Ellie Chowns MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister explicitly address the concerns expressed by the OEP, in its advice on clause 58, about the fact that there is no requirement to consult? The Secretary of State “may direct” Natural England to consult on an amendment, but does not have to. There is also no mandatory requirement to initiate a review or to update an EDP if there is evidence that it is failing to achieve its intended effects.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a genuine question and concern. Under the Bill, Natural England has responsibility, as advisers, preparers, developers and deliverers, to implement the EDPs, and it is also judge and jury on the effectiveness of EDPs and whether they are doing the job that they are intended to do. That is a lot of functions to give to one body. There are not checks and balances within that system. This is no comment on the expertise and commitment of Natural England. I am certain that everyone working for that body shares my and the Minister’s desire to see the natural environment thrive and improve, but the reality is that the Bill’s structure and the responsibilities that it gives to Natural England span the full gamut, from implementing to checking, and that is effectively a conflict of interest, is it not?

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Dr Huq. I thank the Minister for his comments. He emphasised that his intention in the Bill is to continue to protect nature at the same level, but differently. He emphasised a different but not worse approach. I share his desire to ensure that even if it is different, it is not worse, but I am concerned about the way the Bill is framed. In clause 55, we are really getting to one of several cruxes of the matter. The Secretary of State’s environmental statement on the front of the Bill states: “the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.” A completely different opinion is expressed, however, in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection, whose people know about this issue. I am glad that the Minister said yesterday that he is considering very seriously what the OEP said; I read the letter again in detail this morning—it is really hard-hitting. The Minister points out that Natural England thinks there is no problem with the application of the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not the opinion of the Office for Environmental Protection. Given that Natural England will effectively have a conflict of interest under the Bill’s provisions, we need to pay serious attention to what the OEP says. I very much look forward to his promised comprehensive response to the OEP’s advice. Amendment 20 is essential to ensure that the overall improvement test applied to EDPs, which is mentioned in clause 55, is robust, scientifically grounded and consistent with domestic and international environmental law. It is about making sure that when we talk about overall improvement, we really mean it—not on paper, not in theory, but in reality. Amendment 119 makes a simple but essential change. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as set out in the OEP’s advice, there is a high degree of certainty established in statute and case law that environmental standards will be maintained beyond reasonable scientific doubt. In the overall improvement test in clause 55, however, conservation measures need only be “likely” to ensure that the environment is maintained. That leaves huge leeway for ministerial subjectivity, and it opens the door to damaging development. It is a clear regression in environmental law. Again, that is emphasised very clearly by the OEP, which states that the test in clause 55 “would be considerably more subjective and uncertain than under existing environmental law.” How is that compatible with the statement on the front of the Bill? It cannot be. Given that the Minister has assured us that it is not the Government’s intention to weaken environmental protections, amendment 119 would fix the loophole by replacing the words “are likely to” with the word “will”. That would mean that an EDP would require an objective test that conservation measures will achieve an overall improvement. This amendment is not about gold-plating; it is simply about matching the level of certainty that currently exists in law and assuring the House that environmental protection will be maintained. I would be deeply worried if the Bill passed as it stands, with the weakening in certainty, because that would clearly be contrary to the Government’s statement on the front of the Bill. Amendment 20 sets the minimum legal and scientific thresholds that must be met before an EDP can be said to pass the overall improvement test. Again, the advice from the OEP is very robust—there needs to be scientific certainty. Amendment 20 would specifically introduce safeguards when protected nature sites are involved, such as European sites, Ramsar wetlands and other internationally important conservation areas. Amendment 20 would ensure that the Secretary of State must apply a standard of evidence equivalent to the rigorous integrity test under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This is not new law; it is a reaffirmation of the protections that have guided habitat conservation for decades, ensuring that there is no regression, as per the Environment Act 2021. The amendment is absolutely necessary, otherwise clause 55 risks watering down the existing protections. Let us not forget what is at stake here. The UK has 658 designated special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites across the four nations. They include places of global ecological importance— the Norfolk broads, the Severn estuary and the north Pennines—and places that are very dear to my own heart, such as the River Wye and its catchment. These places support rare and endangered species, and are central to our commitments under the Bern, Bonn and Ramsar conventions. However, many of them are already in unfavourable condition. Natural England’s latest data shows that only 38% of England’s sites of special scientific interest are in favourable condition and many of those overlap with European sites. This amendment would provide three layers of safeguards. First, it says that an EDP cannot be approved if it would harm the “integrity” of a European or Ramsar site, unless that harm is either fully avoided or meets the high bar set under existing habitat regulations. Secondly, it would require Natural England to demonstrate that “all reasonable opportunities” to avoid or minimise harm have been taken. Thirdly, the point about the mitigation hierarchy is really important—we will discuss it again when we debate a future clause. It is a key concern for the Office