Today, MPs take on the Second Reading of the Planning & Infrastructure Bill—Labour’s plan to revamp planning, accelerate infrastructure like roads and energy grids, and deliver 1.5 million homes across England, with some impact in Wales and Scotland. It’s pitched as a “boost for economic growth and efficiency”, with a promise of environmental care.
Most of it looks promising, but Part III has scientists, ecologists, lawyers and us at Zero Hour deeply concerned. Here’s an evidence-based look at why this Bill needs a rethink—especially on nature—before it’s too late.
Here’s Zero Hour’s briefing for MPs ahead of today’s debate.
Below, and backed by experts Prof Dame E.J. Milner-Gulland, Dr Sophus zu Ermgassen, Natalie Duffus (Oxford University) and Alexa Culver (legal specialist), we’ve set out what the Bill is aiming to do—and how to make it a “win, win” it needs to be. But first.
The core: What’s the Bill aiming for?
- Streamline planning: Speed up approvals for major projects like transport and power networks.
- Build homes: Hit a 1.5 million target to ease the housing crunch.
- Grow the economy: Modernise policies and cut delays.
- Support nature (in theory): Add funding and benefits for communities and the environment.
Excluding Part III, this Bill could unclog a sluggish system and balance regional development. We’d urge MPs to greenlight that part fast. But Part III? The science says it’s a serious worry—and here’s why.
Part III: A risk to nature
Part III tries to weave nature into development with:
- Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs): Natural England would map out conservation steps—locations, actions, timelines—after public input and Ministerial approval.
- Nature Restoration Levy: Developers fund restoration projects via a Natural England-managed pot.
- Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs): Natural England could buy land for conservation.
- Environmental Outcomes Reports: New checks on impacts, including overseas effects.
The intent seems solid: the homes we need, and respect for Britain’s nature and climate goals. But the execution? Experts warn it could undermine both nature and progress. Let’s unpack the concerns.
The science says, pause Part III
1. Nature’s safety net weakened
Part III’s levy and EDPs are shaky at best. EDPs could delay compensation for damaged habitats by up to a decade, requiring only “theoretical benefits” rather than proven results. Then there’s Natural England’s existing struggles: its Biodiversity Net Gain credit system is bogged down, leaving nature’s losses unpaid for. The Nature Restoration Fund risks the same fate—good intentions, poor delivery.
2. A step back from strong protections
Compared to the Environment Act 2021, Part III softens safeguards. It skips species licenses, site consents, and robust assessments—potentially clashing with the Bern Convention. Compensation becomes a vague promise, not a measured fix, threatening ecosystems we rely on for clean water, carbon storage, and food security. The UK’s nature—already among the world’s most depleted—can’t afford this slip.
3. Untested and unconsulted
There’s been no proper consultation, impact assessment, or pilot for Part III. The Chartered Institute of Ecologists (CIEEM) calls it a “step back” from what works, rushed through without evidence. The Nature Restoration Fund’s complexity, untested, could falter—just as Natural England’s current systems creak under pressure.
4. Missing nature’s full picture
Part III focuses narrowly on protected species or site features, sidelining ecosystems’ vital roles—purifying water, locking away carbon (UK soils hold 10 billion tonnes), supporting pollinators (£690 million to crops yearly), and bolstering climate resilience. It also disconnects from climate plans like the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, ignoring nature-based solutions to twin crises. The Environment Act’s five principles—prevent harm, fix at source, polluter pays, precaution, integration—get watered down, with a levy replacing real accountability.
5. Economic ripple effects
Developers face uncertainty with unclear EDPs and a tangled levy. All the familiar developer costs, complaints, delays and challenges caused by the Community Infrastructure Levy will inevitably be repeated here. This could mean higher costs from inconsistent surveys and dual rules, slowing homes and infrastructure—and private nature markets could shrink as inward investment is stalled, and landowners avoid CPO with no ‘hope value’, draining funds into process, not progress.
Why this matters: Nature’s fragile state
The UK’s nature is hanging by a thread—19% of species lost since 1970, 16.1% at risk of extinction. Globally, 1.6 billion hectares of degraded land affect 3.2 billion people (IPBES). Each new home adds 50 tonnes of embodied CO2 (vs. 15 tonnes for refurbished ones), and with 1 million empty homes in England, smarter choices could lighten the load. The Doomsday Clock sits at 89 seconds to midnight. Part III’s flaws could nudge us closer to the brink.
What we’re asking MPs to do
We’ve been approaching MPs, with some questions for the Government in today’s debate:
- Why no pause? Part III could reshape every habitat—shouldn’t it go through consultation, assessment and piloting first?
- Expert worries? CIEEM, Zero Hour and experts at Oxford University urge a rethink—will you meet them to refine it?
- Harm prevention? How does this align with the Environment Act’s call to stop damage at source—and that Act’s other key principles?
- Ecosystems first? How will you protect nature’s web, not just fragments of it, amid the Government’s central “mission for growth”?
- Climate link? Why no tie-in with the Climate Change Committee or carbon plans? Where’s the joined-up thinking we need, like the CAN Bill?
- CO2 cuts? With 50 tonnes per home, how will the Government and developers aim to shrink that footprint?
Let’s fix this, together
Most of the Planning & Infrastructure Bill could kickstart progress—so MPs should pass it soon. But Part III needs a science-led reset. Pause it, consult widely, and test it properly.
Let’s build a future where nature and sustainable growth co-exist. Not compete.
Here’s Zero Hour’s briefing for MPs ahead of today’s debate.
