Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust                            ESH0071

Executive Summary of Evidence Submitted by Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

The Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust has submitted the following evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry on housing sustainability. The Trust has significant concerns that current national planning policies, including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), lack sufficient ambition and clarity to balance the objectives of housing growth and environmental protection. We emphasize the urgent need for reforms to support nature recovery and meet our legal environmental commitments – whilst also addressing the country’s housing needs.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust is concerned that the provisions in the revised NPPF do not adequately protect ecosystems or promote biodiversity at the scale required. Key areas of concern include the lack of action to embed more robust environmental requirements within design codes, such as the National Model Design Code, and the absence of specific protections for unique ecosystems – notably chalk streams. The Trust advocates for a more comprehensive review of the NPPF to align national policy with the UK’s environmental commitments, including the goal to restore 30% of land for nature by 2030 and nature recovery targets.

Regarding sustainability and housing targets, the Trust is concerned that the current housing need calculations fail to adequately consider environmental constraints, resulting in fundamentally unsustainable potential development patterns. The Trust calls for the inclusion of environmental factors, such as Local Nature Recovery Strategies, in determining housing need – in order to ensure that housing growth does not compromise ecological recovery.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development as currently applied disproportionately prioritises housing targets over environmental concerns. The Trust recommends recognising environmental constraints as valid exceptional circumstances to adjust housing targets, which would better support climate resilience and nature recovery efforts.

The revised NPPF must deliver social and environmental objectives in tandem through more ambitious national policies and requirements. This includes mandating green space integration into developments through a national greening factor and discouraging the use of impermeable surfaces. Transportation and urban planning policies should focus on sustainability, prioritizing measures that reduce air pollution and enhance active travel infrastructure.

The Trust strongly supports incorporating consistent carbon auditing into local plans and establishing a “carbon reduction delivery test” to align housing development with net-zero goals. The NPPF should more explicitly encourage renewable energy, water efficiency, and climate-resilient infrastructure to address the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.

The Trust has significant concerns regarding how the increased emphasis on housing delivery will potentially undermine local authorities’ abilities to implement policies that protect the environment. We highlight the importance of accounting for past housing oversupply and incorporating Local Nature Recovery Strategies to ensure informed decision-making based on the latest ecological data.

The Trust sees Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) as an essential policy for linking development to achieving tangible environmental improvements, but the current exploitation of exemptions risks undermining its effectiveness. The Trust recommends stricter evidence requirements for developers claiming BNG exemptions to ensure sufficient scrutiny and quality control.

In addition, the NPPF must more explicitly incorporate and reference Local Nature Recovery Strategies and the national Nature Recovery Network as essential evidence to guide sustainable planning. These tools are key for establishing development constraints and identifying areas with high ecological value for conservation.

Finally, the Trust calls for the urgent introduction of the National Land Use Framework – supported sufficiently by/ in the NPPF – in order to steer development away from high-value ecological areas and promote multifunctional land use. This Framework, supported by robust environmental data, would enable more sustainable land management and spatial planning decisions, ensuring alignment with the UK’s environmental and nature recovery commitments.

The Trust’s submission underscores the need for ambitious national planning reforms to achieve housing growth that does not compromise ecosystems or biodiversity. Immediate policy alignment with legally binding environmental targets is essential to ensure sustainable development and meet the country’s climate and nature goals.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust response to The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) call for evidence on Environmental sustainability and housing growth

Introduction:

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust is an independent charity founded in 1961 and together with 46 others we are part of The Wildlife Trusts, the largest grass roots nature conservation federation in the UK with 900,000 members. Locally across Hampshire and Isle of Wight we have over 28,000 members and we currently manage 5,000 hectares of land for wildlife, primarily nature reserves of local, national, and international importance.    

We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Environmental Audit Committee’s call for evidence on environmental sustainability and housing growth. We support the twin objectives of increasing housebuilding while protecting and enhancing nature in the UK.

However, in its current form, we are concerned that national planning policy, and the NPPF, does not possess sufficient clarity and ambition to ensure new development supports nature's recovery across the UK.  In addition, we are concerned that the planned levels of new housing, and the new housing targets, are fundamentally unsustainable; and incompatible with the natural environmental constraints in our region. This risks undermining vital progress towards our legal targets set out in the Environment Act 2021, and alignment with key provisions of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023.

Additional policy interventions to help frontload environmental considerations are crucial for ensuring stability and reliability in the planning system; fostering both public and business confidence. By addressing environmental impacts, opportunities and constraints early in the process through effective spatial development policies, principles and standards, potential issues can be identified and effectively mitigated, reducing the risk of delays, costly revisions, or legal challenges later on. This approach not only enhances transparency and accountability helping to deliver popular support for development, but also helps facilitate smoother project implementation and minimises business disruption. Ultimately, sufficiently environmentally ambitious planning policy at the national level is essential for creating a more predictable and trustworthy planning environment for all stakeholders involved, helping to deliver and unlock truly sustainable new development.