for Environmental Protection and all who care about nature. The mitigation hierarchy means that we avoid environmental harm before we go to mitigation or offsetting. The problem with EDPs, as they are set out under part 3 of the Bill, is that they shift straight to offsetting. As I tried to explain yesterday, some things cannot be offset; irreplaceable habitats cannot be offset. In addition, unless we are certain that offsetting is done in advance and that the habitat is linked to the one being destroyed, that could lead to the inadvertent destruction of species—for example, dormice, as I said yesterday. It is important that the Bill strengthens the commitment to the mitigation hierarchy and that that strengthening is written into the Bill, as well as ensuring that the overall improvement test is compatible with the existing level of protection under existing environmental law. The expert advice of the OEP directly supports the points that I am making. It concluded that the overall improvement test, as currently drafted, would weaken existing legal protections, and has consequently called for amendments to ensure that the test aligns with environmental law and principles. We also need to ensure that the UK remains compliant with international and trade obligations. Under the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, we are bound not to weaken environmental standards in ways that affect trade or investment. Removing or diluting protections for SACs and SPAs through a vague or permissive improvement test could fall foul of that requirement and expose the Government to legal challenge. Fundamentally, the amendment also reflects the will of the public. More than 80% of people support strong legal protections for nature sites, even when development is proposed. I fully agree with the Minister’s articulation of the view that development does not have to come at the expense of nature—it is absolutely possible to build the houses that we need in a way that respects and indeed improves nature protection—but we can do that only if the legal framework ensures that development takes place in that way. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that the clear weakening of environmental protections, as outlined in the current drafting of the Bill, will lead to the opposite of what the Government say they want to do on the front of the Bill. These two amendments do not prevent development. They simply ensure that development is compatible with the integrity of our most protected sites, give effect to long-standing legal protections, uphold the Office for Environmental Protection’s recommendations, and ensure that the overall improvement test is not a loophole but a genuine environmental safeguard. I strongly urge hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support both amendments if we are serious about development going hand in hand with nature protection.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have two points. The first was raised by the Office for Environmental Protection in its advice. I was going to come to it when discussing clause 58, because it is specifically about the amendment of EDPs. Only Natural England and the Secretary of State get to decide if an EDP should be amended. There is not even any requirement for consultation. There is no mandatory requirement to assess whether an EDP is doing its job. If we are to trust Natural England and the Secretary of State to do that, when they will both have an in-built interest in declaring that an EDP is doing its job, there is no mechanism for ensuring that an EDP is actually meeting the outcomes that are envisaged. The Minister asks us to trust in the good judgment of the Secretary of State, but I remind the Minister that previous environmental Secretaries of State—who would, under these provisions, have been expected to make these decisions—include Liz Truss from 2014 to 2016, Owen Paterson from 2012 to 2014, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and Thérèse Coffey. Those are not people who necessarily share the Minister’s espoused commitments, and not necessarily people who everybody who cares about nature protection might automatically trust to make important and sensitive judgments about whether environmental protection is taking place. The entire point of a Bill—we talked about this in a previous sitting—is that it sets out what has to happen and why, because we cannot simply trust whoever happens to be in the seat of Secretary of State to always do the right thing. That is why we have law. I beg the Minister to recognise that we cannot simply trust the judgment of whoever happens to be Secretary of State for the next however many decades. The Bill must be written correctly, so that it embeds environmental protections and does not leave the door open for activity contrary to the Minister’s stated aims.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  With respect, I do not think that the point made by the shadow Minister does make the Minister’s case for him, because it was about taking a site-by-site approach, which is not a good analogy here. We already have capacity under existing environmental law to take a district-wide approach—for example, district-level licensing for newts. I am not opposed to that at all; it is a very good idea. That is not the issue here; the issue is the degree of certainty. If the Minister maintains his position that EDPs must only be subject to an “are likely to” test, how is that compatible with the absolute certainty on the front page of the Bill that it will not result in any decline in environmental protection? How can lots of “are likely tos” add up to the certainty that the Secretary of State sets out on the front page of the Bill? They simply do not.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill overrides that.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  And my amendment is sensible.