The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) broadly welcomes the intent of the first Environmental Development Plan (EDP) but raised concerns that it does not yet provide sufficient evidence that the intended outcomes for nature will be achieved.
Natural England is consulting on the first EDP drafted under the Planning and Infrastructure Act. It is intended to enable new housing development to take place in Norfolk alongside securing investment for nature recovery.
EDPs are government’s new approach to help achieve its ‘win, win’ for housing development and nature. The aim is that the positive effects of the proposed conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of the housing development by the EDP end date. At the moment, Natural England plans to roll out 23 EDPs across England.
The OEP recognises the positive intent of Natural England’s proposal to use the levy funding for conservation measures that are expected to make the greatest contribution to improving the functioning of wider ecosystems. Many of the proposed measures are capable of delivering valuable benefits for habitats and species.
However, it is the OEP’s view that the draft EDP does not yet demonstrate that the intended environmental outcomes will be achieved. This could risk lowering environmental protection in practice.
Natalie Prosser, OEP Chief Executive, said: “We recognise the considerable work undertaken by Natural England and others to translate the new legislative framework into a practical plan.
“The approach set out in the draft EDP shows the potential for housing delivery and nature recovery to be advanced together. But the evidence and explanations provided do not yet give sufficient assurance that the intended environmental improvements will be achieved. This leaves a risk that environmental protection could be weakened in practice.
“We would also take the opportunity to remind people of the important wider context. The plan is required to address the impacts of nutrient pollution from new housing development on protected sites. These sites are precious places for nature and for people supporting rare and vulnerable habitats and species, helping to reverse biodiversity decline, building resilience to climate change and providing wider social and economic benefits.
“The Government and Natural England have ongoing legal responsibilities to restore these sites, yet rather than improving, the area of protected sites in favourable condition, has declined over the last two decades. Their recovery is important not only in its own right, but also to restore nature in line with government’s wider environmental targets and commitments.
“The protected sites covered by this EDP are severely degraded and continue to deteriorate despite existing plans to improve their condition being in place for some time. They will require significant intervention over a long timescale to recover.
“This EDP must therefore be seen as one part of a much wider programme of action needed to address nutrient pollution and restore these protected sites, and these measures must be additional to the wider actions required in order to fulfil the ongoing legal obligations to restore these sites.”
The OEP identifies the main areas within the draft EDP for further consideration as:
Reliance on compensatory measures
Insufficient evidence is provided in the draft EDP to support the case for relying mainly on compensatory measures rather than combining that approach with mitigation measures that are capable of reducing nutrient pollution at source.
Potential time lag between the negative effects of the development and the positive effects of the conservation measures
There could be a gap between development impacts and conservation measures becoming operational. The EDP provides limited information on delivery timescales, and measures delivered later on may not be fully functional by the EDP end date. This risks them being able to contribute fully to achievement of the required ‘overall improvement.’
Limited analysis of spatial relationship between conservation measures and affected environmental features
The draft EDP provides limited evidence of how certain conservation measures will benefit the specific protected site features affected by development. While upstream nutrient reductions have a clear pathway to impact reduction, links between other measures and affected features are less clear.
Limited detail on monitoring, back-up measures and long-term course correction mechanisms
The draft EDP does not specify when Natural England must implement back-up measures if primary measures underperform. It also gives limited detail on post-end-date monitoring or how evidence would trigger back-up action.
Additionality of the conservation measures
The draft EDP does not explain how the conservation measures are additional to measures otherwise already required under existing legal duties. For example, the conservation measures include managing habitat that appears to be inside the protected sites. The EDP should explain how the conservation measures go beyond existing legal duties to ensure sites are in good condition.
In addition to these points, the consultation response calls for greater transparency around the evidence used in the development of the EDP and how it informed decision making, as well as noting that the monitoring framework has not yet been published.
Separately, the OEP intends to write to government seeking further clarity on guidance it has provided on implementation of the overall improvement test to inform Natural England’s development of this and future EDPs.
“We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this consultation and look forward to continuing to engage with Natural England as this important first EDP is finalised.” added Ms Prosser.
The full consultation response can be found here: OEP responds to consultation on first EDP
