How the government should secure a ‘win-win’ for nature and development in 2026 – Inside track

In opposition, Labour made an important decision, which has guided its policy direction since. It opposed the previous government’s proposal to weaken environmental laws on nutrient neutrality, arguing that housebuilding and environmental protection aren’t mutually exclusive.

Within a year, the architects of this position – Steve Reed and Angela Rayner – were appointed as the cabinet ministers responsible for realising it. In 2024, their departments published a joint working paper which invited views on proposals for a new ‘win-win’ approach to how housing and infrastructure development can contribute to nature recovery.

This was taken forward through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which shifted from requiring developers to secure site specific mitigations, to a system offering payments into a centralised Nature Restoration Fund to address the environmental impacts of development and secure environmental improvements.

Developers would pay into the fund and Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) would set out how damage to protected species or sites would be mitigated and paid for. This approach, alongside rebooting strategic planning, was fuelled by the government’s view that housing need in England cannot be met without planning on a larger than local scale.

After criticism by many that the plans were weak, and from the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), which found them to be a regression in law, the government built in some safeguards.

Lazy narratives should stop
The bill passed in December. Steve Reed now holds the housing and planning brief in government and both he and the new Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds stand by the ‘win-win’ approach.

However, not all parts of government have adopted this philosophy, instead preferring to portray environmental protection laws as burdensome ‘red tape’ holding back growth. Fuelled by misinformation about the infamous HS2 bat tunnel and ‘fish discos’, the prime minister and the chancellor took up the fashionable sport of species bashing. The tiny jumping spider became a media celebrity, blamed for holding up housing development, and this divisive rhetoric has undermined public trust and confidence in the government’s plans.

A cross party Environmental Audit Committee report on environmental sustainability and housing growth has challenged the ‘lazy narrative’ that nature is a blocker to housing delivery, arguing that a healthy environment is not a luxury but a necessity for resilient towns and neighbourhoods.

Natural England’s  chair, Tony Juniper, has also highlighted this ‘false choice’. OEP chair, Dame Glenys Stacey said, at the launch of its annual progress report, ‘…the environment should not be viewed as a blocker to growth. That view is unhelpful and not well thought through. Instead, it is far more realistic and productive to focus on how nature enables, drives and protects economic growth.’

While anti-nature rhetoric appears to have subsided recently, for the ‘win-win’ approach to succeed it must now be banished.

Here are a few tests for whether the government can do that in 2026:

1. Biodiversity net gain
Biodiversity net gain (BNG), a flagship measure of the Environment Act 2021, aims for developers to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state, requiring at least ten per cent greater biodiversity, sustained for 30 years. It attracted international attention as an early ‘nature market’ pioneer but this didn’t protect it from potentially serious government backtracking in 2025. Many raised concerns and, in December, the government listened and said only developments on sites below 0.2 hectares would be exempted from BNG requirements, which was better than feared.

The government should remove the widely abused ‘de minimis’ loophole and rapidly implement BNG for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The forthcoming consultation on a targeted BNG exemption for residential brownfield development will need to be carefully constructed.

2. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025
The implementation plan for the Nature Restoration Fund sets out what to expect from the Planning and Infrastructure Act. Early EDPs will cover nutrient pollution, with the government committed to report on its learnings from delivery and implementation before making EDPs in other areas. This process must allow enough time for reflection before any decisions on further expansion are made.

3. Environmentally positive planning
When people think of nature positive planning, many imagine swift bricks, following effective campaigning from Hannah Bourne-Taylor and others. But it must embrace a whole range of other matters to shift the dial, including where the government has shown historic reticence.

Commencing Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 would be a good place to start, as it would boost and standardise the rollout of sustainable urban drainage systems, such as rain gardens and green roofs, to protect communities from flooding. In January, the Environmental Audit Committee challenged water minister Emma Hardy to explain how the current non-statutory approach will prevent new flood risks as development continues at pace.

Progress on improving protected sites should be another priority. The government has to respond to the OEP’s report on the implementation of protected sites laws by 3 March. This is a good chance to explain how it will reverse the deterioration of many protected places for nature.

Completing the rollout of Local Nature Recovery Strategies across England must be a priority for Natural England. And the commitment to update the statutory purposes of National Parks and National Landscapes should be included in the government’s legislative programme for the second parliamentary session, expected this Spring.

Proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, out for consultation until 10 March, should be put through the ‘win-win’ filter. It’s not immediately apparent that a strengthened presumption in favour of development with less input from specialists and communities is in step with this.

Finally, the government’s vision for new towns includes a welcome commitment to create environmentally resilient places, including nature enhancement and access to green spaces. Ambitious commitment to BNG should be part of its blueprint. Developers should emulate the Houlton housing scheme near Rugby, which built in nature from the outset, with green spaces accessible to the whole community.

This article is based on a piece originally published in the February edition of UKELA’s elaw.