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse. The amendment relates to the mitigation hierarchy. As previously, I refer to the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection, which called particular attention to the weakening of the mitigation hierarchy in the wording of the Bill. The OEP advice to Government mentioned that specifically in relation to clause 50. My amendment relates to clause 61, but it refers to precisely the same issue. The mitigation hierarchy is a tool that delivers for nature and for development. It has done so for many years. The omission of the hierarchy from environmental delivery plans will therefore undermine their effectiveness as a means of delivering nature recovery and smooth development progression. The Minister has been at pains to reiterate his view that nature protection and development can happen hand in hand. I completely agree, but if the mitigation hierarchy is removed entirely—as, in essence, it is by the wording of the Bill—unfortunately that will not happen. To be specific, the mitigation hierarchy directs development plans to prioritise actions to avoid harm to nature first, then to minimise harms and, as a last resort, to compensate for the impacts of development on biodiversity. The hierarchy is avoid, minimise and mitigate, and compensate or offset. The “seeking to avoid damage first” principle is enormously important for nature. Natural habitats and species populations take a really long time to build up; some damage can take decades to be replaced or repaired by mitigatory action. I have already spoken about irreparable habitat damage. Such damage to what is known as irreplaceable habitat, and the species that rely on it, cannot be repaired. For example, ancient oaks grow over hundreds of years to create complex ecosystems with species that have evolved alongside the oaks and need those ecosystems to thrive. Research suggests that 326 species in the UK can only survive on established and ancient oak trees, so the destruction of an ancient oak, such as the one tragically felled in Whitewebbs Park in Enfield a few weeks ago, or—even worse—of a whole swathe of ancient woodland, means the destruction of the only home possible for reliant species in that area, in effect signing their death notice. Any replacement woodland would take centuries to become an ancient woodland ecosystem, even if the conditions were perfect. That delay is so long that species cannot survive it, making the replacement effectively redundant. Without the mitigation hierarchy, there is no decision-making framework to prioritise avoidance of such fatal damage to irreplaceable habitats such as ancient oak woodlands or to other habitats, and of threats to the future of reliant species. That gap in the framework causes problems for development as well as for nature. The famous bat tunnel, mentioned previously, in part stemmed from a High Speed 2 failure to apply the mitigation hierarchy properly at the start of the process, at the point of design. Had that hierarchy been applied early and in full, avoidance to damage to an ancient woodland, home to a large number of threatened species, including the extremely rare Bechstein’s bat, would have been prioritised—avoidance would have been prioritised—preventing the need for clumsy attempts at mitigation measures such as the tunnel. Swift and effective use of the mitigation hierarchy at the start of a proposal can nip development problems in the bud. Given the effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy as a development planning tool, therefore, it is deeply concerning that clause 61(3) will, in effect, disapply the mitigation hierarchy from environmental delivery plans. That was confirmed in a recent answer by the Housing Minister to a parliamentary question, where subsection (3) was described as enabling a “flexibility to diverge” from the mitigation hierarchy. Departure from the mitigation hierarchy risks environmental delivery plans, permitting the destruction of irreplaceable habitats and causing damage to other habitats and reliant species. It also threatens bumps in the road for EDPs as a development progression mechanism and, if EDPs permit measures that would destroy irreplaceable habitats, they will lose the confidence of nature stakeholders and local communities and be more open to challenge, potentially to the extent of a replacement being required and development delayed across whole areas. My amendment would head off those risks by applying the mitigation hierarchy to EDPs, just as it applies to other planning decisions under paragraph 33 of the national planning policy framework. It would instruct Natural England to accept an application to pay a nature restoration levy for a development only if the developer has first taken reasonable steps to apply the mitigation hierarchy. The requirement to demonstrate consideration of the mitigation hierarchy created by my amendment would not be a heavy one. Compliance with the requirement could be demonstrated by the developer explaining how development proposals have been informed by efforts to prioritise the avoidance of harm to environmental features. As part of the explanation, the developer could, for example, propose planning conditions being used to secure onsite measures to reduce harm, such as including green infrastructure; many developers will already be looking to integrate these features anyway because they recognise the wider health and wellbeing benefits that green infrastructure in developments can deliver. The use of the words “reasonable steps” in my amendment would also help to ensure that developers’ consideration of how to apply the mitigation hierarchy would not be onerous. The amendment has been drafted in an effort to reinforce commitment to the mitigation hierarchy without creating unreasonable expectations. The consideration of the mitigation hierarchy would be a matter of factoring in environmental considerations and efforts to avoid irreparable damage into early development plans and demonstrating to Natural England that that has been done, rather than any lengthy assessment process. Much of the work should already have been considered and recorded as part of the initial process of identifying development sites, designing a development and assessing biodiversity net gain requirements. The amendment also provides an extra degree of protection for the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats, about which I have already spoken in this Committee, by allowing levy payment requests to be accepted for developments that would damage these rare sites and habitats only when there is an overriding public interest for the development to proceed. That would apply to only a very small number of developments, as the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats are sadly small in number and, as I have emphasised, irreplaceable. There is a reason why the mitigation hierarchy has been used since the 1980s—almost my entire life—as a decision-making framework in UK planning and why it still has a central place in the revised NPPF: it works for nature and development alike. The amendment would ensure that EDPs benefited from the mitigation hierarchy as other parts of planning do. It would ensure that they were able to catch and delay costly development mistakes before they happened and prevent EDPs from becoming a rubber stamp for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats. I call the attention of the Committee and the Minister to page 5 of the annexe to the Office for Environmental Protection’s advice to us. It emphasises that “Mitigation hierarchies are an important component of existing environmental law” and calls attention to its concern that the effect of the current drafting of the Bill could allow a protected site to be harmed in a way contrary to existing environmental law and the stated purpose of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will warmly consider my amendment.