Proposals to grant permitted development rights to conservation measures within EDPs: CIEEM’s response.

CIEEM has responded to a Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) consultation concerning the granting of permitted development rights to actions related to conservation measures in Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP) areas.

New proposals from MHCLG aim to facilitate the delivery of conservation measures within EDP areas in England through an extension of permitted development rights. Conservation measures may include actions that create, restore or enhance habitats, remove pollution, or reduce other disturbances in an EDP area. The permitted development rights proposed amount to a national granting of planning permission for certain developments and activities carried out by Natural England or operators on its behalf. The consultation closes ahead of the imminent publication of the first EDP.

The proposals would allow for a range of developments to proceed without the need for specific planning permission, subject to limits on their size and scope. Examples of such developments include landscaping and excavations to create habitats (such as scrapes and ponds), river re-profiling, the building and maintenance of above- or below-ground habitat structures, and demarcation infrastructure. Other developments included within the proposals concern accessibility infrastructure, such as footpaths and cycleways, electric vehicle charging stations, and small car parks. The consultation also covers rules around slurry storage and temporary survey structures.

It is proposed that certain land designations – such as World Heritage Sights, conservation areas, and registered parks – would be exempt from the extension of permitted development rights, with prior approval remaining a requirement. However, for protected landscapes (National Parks, National Landscapes and The Broads), it is proposed that Natural England’s existing statutory duties towards these areas are a sufficient safeguard against potentially unnecessary or harmful development, therefore these areas would be exempted from the prior approval condition.

Whilst EDPs are not without their controversy, CIEEM is broadly supportive of the above proposals. We recognise the opportunity for these proposals to contribute to the acceleration and expansion of nature recovery to a scale more reflective of magnitude of nature’s decline across England.

The proposals strike a sensible balance between expediting actions that can contribute to the delivery of conservation measures within EDP areas, whilst maintaining a precautionary approach to actions in more sensitive areas through the retention of additional safeguards and approval steps.

We have voiced our concerns, however, on two fronts: firstly, that these proposals risk shifting priority away from avoiding harm to nature as a priority; secondly, that, where mitigation is necessary, they unfairly bias developers against other mitigation measures.

The avoidance of harm is the most foundational aspect of nature conservation. It must not become the case that the EDP model gives developers greater latitude to destroy nature in the first instance, a risk of the EDP approach that we have previously highlighted, and one that is potentially exacerbated by making the EDP route more attractive through this extension of permitted development rights.

Similarly, an easier EDP route may deter developers from exploring other conservation measures that may be more appropriate in certain circumstances. We worry that MHCLG may lose sight of the primary purpose of mitigation, namely the conservation and enhancement of the country’s natural assets for the benefit nature itself, as well as the economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of present and future communities. Protections for nature in the planning system are an investment in the long-term success and sustainability of the nation, not a nuisance to be ironed out or circumvented.

One obvious solution to the issue above –one which we have communicated to MHCLG via our consultation response – is to extend the appropriate permitted development rights to other mitigation measures, or to at least conduct a review into the uptake and utilisation of these measures. Such a consistency of approach would be in alignment with the efficiency-generating spirit of the proposals.

CIEEM is committed to championing the cause of nature as critical infrastructure, not a blocker to sound, sustainable development.