As recommended by the Climate Change Committee and Mission Zero Review, planning needs reform to ensure it is playing its part in meeting both our net zero and nature targets, including a full review of the NPPF to ensure due alignment.[1] We are disappointed that the promised review of the NPPF in response to these reports and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, to comprehensively align it with our climate and nature goals, has not yet been actioned.[2] Indeed, key questions from the previous NPPF review from 22 December 2022 to 2 March 2023 - that focused specifically on sustainability - have not been progressed or actioned in the latest consultation.[3]

The Wildlife Trusts are calling for at least 30% of land and sea to be restored for nature and climate by 2030, in line with national and international commitments. In Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, this equates to roughly 60,000 hectares of land that needs to be protected and enhanced for nature.

In order to align with this ambition and with the UK's endorsement of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, we call on the Government to fully embed and reflect this goal, and our legal target for nature’s recovery by 2030 in the NPPF, backed by sufficient, evidence-based policy mechanisms to ensure that the state of nature is turned around and wildlife starts to recover during this decade.    

Below are our responses to individual questions which fall within our organisational remit.

1. What provisions will the National Policy Planning Framework, as revised under the Government’s proposals, make for protection and enhancement of the environment? Are these provisions likely to be adequate?

Existing policy wording across the NPPF, notably the environmental objectives for sustainable development, plan making and guidance in Section 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, have not being sufficient to ensure new development consistently supports nature's recovery at the scale required. Indeed, part of the cited rationale for introducing the policy of mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG) was to “redress the balance” and ensure tangible environmental enhancements would be consistently delivered in association with new development, beyond what was being achieved through planning policy, local and national.[4] Without standardised requirements such as biodiversity net gain, mandated at the national level, it has proven challenging to consistently deliver adequate environmental protection and enhancement through local policy, given the pressure to meet housing targets.

The proposals put forward in the 2024 consultation rely heavily on the use of design codes, including the National Model Design Code and Design Guide, to promote environmental protection and enhancement beyond previous provisions.[5] Recent news of the abolition of the Office for Place, whose remit included support for high quality design coding, is particularly concerning in this context.[6] The National Model Design Code and Guide provide a detailed basis from which to incorporate nature positive enhancements - and sustainability more broadly - within good quality place making. Plans suggesting a review of the national model Design Code must ensure that this detail is not lost, and all the facets of sustainability currently referred to in good place making and design are retained and strengthened.

For the necessary improvements to ensure suitable nature-friendly design codes, and the National Model Design Code, we recommend referring to ‘Cracking the Code’[7] by RTPI and RSPB on how we can design for net zero and nature recovery. Climate, smart energy, and nature all underpin planning and design, and must be granted equal weight with housing, transport and economic growth in national policy. Design codes can, and should, enable LPAs to set ambitious targets beyond national standards. To achieve this, methodological definitions and the scope of design codes must be improved, to ensure robust environmental assessments can determine possible impacts of the development process.

We are concerned that the NPPF does not currently accord sufficient protection to key ecosystems and irreplaceable habitats, notably chalk streams. Chalk streams are rare and biodiverse habitats. With 85% of these chalk streams in England, it is essential that the Government provide a bespoke protection to maintain and conserve these habitats. To reflect the rarity and uniqueness of these habitats and the bio-abundance which they host, we recommend the following amendments to paragraph 20.

Under 20b) add a sub clause i) ‘or, in the case where headroom in water supply and/or sewage treatment provision does not exist in chalk stream catchments or is not provisioned for through development, provide for such development to be water and/or nutrient neutral’. At present, only one fifth of England’s rivers are in good ecological health, including our chalk streams. This amendment will protect our chalk streams from wastewater and nutrient pollution associated with new development, to maintain high-water quality and achieve water neutrality.

In addition, under 20d) we recommend including a specific reference to the ‘conservation, protection and enhancement of irreplaceable chalk streams, associated riparian habitats and blue infrastructure’ to protect chalk streams as an irreplaceable habitat, alongside other unique and vulnerable habitats such as ancient woodlands. This amendment will ensure that chalk streams are protected within new developments from direct harm to their floodplains and river channels, as well as ensuring that weight is given to indirect harms that may impact the catchment, such as water abstraction.

We also urge the Government to bring forward the long-awaited consultation on the definition and list of irreplaceable habitats in the NPPF, informed by the extensive work of Natural England and its irreplaceable habitats advisory group.  This consultation should expand the list of what habitats are classed as irreplaceable and outline the steps to be taken to support the implementation of planning protections for these habitats.

Lastly, national policy must do more to actively discourage development in riparian corridors, as these areas are increasingly unsustainable for built infrastructure and are of greater value for flood resilience and nature restoration. In line with Natural England’s best practice, buffers of at least 50 meters, including for rivers such as chalk streams, around sensitive habitats are essential for safeguarding both ecological integrity and flood management.[8]

2. What policy levers does the Government plan to use to ensure that local authorities deliver the development which the revised NPPF ‘standard method’ requires? Do the Government’s plans result in local planning authorities being penalized if delivery falls short? What policy levers will be available to local authorities to ensure that developments which have received planning approval are delivered in accordance with consents?

