away local council input , could ignore Local knowledge about wildlife /habitats, end the onsite mitigation and delivery of compensation within the district.
3. The Bill suggests EDPs could replace the need for on-site ecological surveys/ impact assessments, which ensure development doesn’t harm protected species or habitats.
4. Since 2024, councils are responsible for ensuring new developments achieve Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG),which requires developers to carry out habitat surveys, improve biodiversity by > 10%, and manage those improvements for 30 years. The Bill does not replace/remove BNG, but introduces extra layers without explaining how they will work together, risking confusion, duplication, and extra workload for councils.
5. The Government says the Bill will make planning decisions faster for developers, but centralising key decisions, involving the Secretary of State and multiple national bodies like Natural England, and still needing to consult councils, could increase complexity and time.
Council Believes:
1. The Bill should specify how the mitigation hierarchy will be applied so avoidance of harm to nature is always the first priority, closing loopholes that could make compensation the default.
2. Local councils/ communities should continue to play a key role in planning for biodiversity, using local knowledge. Pre-applications enable Local Planning Authorities to work collaboratively with developers to make planning applications and BNG proposals better quality.
3. Removing local control of environmental planning, relying instead on national agencies, could lead to worse outcomes for wildlife, and less accountability. Whilst landscape-scale conservation is needed, the EDP/NRL approach could lead to localised declines in biodiversity.
4. Without on-site ecological surveys/impact assessments, which ensure new developments follow the law and protect nature , information about the loss of locally important populations would not be recorded and national declines in species may be missed or inadequately compensated.
5. Any new environmental systems must be joined up with existing BNG requirements. Councils must get resources to manage them.
6. Species are rarely “blockers” to development - few developments are refused for ecological reasons in West Oxfordshire. However, EDPs could be beneficial if applied to diffuse environmental impacts such as air and water quality, recreational pressure and nutrient neutrality.
Council Resolves:
To request that the Leader of the Council writes to the relevant Ministers/local MPs, outlining the Council’s concerns, calling for changes to better protect wildlife while enhancing local democracy and planning accountability:
- Adopt the amendment proposals from CIEEM;
- Keep on-site ecological surveys/impact assessment as a key part of planning;
- Ensure councils are involved in EDPs, to reflect local knowledge and Local Nature Recovery Strategies;
- Explain how EDPs, the NRL and BNG will work together;
- Provide councils with support/funding to do this well.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Prosser, who stated that there was still opportunity to influence the bill and that the local nature connection was important.
Members debated the motion and raised the following points;
- That the Council wished to see houses being built but this could not be at the expense of the natural environment. Some believed that the Planning and Infrastructure bill had many flaws.
- The Council had responded to many consultations on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
- The motion highlighted the loss of local input on the assessment of ecology loss, and that there were concerns over whether centrally developed environmental delivery plans would protect these[AB1] .
- It was felt that the Bill undermined the work on developing a County Wide Nature Recovery Strategy.
- The Bill reduced the Council’s voice on planning matters.
- Once they were gone, natural habitats would be irreplaceable, and that local knowledge was essential to protect these.
- Natural protection was one of the lowest reasons for planning applications being refused.
- Amendments to the Bill had also been put forward by MPs across all parties.
- However, others welcomed the motion but highlighted the need for the housing crisis to be addressed, and that there would be other ways of feeding back on the Bill so would not be supporting the motion.
Voting record - For 26, abstentions 9, against 0
Council resolved:
- To request that the Leader of the Council writes to the relevant Ministers/local MPs, outlining the Council’s concerns, calling for changes to better protect wildlife while enhancing local democracy and planning accountability:
- Adopt the amendment proposals from CIEEM;
- Keep on-site ecological surveys/impact assessment as a key part of planning;
- Ensure councils are involved in EDPs, to reflect local knowledge and Local Nature Recovery Strategies;
- Explain how EDPs, the NRL and BNG will work together;
- Provide councils with support/funding to do this well.
[AB1]Protect local input or protect ecology?