The Planning and Infrastructure Act: nature’s not for sale

How did our campaigning influence the Planning and Infrastructure Act?

Who called for change?

More than 110,000 Friends of the Earth supporters asked the UK government to rethink their plans to give developers the green light to trash nature. Tens of thousands of people told their MPs they didn’t want the bill to undermine the UK’s nature and ecosystems.

And it wasn’t just us calling for action.

Many charities, professional bodies, legal experts and businesses demanded change. These included the RSPB, the Better Planning Coalition, the Wildlife Trusts and the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.  

What changes did we want to see?

Friends of the Earth demanded a complete re-think of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill – not just amendments – with a focus on proper community involvement and nature protections we could count on. We said the bill must be a genuine win-win for both nature and growth. And it mustn’t be filled with vague wording and loopholes that leave precious species, habitats and ecosystems without proper safeguards. 

As a result, ministers offered some concessions.

In July 2025, the government published a package of amendments to address the issues raised by concerned citizens and the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP). But while it welcomed the changes, the OEP said the bill would still “lower environmental protection”. And we definitely didn’t think the changes went far enough. In Autumn of that year we kept the pressure on in the media. We handed in our petition to Ministers during the Labour Party Conference. And carried on lobbying Lords and MPs to explain our continued concerns about these plans, so that they could suggest improvements.  

As far as we’re concerned, weaker nature laws simply aren’t good enough. Ministers claim their tweaks fix everything – but this is window dressing because the flaws remain.

How did all this influence the final law?  

Following massive public and political pressure, the government changed direction on the law a number of times before making it a reality. As a result:

• Developers must better evidence how improving nature in some places would compensate for harming it in others
• Developers must say what nature-protection plans will be carried out and when before a project can start
• The Secretary of State must set out rules for how Natural England should prioritise nature-protection when writing plans

Some harmful changes — like a last-minute amendment that would have made it easier to sell off important green spaces — were scrapped.

Friends of the Earth Merton were praised in the House of Lords for raising the alarm, and showing how this would threaten their local green space.

Some of this is great. Bats, newts and snails aren’t getting all the blame anymore. There are some guardrails in place for protecting nature and restoring it. And the most important existing protections are (just about) in one piece.  So, overall, the huge risk these plans posed to nature has reduced. 

How does the Act continue to threaten nature and communities?

The UK is already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. So we can’t afford to lose yet more of our precious wildlife and habitats.

The Planning and Infrastructure Act poses a serious threat to nature. Here are some of the key issues:

• It weakens existing nature laws, which means our environment will be less protected.
• It removes the legal requirement for developers to avoid harm to nature as their first priority.
• It allows developers to veto any measures to help nature that they view as too costly for their projects.
• It drums up anti-nature rhetoric that’s inaccurate and harmful – even demonising wildlife species like bats and newts for slow development.
• It risks overly relying on compensation to restore nature, which means improving nature in some places to compensate for harming it in others – more on this below…

What’s the Nature Restoration Fund?

The Nature Restoration Fund allows developers to damage nature, as long as they pay for nature restoration elsewhere. Where agreed by Natural England and signed off by the Secretary of State, they can now make a one-off payment into the fund and then proceed with their development as planned.

This form of offsetting is a licence to harm nature. It’s been referred to as “cash to trash,” essentially allowing developers to chip in a few quid to trash nature. Compensatory schemes like this should always be a last resort – avoiding harm to nature must be the first priority for developers.

What’s the impact on communities?

Another worrying aspect of the Planning and Infrastructure Act is its impact on communities. The law will take more planning decisions away from planning committees and put them into the hands of unelected officers. That means developers can effectively bypass crucial committee scrutiny for a wider range of development types, including a new “medium” scale of housing development.

This undermines local democracy. Without local standards in place, there’s nothing to ensure communities will be given a proper say in the planning decisions that really affect them.

How can nature and growth go hand in hand?

Building homes while protecting nature

We know the UK has a housing crisis that needs urgently addressing. But having enough homes and thriving communities doesn’t have to come at the cost of precious nature and wildlife.

We need good-quality housing that’s designed and built sustainably, well located and properly served by local facilities, transport and green space. This can be done without demolishing habitats and ecosystems. Many previously developed sites provide opportunities. And even some green belt land that’s largely devoid of nature due to intensive farming could be suitable in some instances.

The UK could also make better use of second homes and empty homes to help alleviate the housing crisis.

Ultimately, high-quality development can and should be good for nature. For example, developments can create woodland, improve wildlife corridors, manage flooding, rewild former farmland and build or restore man-made structures used by species like bats. There are a few better developers trying to do the right thing. But change in the sector is slow and reluctant.

Learn more about housing and the planet.

What about green infrastructure?

The Act applies to most developments, except perhaps some small sites. This means that it should be easier to build new infrastructure, including for clean energy like solar farms.

Of course we don’t blindly support renewable energy schemes, for example those that would harm protected nature sites. But projects that are well designed, located and built can protect and restore nature, for example by boosting biodiversity and pollinators.

Learn more about where renewable energy infrastructure could go.

How will we keep taking action?

This new law could spell huge risks for people and nature, so we won’t back down.  

We still need:

• Added protections for chalk streams
• guardrails to prevent “cash to trash” our natural spaces and wildlife.
• recognition we’re a nation living in a climate crisis. 
   

We’ll be watching how far and fast these changes are brought in. We’ll keep talking with decision makers and communities. And our lawyers will be ready to keep people and planet safe.  

Corporate profit can’t be placed over people and planet. And we won’t let them continue to tell the lie that we must destroy nature to allow new communities to thrive.