N/A

3. To what extent is the current planning presumption in favour of sustainable development compatible with the environmental objective of the planning system? To what extent will the proposed ‘streamlining’ of the sustainable development presumption work to deliver developments which will meet this objective and be compatible with the Government’s environmental targets and obligations?

We disagree with the Government’s recent proposals to amend the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Through sustainable development, a true balance between providing the homes people urgently need and achieving nature’s recovery can be reached. Within the current NPPF, we do not believe that a truly balanced approach is being taken – with nature often losing out.

Increased housing targets within the New Forest and the South Downs have placed significant pressure on locations between the National Parks and protected wildlife sites, to construct new developments at a high density to meet targets. These developments adjacent to protected sites have indirect impacts on nature, through water abstraction, pollution, recreational pressure and the severing of wildlife corridors. These targets do not appropriately account for nature conservation or our national recovery targets within plans. Likewise, the proposed housing targets and calculation methodology do not currently incorporate sufficient consideration of the requirements of meeting our 30 by 30 commitments, and, in particular, the need to protect the required areas of habitat regionally in order to meet this target. To achieve truly sustainable development, the NPPF must recognize environmental constraints within the methodology for housing target calculation. At the very least, significant environmental constraints must constitute an exceptional circumstance for justifying the use of an alternative approach to calculate housing need. Likewise, it is imperative that both the land use framework and local nature recovery strategies [LNRS] are used to inform sustainable housing targets and requirements in line with local environmental limits, targets and objectives.

The current method for assessing housing need does not adequately consider environmental limits and constraints. To ensure true sustainable development, the housing need method must be revised to ensure that it fully aligns with the Environmental Principles Policy Statement.[9] To do this, the method must ensure social and economic factors are sufficiently balanced with environmental considerations, constraints and key national nature recovery objectives. The importance of both environmental harm prevention and taking a precautionary approach when presented with likely risks, must be fully embedded in planning and associated development targets. Calculation methodologies and planning must take a greater account of the future impacts of climate change, such as coastal change and water supply, as well as protected landscapes and nature recovery sites, in limiting potential development.

We welcome the decision to add explicit reference to the need to consider locational and design policies when applying the presumption in favour of sustainable development (11, d(ii)). However, to ensure that nature underpins these decisions, proposed amendments should make specific reference to chapters 9, 12 and 15. Prioritising and achieving sustainable development is essential for meeting our legally binding domestic and international nature commitments. To halt the decline in species populations by 2030 and address the increased biodiversity duties, as per the Environment Act (2021), new development must provide a net gain for nature.

In addition, we recommend that footnote 7 of the NPPF is amended to include Local Wildlife Sites and priority habitats within the list of areas of particular importance that provide a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of a development, or a clear reason for refusal. Local Wildlife Sites are of great significance as core wildlife-rich habitats of substantive nature conservation value. They represent a major national asset in nature’s recovery and are recognised in statutory guidance for Local Nature Recovery Strategies as ‘areas of particular importance for biodiversity’. These Local Wildlife Sites have no legal protection, so strengthening planning policy to ensure their protection from direct and indirect impacts of development is crucial, through adding them to footnote 7.

We also urge the Government to retain the previous wording of paragraph 61, which set out that ‘The outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting-point for establishing a housing requirement’ and provided further context on the exceptional circumstances where the use of alternative approaches to assess housing needs may be appropriate, in order to reflect the wider environmental and social objectives of the planning system. The proposed amendment - making it very clear that local planning authorities should use the standard method to assess housing needs, by removing reference to the exceptional circumstances in which the use of alternative approaches to assess housing need may be appropriate - would not reflect the broad range of metrics required to measure the true nature of sustainable development, including the quality of dwellings and contributions made to the delivery of Local Nature Recovery Strategies. Local Nature Recovery Strategies can provide a key source of evidence to establish ‘hard constraints’ on development and limits to sustainable growth where nature recovery efforts will experience detrimental impacts and require a reduced housing target. This will be essential for ensuring compliance with our legal target to halt species decline in the UK. The NPPF should be amended to reflect this, and ensure additional weight is given to Local Nature Recovery Strategies in the planning process.

The greater emphasis on mandatory housing targets is inconsistent with the more nuanced approach to achieving truly sustainable development already within the NPPF. In identifying housing targets, and the associated need calculation methodology, further assessments and evidence of the natural environment, environmental limits and deliverability are crucial. Failure to match real housing need with deliverability and evidence of environmental limits will result in pressure and degradation of sites of environmental value. This undermines the valuable ecological services that the natural environment provides, including capacity to supply water, clean air and a landscape that can contribute towards climate change mitigation. Likewise, failure to fully embed such environmental constraints will inhibit the effective delivery of associated new development, as plans are subsequently challenged. We therefore do not believe the housing need and target-setting methodology is fit for purpose, as it does not fully integrate ecological and environmental limits. The current failure to do so does not represent support for truly sustainable development and jeopardises progress towards our Environment Act 2021 target to halt species decline in the UK by 2030.

