Updated legal opinion on Planning and Infrastructure Bill says it is still regressive
The government’s proposed changes to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill fail to fix its damaging impacts on nature, according to a new legal opinion by leading barrister David Elvin KC.
Commissioned by NatureSpace, the opinion concludes that Part 3 of the Bill – which reforms the way development affects protected species and habitats – “remains regressive” and will reduce the level of environmental protection compared to current laws.
In July, ministers tabled amendments to the Bill following criticism from the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), which warned that the original draft represented a rollback of nature protections. However, Elvin argues that the revisions “fail to achieve the high standards” claimed by government and still promote “development at the expense of environmental protection”.
Among his concerns are changes to the “overall improvement test”, which he says continue to weaken safeguards for protected sites, and new duties on ministers and Natural England which fall short of existing legal standards. He also warns that the Bill creates uncertainty for developers and planning authorities, since conservation measures may be delayed for years and may not be adequately funded.
Angela Rayner, who as Housing Secretary signed a statement declaring the Bill would not reduce environmental protections, was described by Elvin as “incorrect”.
The Bill, currently in the House of Lords, continues to face fierce scrutiny from a range of sectors, including CIEEM.