The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is back in the spotlight this month as it reaches the Report Stage in the House of Lords.  At the heart of the debate is Part 3, which introduces Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) – a new, untested system that would replace many site-by-site nature protections with strategic, landscape-scale planning.   

The Bill’s Report Stage in the House of Lords begins on Monday 20 October 2025. After the Report Stage, it will proceed to Third Reading in the House of Lords (date to be confirmed). Once the Lords have completed their amendments, the Bill will be returned to the House of Commons for Consideration of Amendments. The Government aims for the Bill to receive Royal Assent by early November 2025.  

Current State of Play  

Peers debated the Bill exhaustively at Committee Stage and some progress has been made. After months of pressure from civil society and from the Lords, the Government added stronger ecological evidence requirements, clearer tests, and better reporting to Part 3. 

These are baby steps forward. But fundamental flaws remain. The Bill still weakens legal environmental protection, and many of the key problems with the Bill have not been dealt with.   

The mitigation hierarchy is still missing and the EDP model remains unproven and highly risky.  With the UK already one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth, we can’t afford to gamble on untested ideas. 

The Government claims EDPs will allow developers to compensate for local ecological harm by investing in wider landscape recovery. But there’s a problem: it doesn’t work for most species.  

For rare and protected species like bats, dormice, otters, barn owls, fungi, and invertebrates, there’s no convincing scientific evidence that this kind of offsetting can deliver real conservation outcomes. 

Big Risks to Species  

Wildlife doesn’t live in spreadsheets. Every species depends on real, living places — the ancient hedgerows, riverbanks, and veteran trees that shape our countryside. 

By moving from local, site-specific protection to a national compensation scheme, the Government risks destroying the very habitats these species need to survive. For animals that can’t easily move, like sand lizards, Bechstein’s bats, or oak polypore fungus, losing even a single site can mean local or national extinction. 

And because many of these habitats take decades or centuries to form, there’s no quick fix. You can’t replace a 300-year-old oak or instantly recreate a wetland that took centuries to evolve. 

Beyond the ecological risk, there’s also a moral one. This approach ignores animal welfare. Wild animals aren’t statistics; they are sentient beings. Destroying a badger sett, felling a roost, or flooding a pond inflicts stress, injury and death on the individuals who live there. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 obliges the Government to consider this, but the Bill doesn’t. 

Crucial Amendments in the Lords  

The Lords Report Stage is now critical.  Peers have tabled several crucial amendments that could make the difference between a Bill that safeguards nature and one that sweeps it aside. 

Some of the key amendments being tabled by peers are as follows.  

• Removal of Part 3 

We have campaigned for months for Part 3 to be removed in its entirety because it poses such serious risks to nature. We still believe this is the safest option – and there is some support for this in the House of Lords.   

There are 42 amendments from Lord Roborough (Conservative), Lord Blencartha (Con) and Baroness Jones (Green) to delete Clauses 53-92, which together make up Part 3 of the Bill. 

They argue that the proposed Environmental Delivery Plan system lacks evidence, gives too much unchecked power to Natural England, and encourages developers to pay for damage rather than avoid it. With its one-size-fits-all approach to habitats and species, they believe – like us – that Part 3 is fundamentally flawed, and that only deleting or scaling it back can prevent lasting harm to nature and public trust. 

However, given the Labour Government has such a large majority in the House of Commons, we are not confident these amendments will be accepted. Other amendments are therefore vital.   

• Putting the Mitigation Hierarchy into the Bill  

The mitigation hierarchy – avoid harm first, then mitigate, and only compensate as a last resort – is one of the most important principles in planning. 

Currently, the Government says this hierarchy has a “role” in EDPs, but it is not included explicitly within the Bill. That’s not good enough. Without it, we risk a “cash-to-trash” approach, where destruction is paid off with vague promises of restoration somewhere else. 

Amendment 148, tabled by Baroness Parminter (Lib Dem), Lord Gascoigne (Con), Baroness Young (Labour) and Baroness Willis (Ind) would make the hierarchy legally binding within EDPs. It would also embed the precautionary principle, i.e. if there is doubt that mitigation will work, the risk should not be taken.  This safeguard would give Natural England the power it needs to resist pressure to sign off risky schemes. 

• Restricting the scope of EDPs   

EDPs may have a place, but only for environmental impacts that can realistically be managed at a strategic level. Given the huge risks to species, this amendment could be one of the most crucial.  

Restricting the scope of EDPs is the goal of Amendment 130, led by Baroness Willis (Ind), Lord Roborough (Con), Baroness Young (Lab) and Baroness Grender (Lib Dem).  It would limit EDPs to water and air quality issues, where coordinated regional schemes (like nutrient neutrality programmes) have already shown success. 

This amendment would prevent the Bill from being misapplied to species conservation and draws a clear boundary – use EDPs for diffuse pollution problems but keep them away from species and habitats that need targeted, site-based protection. 

• Proper Protection for Chalk Streams 

Few landscapes are as iconic or as fragile as England’s chalk streams. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams flow here, yet many are under threat from pollution, abstraction, and development. 

Amendment 94, tabled by the Bishop of Norwich and cross-party colleagues, would give these precious rivers the protection they deserve. It would require Spatial Development Strategies to list local chalk streams and set out measures to safeguard them from damaging development. 

If the Government won’t legislate, it must at least update planning rules – adding chalk streams to the National Planning Policy Framework’s list of irreplaceable habitats and activating the Levelling Up Act’s stronger duties on local nature recovery. 

• Other Steps to Strengthen the Bill for Nature 

Peers from all benches have tabled a number of other practical proposals to strengthen the Bill for both people and wildlife, such as:  

• Amendments 9 & 10 (Baroness Pinnock): Keep pre-application consultation for major infrastructure projects.
• Amendment 44 (Earl Russell et al): Give the Forestry Commission a legal duty to support nature recovery.
• Amendment 114 (Lord Ravensdale et al): Embed climate mitigation and adaptation in planning law.
• Amendments 140 & 245 (Baroness Grender, Lord Goldsmith et al): Mandate swift bricks and hedgehog highways in new developments.
• Amendments 88 & 237 (Baroness Willis et al): Guarantee access to green and blue spaces for people in new developments. 

Wrong Direction: Late Government Amendments 

Not all recent changes move in the right direction. On 13 October, the Government tabled a batch of late-stage amendments under Treasury pressure.  Some tidy up technical points, but others threaten to undo months of progress. 

• Amendment 64, letting ministers override councils that refuse planning permission.
• Amendment 68, reducing Natural England’s ability to advise on developments.
• Amendment 136, extending EDPs into marine environments without consultation and overlapping with the existing Marine Recovery Fund. 

These proposals are rushed, unclear and politically motivated – not the result of careful environmental policymaking. Peers should reject all three. 

The Bottom Line  

The Bill’s supporters claim that strong environmental rules hold back growth. This is simply not true. In fact, it’s the opposite. Healthy ecosystems underpin our economy, our health, and our future resilience. Weakening those protections doesn’t speed up growth, it sabotages it. 

The UK’s most ambitious house-building years, between 2002 and 2007, happened under the existing Habitats Regulations. Nature wasn’t the problem then, and it isn’t now. 

Wildlife is running out of time. There is still time to salvage this risky, damaging, poorly thought through Bill – but there is a lot riding on the House of Lords in the next few weeks.  Let’s hope they make the strongest possible case for nature. We will be watching.