Furthermore, we are concerned that the proposed stronger emphasis on housing targets does not take sufficient account of the stipulations of the Environmental Principles Policy Statement, particularly the precautionary, prevention and proportionality principles.[10]  For compliance with the principles of the statement, it is essential that a balanced approach is taken, considering the environmental implications fully; alongside social and economic factors. Avoidance or prevention of any potential impacts and taking a cautious approach where there is a potential risk of serious harm must be essential components of planning policy and development. The current methodology for housing does not currently, or adequately, reflect these principles or the associated environmental limits and constraints.

It should never be acceptable for housing development to override legal protections for nature. This has been the case in our local area with the proposed Tipner West development in Portsmouth, where the Council previously cited housing targets as a driving reason for reclaiming SPA/SAC mudflats because environmental constraints could not be justified as an exceptional circumstance. Current plans for this development still risk setting a dangerous precedent, nature protections can be overridden. To create space for nature, we recommend that the footnote under the presumption should be amended to include Local Wildlife Sites. The NPPF must be clear that, in determining housing targets, the direct and indirect impacts on national and local designated sites should be fully incorporated.

To ensure that adequate weight is given to the environment, and environmental constraints, within calculations of housing targets and successful delivery of development, we recommend that the national Land Use Framework should be urgently introduced to underpin decision-making on housing development. This would allow LPAs to engage with strategic spatial planning across sectors to build homes quickly, while ensuring the maintenance of essential ecological services. It is vital that the Land Use Framework follows examples already in place across the devolved nations, and has a due bearing on spatial planning and decision making, to ensure land is safeguarded for nature’s recovery, in line with the UK’s 30-by-30 commitment and nature recovery goals.

Local Nature Recovery Strategies will likewise offer a critical source of evidence for both the ‘hard constraints’ on potential development, and areas of greatest value for delivering nature’s recovery; and should provide evidence for reducing a housing target below that of the current housing need calculations. The NPPF should be amended to reflect this. The NPPF must likewise be clear that, in determining a housing target in local plans, direct and indirect impacts on nationally and locally designated sites, including Local Wildlife Sites, should be incorporated.

We are especially concerned regarding plans to remove the reference to the use of alternative approaches to assess housing need. Alternative approaches should allow LPAs to legitimately adjust numbers based on local conditions and ecological assets, given the necessary oversight is provided by the Planning Inspectorate. Retaining alternative approaches, which are only employed in exceptional circumstances, is essential for ensuring that plans for new development are nuanced and consider the unique demography and environmental conditions in their local area. It should never be acceptable for housing development to override legal protections for nature. This was attempted previously via the proposed development at Tipner West, Portsmouth, where the Council cited housing targets as a driving reason for reclaiming SPA/SAC mudflats because environmental constraints could not be justified as an exceptional circumstance.

As well as ensuring legally protected wildlife sites are considered within assessments of housing need, it is important to consider the demographic landscape. For example, on the Isle of Wight, there is an aging, elderly population and no land bridge, meaning that the true demand for housing may not be reflected accurately in calculations of housing need. To ensure that assessments of housing need are reflective of local demographics and geographies, alternative approaches should be retained, as an important measure to support sustainable development.

In addition, we disagree with the Government proposal to remove the urban uplift by deleting paragraph 62. Through the uplift, development can be concentrated in more sustainable locations, promoting densification and urban regeneration, in line with enhancing local sustainability. By reversing the urban uplift, the pressure for housing development disproportionately increases in rural areas, with undisturbed habitats and land with greater nature-recovery potential placed at risk.

In our local area, we have seen the New Forest housing targets increase to unrealistic levels under the Government’s proposed new method of calculation, with a difference of 101% between current and proposed targets[11]. This percentage increase is significant, with gross figures showing that the New Forest is expected to provide 1,465 new homes, more than double the 729 homes expected under the current method of calculation[12]. With designation as a National Park providing the highest level of landscape protection, as well as designations for SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites, there are strict legal obligations to protect the environment in this area. Increased rural housing targets, resulting from the reversal of the urban uplift, place pressure on these protected sites, including as new developments are constructed in adjacent areas. Such development risks further detrimental impacts on protected sites within the local area through increased pressures of water abstraction, water pollution, recreation on sensitive sites and the severing of wildlife corridors. Furthermore, such development will add recreation pressure on sensitive sites, with a significant risk of degradation if not suitably mitigated for.

This increased pressure for development in rural areas is detrimental to securing nature’s recovery by 2030, with biodiverse, green spaces being more likely to be subject to development. To ensure truly sustainable development, and to support our nature recovery commitments, development must be duly incentivized towards areas of the lowest nature-recovery potential, and sufficient national policies and guidance on buffers introduced nationally to ensure protected sites, and sensitive habitats, are not harmed. The Natural England Nature Networks Evidence Handbook recommends buffer strips of 50 – 100 m for sensitive sites, dependent on the site, and we recommend this is incorporated formally into national planning to ensure adequate protection for nature recovery.[13]

However, we recognise the importance of taking a nuanced approach in the assessment of whether an urban area is appropriate for the uplift. This is why it is essential that the NPPF retains existing wording in paragraph 130 (as discussed below). Many cities within Hampshire, such as Portsmouth, are unable to deliver high housing targets, due to their coastal location, climate change pressures and environmental constraints on expansion for example, neighbouring local designated and protected sites.

