October 2025
Peers are now in the thick of the Lords Report Stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, with only a few sitting days left on the clock. What happens next will decide whether this overhaul of England’s planning rules helps to restore nature, or risks unravelling decades of hard-won environmental safeguards.
The Bill introduces new Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) to tackle identified environmental issues, backed by a Nature Restoration Fund that promises a “win-win” for nature and development. These are laudable aims, but the devil, as ever, lives in the regulatory detail.
Right now, too much of that detail is missing. Ministers have said the right things: that the mitigation hierarchy still matters, that irreplaceable habitats will be safe, that precaution and science will guide decisions. However, not enough of this is currently on the face of the Bill or in regulation. And what isn’t in law, can all too easily slip through the cracks...
This week’s debates are, quite simply, perhaps the last real chance for Peers to put the muscle back into these environmental promises before the Bill returns to the Commons. Wildlife and Countryside Link, the biggest environmental coalition in England, is backing a number of amendments to do just that, namely, to give effect to what ministers have said their intentions are.
Putting promises into practice – Amendment 148: Securing key environmental safeguards in regulations
Baroness Parminter’s Amendment 148 would ensure that the Government’s own reassurances on environmental safeguards given to Peers and MPs are written into regulations within six months of Royal Assent. It’s the “trust, but verify” clause for the environment.
This amendment would specifically require clear rules on how EDPs are drawn up, including robust baselines, the application of the mitigation hierarchy, the precautionary principle, and an explicit ban on including irreplaceable habitats.
Without these guard-rails, we risk a future where abstract modelling replaces field evidence, where harm is easily “offset” rather than avoided, and where nature protections depend too much on ministerial goodwill. With them, EDPs could genuinely deliver the “overall improvement test” ministers have promised. Amendment 148 is not a wrecking amendment; it is a reality check. It translates good, stated intentions into enforceable law.
Keeping species safe – Amendment 130: Ensuring new strategic compensation plans don’t put protected species at risk
Next, Baroness Willis’s Amendment 130 would limit the scope of EDPs to large-scale, diffuse issues such as nutrient pollution, air quality and water management - areas where strategic, catchment-level solutions actually work.
As shown by Link’s research, applying this new model to most species is untested at best, and actively harmful at worst. The science just isn’t there yet. Amendment 130 would make sure that what’s truly irreplaceable, our protected species and habitats, stay under tried-and-tested safeguards.
Homes for people and wildlife - Amendments 140, 245 and 246: Building simple nature enhancements into every new home.
Together, Amendments 140, 245 and 246 form a “homes for nature too” package that would help deliver the government’s pledge for the bill to be a ‘win-win’. They would weave wildlife into the fabric of new development, quite literally.
Amendment 245 by Lord Goldsmith, would make swift bricks a standard part of Building Regulations, similarly to air bricks. Amendment 140 likewise proposes embedding broader biodiversity design elements, such as hedgehog highways into new buildings, ensuring that every new home contributes to nature recovery. Amendment 246, on bird safety, would likewise help prevent the needless deaths of thousands of birds each year through simple design measures such as bird-safe glass and lighting adjustments.
The case for such simple, but effective measures is overwhelming. They are cheap, proven, and popular. Swift bricks cost about £30 and last the lifetime of a house. A single tweak to Building Regulations could deliver hundreds of thousands of nesting sites a year, building on industry commitments with a genuine “win–win” for builders and biodiversity alike.
Planning for the planet – Amendment 114 Making climate and nature central to planning.
Lord Ravensdale’s Amendment 114 would create a clear climate and nature duty, aligning planning with the UK’s existing, legally binding targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and Environment Act 2021.
It’s hard to imagine a more common-sense reform. The planning system shapes the very places where climate resilience and nature recovery will either succeed or fail, yet it currently lacks any explicit duty to deliver either. The policy landscape is patchy and inconsistent, leading to challenges and uncertainty. This amendment would ensure that every planning decision actively supports net zero and nature recovery rather than undermining them.
Finally, Earl Russell’s Amendment 44 would update the Forestry Commission’s century-old duties, requiring it to contribute directly to national climate and biodiversity targets and to safeguard irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland.
Why it matters
Peers now have the chance, nearly the last one, to secure these vital improvements and send the Bill back to the Commons with nature at its heart. It’s not about blocking; it’s about ensuring development delivers for both people and nature'.
As the old saying goes, the best time to protect wildlife was twenty years ago. The second-best time is this week, in the Lords Chamber.
The opinions expressed in this blog are the authors' and not necessarily those of the wider Link membership.
Latest Blog Posts