CIEEM Planning and Infrastructure Bill Activity Summary (August – November 2025)

Welcome to the third edition of our Planning and Infrastructure Bill (PIB) Newsletter. A lot has happened since the last edition and we’re now at the very pointy end of its parliamentary journey.

Below is a detailed update on developments surrounding the PIB from August 2025 to today – including CIEEM’s significant work, our reaction to yesterday’s vote, and how you can continue to engage.

What We’ve Been Doing: August-November 2025

4 August: Briefing on Part 3 and the Development Sector

• We published a briefing for developers and constructors analysing what Part 3 means in practice.
• The paper showed that the Bill is unlikely to deliver the certainty or speed promised by Ministers – instead introducing more complexity, more bureaucracy, and more uncertainty for developers.
• Key concerns:
  • unpredictable EDP requirements,
  • confusion over how baseline data and compensation will be evidenced,
  • reduced private investment in mitigation, and
  • potential conflicts with international trade obligations.

18-21 August: Defended the Precautionary Principle

• When rumours emerged that the precautionary principle could be removed, we acted quickly.
• On 21 August we sent a formal letter to the Chancellor raising serious concerns over the implications for regulatory certainty and nature protection.

27 August: Published CIEEM’s Proposed House of Lords Amendments

• We set out eight targeted amendments for the House of Lords Committee Stage.
• These sought to:
  • embed the mitigation hierarchy in legislation,
  • require the “overall improvement” test to be legally challengeable,
  • exclude irreplaceable habitats from EDPs, and
  • ensure transparent, enforceable EDPs with strong baselines.

2 September: Parliamentary Roundtable

• We hosted a cross-party roundtable chaired by CIEEM President Penny Lewns and sponsored by Baroness Barbara Young, bringing together parliamentarians and ecological experts.
• The event elicited strong concern over Part 3’s potential to weaken environmental safeguards and highlighted systemic issues such as under-resourcing of ecological expertise in planning authorities.
• The discussion also emphasised deeper systemic issues including public and political ecological literacy, and the need for a long-term vision for planning reform.

12 September: Updated Legal Opinion

• We noted the legal opinion of David Elvin KC, commissioned by Nature Space, that concluded that Part 3 remains regressive, even after the Government’s earlier amendments.
• It noted risks including: delay in conservation outcomes, weaker duties for statutory bodies, and lack of binding commitments for compensation.

23 September: Meeting with the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit

• We met with the PM’s Policy Unit at 10 Downing Street to press for truly nature-positive planning reform.
• Our discussions centred on how to align development with nature recovery, and how ecological expertise must be more deeply embedded in policy design.
• We underlined the importance of resourcing ecological capacity within local planning authorities and statutory bodies – a point strongly echoed in our March 2025 policy briefing.

Late September-early October: Labour Conference

• At the Labour Party Conference we raised awareness of the Bill’s implications for nature recovery at a jointly hosted event with SERA.
• Our blog on the conference highlights the many instances where nature was not raised as an issue blocking housebuilding.
• We also highlighted a new housebuilding report, which supports the growing evidence that nature is not a blocker to development.

14 October: Government’s Late-stage Amendments

• The Government tabled new amendments that included:
  • introducing “holding directions” enabling Ministers to pause local planning refusals,
  • extending the Nature Restoration Fund to marine developments,
  • reducing the statutory role of Natural England in planning, and
  • fast-tracking wind and reservoir infrastructure via NSIP re-designation.
• We raised concerns this may increase ministerial discretion without reinforcing ecological safeguards, but also that these late amendments did not give time for adequate scrutiny.

20 and 24 October: Revised Briefings for Peers

• We issued new briefings asking Peers to support amendments around:
  • limiting the scope of EDPs through Lords Amendment 130 (which later became Amendment 40 in the House of Commons), and
  • introducing habitat buffer zones and wildlife-friendly design requirements.

2 November: Call for Member Action

• We called on you, our members, to contact your MPs urging support for Amendment 130, which focuses EDPs on diffuse pollution impacts rather than allowing broad-brush disapplication of key protections.

12 November: Joint Letter with Environmental and Business Organisations

• We co-signed a letter with leading environmental and business groups sent to Labour MPs, urging retention of Amendment 40 (previously Amendment 130) and recognising that biodiversity protection and economic growth go hand in hand.

Yesterday’s Vote and Our Response

Yesterday’s vote was a crucial moment. While Peers in the House of Lords previously supported Amendment 40 (previously 130) with a large cross-party majority, MPs in the House of Commons failed to pass key safeguards – including Amendments 38 and 40.

It was disappointing that the government rejected the amendments and urged MPs to vote against them. The Planning Minister, Matthew Pennycook MP, said: “On Lords amendment 40, as I said, we do not believe there is any compelling case for limiting the application of EDPs just to the issues that are covered by the amendment: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I think the challenge […] was that applying EDPs to species will somehow cause harm. That is not the case.