4. How will the revised NPPF work to deliver the social and environmental objectives of the planning system? To what extent will it promote outcomes which deliver sustainable social and environmental benefits together, such as access to essential amenities, to public transport and to active travel routes?

As discussed, we are not confident that the NPPF in its current form will work sufficiently to deliver the desired social and environmental benefits from new development consistently.

We support the inclusion of a ‘vision-led’ approach to transport in paragraph 114, setting a ‘vision’ to guide the design of transport and the behavioural interventions required. This approach is valuable given the focus on the outcomes desired – allowing for greater emphasis on sustainable transport solutions and their reflection in placemaking design, such as walkability.

To strengthen commitments to green spaces (as outlined in the ‘Golden Rules’) the Government should introduce sub-clause 114d) to ensure development plans are nature friendly. We recommend the following wording: “design maximizes potential green space, including road verges, which are vital for nature’s recovery”. To realize this commitment, the Government should publish a Local Transport Note on the urban greening of highways to provide mandatory guidance on greening up road verges and streets.[14] Additionally, a hierarchy of greenery for highways should be published; to make it clear which types of greenery are safe and appropriate for their placement.

However, we are significantly concerned regarding changes proposed to paragraph 115. By specifying that development can only be refused on highway grounds if road network impacts were severe ‘in all tested scenarios’, it is likely that unsuitable developments will be accepted, without the appropriate highway infrastructure to support them. This will result in increased traffic, and high levels of air pollution. Under the Environment Act (2021), the Government have a duty to reduce population exposure to air pollution by 35% by 2040. Failure to meet this target will have detrimental impacts on human health, and biodiversity. This is also detrimental to the achievement of Mission 7 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, which aims to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy and increase life expectancy overall.

5. What contribution can the NPPF make to meeting Government targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions? What account does the NPPF take of advice from the Climate Change Committee on reducing the use of embodied carbon as well as operational carbon in the built environment?

The NPPF and national planning policy has a central role to play in meeting the Government's targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction and achieving our legal targets to achieve net zero. As recommended by both the CCC and Mission Zero independent review of net zero by the Rt Hon Chris Skidmore, the planning system must be overhauled to ensure it embeds mechanisms to deliver alignment with our climate targets. The Climate Change Committee progress reports have been clear that insufficient action has been taken to embed its key recommendations for ensuring planning consistently supports the delivery of net zero, including standard carbon accounting mechanism and a net zero test; as echoed in Mission Zero.[15]

We strongly support the inclusion of consistent carbon impact assessment and carbon accounting requirements in planning, in relation to plan making, development management and decision making. This formal incorporation of appropriate carbon accounting and a consistent methodology for carbon handling in the planning system is an essential element in the UK’s drive towards a net zero carbon future, as called for by the Mission Zero Independent Review of Net Zero, and subsequent follow up reports.[16]

The NPPF should explicitly set out requirements for local plans to be carbon audited, and to show emissions reductions in line with the Climate Change Act. It should set out a clear methodology for carbon handling in the plan preparation, alongside a consistent approach to measurement and reporting in development management and decision processes. This should be accompanied by government guidance on a process for local authorities to record and report on development-related emissions data, ultimately to include both operational and whole-life carbon data.

Unlike for housing numbers and the Housing Delivery test, there is currently no consistent test, guidance or methodology for accounting for carbon in plan making. A method for assessing the carbon implications of proposed plans (and options) should be an integral part of plan-making. Without such an assessment, it cannot be effectively demonstrated that a plan is aligned with delivering net zero by 2050, and the applicable carbon budgets (see paragraph 153 in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), supported by the climate duty in s19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). Likewise, without such a demonstration, and the associated evidence, it is hard to see how plans (or spatial development strategies) can be found sound. The NPPF currently expects plans to: “take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change… [footnote] In line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008”; and a ‘sound’ plan should be demonstrably consistent with national policy. Without sound plans suitably tested to ensure quantifiable alignment with the Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA08), the Government cannot be confident that spatial planning is making the expected contributions towards reducing emissions and, in turn, contributing fully to s13 of the Climate Change Act. Likewise, without a robust methodology, local authorities that have declared a climate emergency, or set net zero targets for earlier than 2050, will not be able to accurately and reliably demonstrate that local planning has contributed positively towards achieving these targets.

The current approach to carbon in planning policy and plan-making has clearly not delivered the level of action required to support achieving net zero. Research has found little evidence in adopted local plans of meaningful, quantifiable assessments of action to tackle climate change. As of 2020, only two plans reviewed by CSE were carbon audited and set out carbon budgets. Fewer than half of the others mentioned carbon emissions at all.[17] Of the 24 local authority local plans adopted outside Greater London since 2019 only one – the Plymouth and Southwest Devon Joint Plan – sets out a quantified strategy to reduce its area’s carbon output. In the other 23 plans, the government-appointed Planning Inspector did not intervene to require a carbon target.[18] Where local councils commit to take meaningful action on climate change, experience has demonstrated there is a real risk of ambition being rebuffed by the Planning Inspectorate, as was notably the case with the Salt Cross Garden Village in West Oxfordshire.[19]

A lack of action at the national level has led authorities to proceed to develop and apply their own carbon accounting and assessment methodologies, including the GLA and Greater Cambridge. These approaches could be used and adapted to develop a consistent, clear methodology that could be deployed nationwide, delivering the twin boons of a carbon-consistent approach with the level playing field which industry desires.

Work at the national level to develop a clear, consistent approach(es) to carbon auditing, accounting, measurement and assessment in planning would help avoid needless duplication across authorities and help support action by those inhibited through resource and skills constraints. Likewise, a consistent approach would avoid detrimental levels of variation in approach across localities for the industry, streamlining the process and avoiding both associated disruption and costs. The NPPF and supporting practice guidance should include a ‘carbon reduction delivery test’ (CRDT) or net zero test in planning to ensure all policy and planning decisions are consistent with the path to net zero, a crucial recommendation supported by ‘Mission Zero’ – the Independent Review of Net Zero chaired by the Rt Hon Chris Skidmore. The CRDT would account for carbon reduction due to planning (and not building regulations) and it would audit the plan and associated delivery. Suggested text for the NPPF would be: “The examination of local plans and spatial development strategies should demonstrate they have been prepared and can be delivered in line with achieving net zero by 2050 and in step with the relevant carbon budget.”

Measures to standardise the approach to carbon across planning in order to deliver consistency are supported by businesses across the industry. Over 100 businesses have previously written to the Government in support of introducing standardised carbon accounting requirements in planning.[20] Appropriate metrics, methods and tools for carbon measurement already exist, are widely understood by the industry, and are already being applied by some local authorities including the RICS WLC methodology. A standard reporting format, based on the RICS calculation methodology, would be beneficial across Local Authorities, so that reports are comparable, and workload reduced across built environment organisations.

In addition, the NPPF should be amended to specifically discourage aspects of development detrimental to achieving local climate resilience, such as the installation of artificial grass and substantial increases in impermeable artificial surfacing. Likewise planning should specifically encourage policy and decision-making to encourage, and look favourably on, specific measures designed to enhance climate resilience, including: specific interventions designed to mitigate overheating, such as external shutters and awnings; water efficiency and saving measures, such as greywater-reuse and rainwater harvesting technologies, including mandatory water butts; flood resilience with measures installed in accordance with the industry Code of Practice for property flood resilience.[21] To reduce energy demand in tandem with promoting successful adaptation, the NPPF should specify plans and decision-making should reflect and require compliance with the cooling hierarchy (see London Plan) as similar to the mitigation hierarchy, and associated best practice planning guidance, set at the national level.[22]

To help prevent an over-abundance of similar, overlapping environmental policy frameworks objectives and requirements, the Government should consult on proposals to require Environmental Net Gain, alongside Biodiversity Net Gain, to ensure new development delivers a wider range of ecosystem services from associated enhancements, including climate mitigation and resilience. This should include delivering overall net gains in key ecosystem services across all development types, including NSIPs and minerals projects. Key ecosystem service benefits to be prioritised through Environmental Net gain should include: carbon mitigation and sequestration, air pollution mitigation, climate resilience and adaptation, including local flood risk mitigation, soil health, and nature based solutions for the urban heat island effect. Introducing this approach, as initially promised in the first 25-year Environment Plan, which helped create a coherent framework for delivering a wide range of ecosystem service benefits from new development.

Local Area Energy Plans (LAEP) should become a required component of the evidence base for any Local Plan alongside carbon auditing, to ensure that the energy needs (and therefore carbon emissions) of new developments are planned in such a way as to fit within the decarbonisation strategy for the Local Plan area as a whole.[23] Local Area Energy Plans provide a sound foundation for effective and sustained local action to cut carbon emissions, outlining the changes needed over time to achieve all local commitments on net zero carbon emissions. A LAEP also defines what other actors, such as national government, regulators and energy networks, need to do (and when) for the decarbonisation plan to become a reality. To comprehensively underpin a Local Plan, a LAEP must provide robust technical evidence through analytical techniques that consider the whole energy system (energy, transport and waste), and make consistent use of available data. For example, the energy system scope of the analysis must include: local generation opportunities for low/zero carbon heat and power; distribution networks for electricity, gas and heat; use of distributed hydrogen where regional/national contexts suggest it may be an option, such as near industrial clusters; heat demand in buildings, and the opportunities for managing and meeting it. Transport analysis is likely to include expected demand for EV charging, and its impacts on electricity distribution systems, as well as patterns of modal shift and reduced associated fuel emissions.

6. Will the Government's proposals affect the ability of local authorities to implement policies designed to protect the natural environment in their areas?

We are concerned that the impact of the most recent proposals, including the stronger presumption in favour of sustainable development combined with the elevated housing targets etc as discussed, will impede the ability of local authorities to implement policies designed to protect and enhance the natural environment in their areas, as the emphasis from national planning policy is/will be clearly on facilitating the delivery of increased development.

This risks facilitating more development experiences similar to that of the proposed Tipner West development in Portsmouth, where the Council previously cited housing targets as a driving reason for reclaiming SPA/SAC mudflats because environmental constraints could not be justified as an exceptional circumstance. Current plans for this development still risk setting a dangerous precedent, nature protections can be overridden.