This is patently not true as an EDP set up for a protected species will allow for the complete disregard for that species within the EDP, on the basis that enhancement will be undertaken for the benefit of that species elsewhere and at some time in the following 10 years.

The Minister continued: “Limiting the environmental impacts that can be covered is unnecessary because the overall improvement test that I have mentioned ensures that an EDP can be made only where it will have an overall positive impact on the environmental feature. I mentioned district-level licensing of great crested newts, which is an example of where a strategic approach can lead to better outcomes for nature, and that is the approach we are taking forward in this Bill.”

This completely fails to recognise that District Level Licensing for GCN has been set up under existing legislation, that strategic licencing similar to this is already being piloted by Natural England for other species, and that the case has previously been made that this approach will not be appropriate for all protected species.

On Amendment 38, which would give added protection to chalk streams, there was a small concession from the Planning Minister who said: “I am minded to include chalk streams in the suite of national policies for decision making coming later this year.”

Amendment 40, which would restrict the use of EDPs to just diffuse impacts (i.e. nutrient neutrality, water management and air quality) was subsequently taken to a vote, which the Government won by 244 votes to 132.

We are deeply disappointed. Why?

• Misinformation is still influencing debate: Myths about nature “blocking” development persist, yet evidence shows that it very rarely does. A leaked briefing to Labour MPs misleadingly says that nature conservation groups welcomed and supported the new Government amendments introduced in July, which we did as they partially improved the Bill but omits that we also said that the Bill still has a long way to go. Conservation groups, leading legal minds and the Office for Environmental Protection continue to view the Bill as a regression of environmental protections. A false binary was also proposed by Mike Reader MP that it is either the Government’s proposed Bill or the status quo, ignoring the fact that there are myriad other options available as noted in CIEEM’s planning solutions briefing paper. He further suggested that nature conservation groups are “very well-funded” and have “lots of spare time on [our] hands”, seemingly to stymy Government’s ambitions.
• EDPs will not speed up development: Evidence shows that planning delays are rarely driven by environmental protections – so creating new EDP mechanisms is unlikely to deliver the speed that Government hopes for. In fact, the introduction of new layers in the planning system may actually slow things further.
• Risk of a more convoluted system: Part 3 introduces unclear legal thresholds, more ministerial discretion, ambiguous compensation tests, and a separate EDP process alongside established planning and mitigation regimes. Rather than simplification, this may result in greater complexity, confusion and unpredictability.
• Critical protections are still at risk: The Bill still allows disapplication of major environmental legislation (i.e. the Habitats Regulations, the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the Badger Protection Act) via EDPs under specified conditions – which we believe are not sufficiently robust nor appropriate.

We would like to thank the Peers in the House of Lords for their hard work in improving this Bill, and the MPs from across the political spectrum – particularly those from the party of government – who spoke up for common sense, nature and the public good. John McDonell MP’s speech is particularly worth watching.

A small group of MPs will now assess the reasons for rejecting the Lords’ amendments, including amendment 40. After which the Bill will return to the Lords on Monday 24 November 2025. There remains a possibility that Peers will insist on reintroducing Amendment 40, especially given the large majority and cross-party support that it received in the upper chamber.

What CIEEM Will Do Next

We remain fully committed and continue our engagement work:

• We will continue direct engagement with MPs, Peers and Government ministers, pressing for stronger protections and re-introduction of crucial amendments.
• We will continue to work with partners, stakeholders and the media to amplify our common messages.
• We will prepare new briefings, including for you to engage with your MP.
• We will monitor the remaining parliamentary stages of the Bill, publishing news and briefings on progress.
• We will continue to amplify our message that:
  • we recognise that the planning system can be improved and again offer our expertise in doing so,
  • nature is not a blocker to development,
  • this Bill is unlikely to speed up development, and may indeed make the planning system more convoluted – undermining ecological recovery, developer certainty and confidence in Government, and
  • there are alternative and achievable ways to deliver the Government’s ambitions to speed up development and secure nature protection and recovery.

How You Can Help

Your voice is invaluable – here are ways you can act:

• Reach out to your MP: When our new briefing is published, please engage with your MP. In the meantime, you may like to thank your MP if they voted for amendment 40, or to express your disappointment if they voted against it (list of MP votes).
• Share your expertise and experience: Share your professional insight wherever you have the opportunity to do so – your real-world examples strengthen our collective case.
• Counter the misinformation: Where you encounter claims that nature protection “blocks” development, use the growing evidence to correct the record.
• Stay informed and ready: Watch out for our updates and calls to action. Timing is critical – mobilised members make a difference. Keep up-to-date with our dedicated PIB webpage.

Closing Thoughts

While yesterday’s vote was disappointing, it also reinforces how critical our engagement is – and how much work remains. Thank you for your sustained support and professional commitment. With over 9,000 members, our collective voice is authoritative, respected and increasingly influential. Together, we will continue to drive the reform of planning for better outcomes for nature, people and the economy.

We will be in touch very soon with our next briefing. In the meantime, if you have any questions or wish to get involved further, please do reach out at policy@cieem.net.