Additional proposals designed to emphasise the delivery of housing risk adding further pressure that will be inimical to implementing local policies designed to protect the natural environment and respect local ecological limits. We disagree that all local planning authorities should be required to continually demonstrate 5 years of specific, deliverable sites for decision making purposes. Housing allocations must be in line with the latest environmental data and evidence. Evidence should include the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, ecological surveying and local ecological expertise, so that constraints and opportunities are recognised, and the mitigation hierarchy is applied from the outset. As Local Nature Recovery Strategies are required to be regularly updated, this will provide vital evidence for informing deliverable sites. Any housing allocations must be based on iterative, up-to-date environmental assessments and evidence.

Promised guidance on how to consider Local Nature Recovery Strategies in planning is significantly overdue. The Government must urgently publish this guidance as soon as possible, to ensure LNRSs are properly considered in plan making.

Maintaining a constant 5-year Housing Land Supply undermines plan making. Local Plans should ensure housing allocations are informed by the most up-to-date, robust, and detailed evidence to ensure that the most sustainable locations for development are identified at the outset and housing requirements do not overshoot the local capacity to provide rigorous environmental data and evidence to support truly sustainable locations.

We likewise disagree that wording on national planning guidance in paragraph 77, the ability to count past oversupply, should be removed. The past oversupply of housing provision should be accounted for when assessing current housing need within any locality. New developments must be delivered at a sustainable density to make space for nature within communities, which provide valuable ecological services, green spaces and strengthen local resilience to climate change. A failure to count past oversupply risks further exacerbating pressure on local authorities to deliver more development that is fundamentally incompatible with local environmental limits.

7. What (if any) trends are observable in (a) delivery of environmental improvements (b) the purchase and trading of credits arising from the Environment Act requirement for developments to yield biodiversity net gain (BNG)? How are planning authorities using BNG in the planning process to deliver environmental improvements from housing development?

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust strongly supports the policy of biodiversity net gain. Along with other Wildlife Trusts, we have invested significant sums in being a BNG provider in order to cater to the associated market. As a BNG provider, we are seeing first hand the associated positive trends, such as rising market demand for habitats, which will play an increasingly vital role in funding our conservation and nature enhancement projects.

Locally, we have experience of alternative policy mechanisms previously tried, including locally run tariff systems administered through LPAs, such as mitigation funds relating to Brent Geese. Issues with these alternative mechanisms are that they do not adequately link the harm to nature to the required gains, leading to unacceptable levels of leakage where the loss of habitats is not compensated for quickly enough, if at all. When the harm is not properly measured, or when the gains for nature are delivered to different timescales, it can lead to a ‘pay to pollute’ scenario, where pots of cash are collected but not spent quickly enough on projects to genuinely address the nature-impacting activities. When compensation measures are seriously out of step with the original habitat losses, this leads to the problem of faster nature depletion through accelerated development, presented as nature-positive offset tariff. BNG addresses these shortfalls by measuring the harm and the gains and ensuring that the latter are secured before the former can take place. BNG is therefore essential for ensuring a close link between development and habitat creation, in order to ensure a sufficient, direct, enforceable contribution to meeting our nature recovery targets from development.

Whilst we welcome BNG and the nature enhancements it is set to help deliver and fund across our region; we have significant concerns regarding reports of the misuse of exemptions, and the impact this is having on both the policy's ability to deliver for nature, and market demand.

Concerning research, including that cited by the Green Finance Institute and Knight Frank has indicated that a worryingly low number of planning applications are delivering Biodiversity Net Gain, with figures ranging from 0.5% to 7% - far below original projections in the original impact assessment and public assertions it would apply to ‘most’ development.[24] Misuse of the exemptions has been cited as a key contributor.[25]

Significant non-compliance and failure to deliver Biodiversity Net Gain represents a serious risk to nature’s recovery. To resolve this, a sub-clause should be introduced to paragraph 43 of the NPPF to ensure that developers must submit proportionate evidence to justify the use of exemptions to LPAs. As a minimum, the evidence should set out the pre-development and post-development value for the onsite habitat. Biodiversity Net Gain, the NPPF must support, including through associated planning practice guidance, more rigorous evidence requirements for developments which claim to be exempt through the de minimis exemption or the self & custom build exemptions. To support this amendment, the planning practise guidance on Biodiversity Net Gain must be updated. Existing guidance on the de minimis exemption must be amended to include the following wording:

‘When providing reasons for the de minimis exemption, an applicant should provide sufficient evidence to support their justification. In cases where the total development area would be smaller than 25 square metres, the description of development, existing and proposed site plans, and the development’s area size (in square metres) may be sufficient evidence.

In other cases where it cannot be clearly demonstrated through site plans and descriptions whether an onsite habitat would be lost or degraded by the development, such as when the total development area is larger than 25 square metres, applicants are strongly encouraged to provide a completed metric for the pre-development and post-development value for the onsite habitat and clear plans identifying the nature and size of this pre-development onsite habitat and how much of it will be impacted by the development. In determining a claim for a de minimis exemption, Local planning authorities teams should, at the validation stage, expect developers to submit proportionate evidence to justify the exemption. As a minimum, the evidence should set out the pre-development and post-development value for the onsite habitat. A completed metric and clear plans will often be sufficient. Alternative forms of evidence should only be considered if the Local Planning Authority has expressly indicated its willingness to accept them’.

This would align with paragraph 43 of the NPPF ("The right information is crucial to good decision-making, particularly where formal assessments are required"). It is essential to make clear that LPAs must expect sufficient evidence, clarifying what is proportionate whilst being fully aligned with the previous text. This suggested wording is taken from paragraphs 200-201 of the NPPF (the archaeology requirements) so as to keep it proportionate and in keeping with current practice. 

An additional paragraph should be introduced in the guidance to provide clarity on the appropriate assessment of self & custom build developments. We recommend the following wording:

‘Local Planning Authorities should take a proportionate approach to validating claims of a self-build and custom-build exemption. Local Planning authorities should, at the validation stage, expect developers to provide a completed metric for the pre-development and post-development value for the onsite habitat and clear plans identifying the nature and size of this pre-development onsite habitat and how much of it will be impacted by the development. Where these show significant areas of onsite habitat will be impacted within the red-line boundary, it may be proportionate for Local planning authorities to ask for additional evidence from the developer to demonstrate that they meet all national and local requirements to be entitled to the self-build and custom-build exemption’.

This is based on the proportionate test set out in Paragraph: 013 Reference ID: 74-013-20240214. This would encourage LPAs to act proportionately, and only require evidence in the event that significant level of habitat is being impacted.

8. How will the revised NPPF operate to promote the Nature Recovery Network and the implementation of local nature recovery strategies by responsible authorities?

The NPPF currently only references the national Nature Recovery Network in footnote 67 to 185. A):

“Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity66; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation”*

*Where areas that are part of the Nature Recovery Network are identified in plans, it may be appropriate to specify the types of development that may be suitable within them.

This is alongside a more general reference to ecological networks in 185 B) “promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species”.

Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs), and their connotations in both planning and plan making, are not currently mentioned directly or in detail.

Local Nature Recovery Strategies will provide a key source of evidence to establish ‘hard constraints’ on development and limits to sustainable growth and areas of greatest value for delivering nature’s recovery; and should provide evidence for reducing a housing target below that of the current housing need calculations. The NPPF should be amended to reflect this.  This will be essential for ensuring compliance with our legal target to halt species decline in the UK. The NPPF should be amended to ensure additional weight to, and clear guidance on how to incorporate, Local Nature Recovery Strategies in the planning process.

9. What use can planning authorities make of the data analysis and modelling being developed under the National Land Data Framework to support planning decisions which lead to better environmental outcomes? How should the NPPF be integrated into the forthcoming Land Use Framework?

To ensure new development does not compromise nature recovery, it is vital that the Government brings forward the National Land Use Framework and ensures that this has sufficient bearing on development planning and plan making. The Framework, should be given sufficient weight in planning should to that development is steered away from areas of the greatest value for nature recovery, encourage appropriate sustainable land management, and ensure the areas of greatest nature recovery value are protected. It should support effective co-operation on cross boundary matters. The Framework should function as an evidence-based mechanism for the delivery of environmental targets and their translation into spatial planning, and as such must be informed by long-term environmental land use targets such as 30-by-30, underpinned by an evidence-based, cross-Governmental accountability process. This will enable informed national and local policymaking and planning decisions, assessed by adaptable, national environmental objectives.

The Framework should also help ensure multifunctional land use and management where appropriate, with the contributions from new development underpinned by the introduction of an environmental net gain requirement in planning. This policy should incentivise the delivery of multi-functional ecosystem services and benefits, alongside the Land Use Framework directing incentives towards desired Land Management objectives, as outlined and evidenced in a comprehensive framework. Such objectives must also be reflected in the Local Nature Recovery Strategies, ensuring sustainable land use and spatial development planning that supports nature's recovery.

To ensure that adequate weight is given to the environment, and environmental constraints, within calculations of housing targets and successful delivery of development, we recommend that datasets used in the Land Use Framework, together with those in Local Nature Recovery Strategies, should underpin decision-making on housing development through explicit reference to the need to consider them in the NPPF. This would allow LPAs to engage with strategic spatial planning across sectors to build homes quickly, while ensuring the maintenance of essential ecological services. It is vital that the Land Use Framework follows examples already in place across the devolved nations, and has a due bearing on spatial planning and decision making, to ensure land is safeguarded for nature’s recovery, in line with the UK’s 30-by-30 commitment and nature recovery goals.

Functionally therefore, we recommend that the NPPF remains focused on the key principles for plan making and relevant policies, referencing the Land Use Framework and the need to consult it explicitly to ensure it is factored into plan making and decisions.

10. What environmental regulatory arrangements within Defra’s remit which relate to the planning process are likely to be under review as potential inhibitors of growth? What effect on environmental protections would reform of these regulations be likely to have?

N/A

For more information, please contact:

December 2024

­­­