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have two points. The Minister has claimed that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy. Can he point to where that is stated in the Bill? I cannot see it; I have just checked back on clause 53, which deals with the preparation of EDPs, but it is not specified. Where is it specified in the Bill that it maintains the mitigation hierarchy? Secondly, with respect, there are not only two options here—either to support the Bill exactly as it is written or to support the status quo. I am trying to table constructive amendments to the Bill, recognising what the Government seek to do and their stated aims of ensuring that development and nature protection go hand in hand, and that nature protection is enhanced at the same time as enabling development. I am not necessarily opposed, in principle, to area-wide and strategic approaches—I have already given credit to district-level licensing for newts and similar things that are already happening. However, my concern is that nowhere in the Bill does it say that the mitigation hierarchy is preserved—nowhere in either clause 61 or clause 53, or anywhere else, is it preserved. It is not just me who says that; the OEP and many nature protection organisations are deeply concerned about the issue. I am proposing a constructive mid-point in my amendment.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to speak briefly. Amendment 92 is particularly important considering the conversation that we have just had about my previous amendment. Effectively, the nature restoration fund offers the opportunity for developers to buy the right to pollute in one location if that money is used to create habitats or support remedial action in another location. But clause 62, as it is currently drafted, makes the payment into the NRF subject to a viability test, which undermines the polluter pays principle, which is one of the fundamental environmental principles to which the Government are supposed to be sticking. The amendment reinforces the polluter pays principle. It is a well-established environmental policy doctrine endorsed by international agreements, numerous national frameworks, and the Government’s own environmental principles. It asserts that those who cause environmental degradation should bear the costs associated with its mitigation and restoration. Removing the economic viability constraints means that, in principle, a developer could make their own assessment of whether paying into the NRF would undermine their capacity to pursue a development. Therefore, the viability caveat undermines the environmental goals. It dilutes the effectiveness of the nature restoration levy by tethering it to this ambiguous economic viability standard. It is a subjective and, frankly, developer-biased filter that might lead to inconsistent applications of the levy or weakened environmental commitments in the face of commercial pressures, and in so doing, could prioritise short-term developmental gains over long-term ecological resilience. Allowing economic viability to act as a limiting factor to the NRF creates a dangerous precedent, because it implies that environmental restoration is, in effect, a negotiable, secondary or optional cost that could be trimmed if profit margins are tight. Again, that would surely not be compatible with the Government’s stated aims for establishing this policy approach. Frankly, in the context of a rapidly escalating biodiversity crisis, the approach is both irresponsible and unsustainable. I warmly encourage the Minister, yet again, to consider my helpful amendment.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 61, page 93, line 2, at end insert— “(2A) Natural England may only accept a request if Natural England is satisfied that the developer has taken reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy, including by seeking to avoid harm to any protected feature. (2B) For the purposes of this section, the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ means the following principles to be applied by local planning authorities when determining planning applications— (a) that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; (b) that development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted, with the only exception being where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; (c) that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and (d) that development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported, while opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments should be integrated as part of their design, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity or enhance public access to nature where this is appropriate.” This amendment outlines the occasions when Natural England may accept a developer’s request to pay the development levy rather than the developer having to go through existing processes under the Habitats Regulations.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendment 121, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will not repeat all the arguments that he made so powerfully in favour of it. It is clear that the amendment would mete out unnecessarily hostile treatment to badgers, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner pointed out. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to explain why the provision is needed, because it seems clear from the arguments that have already been made that it is not required.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s response indicates that he believes it is reasonable to expect the Government, and therefore essentially taxpayers, to bear the costs of environmental damage caused by developers. That is surely not reasonable. How will the structure set out in the Bill work, be viable, protect nature or indeed improve it—the Minister has said he seeks to achieve that—if it does not specify that developers must bear the costs of remediating the damage that development does? Under his proposals, the taxpayer would be left on the hook for the costs of that. Under my proposal, the polluter pays principle, that well-established principle in international and domestic law, would be maintained, so I would like to push the amendment, my last on the clause, to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister asserts that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not set out anywhere in the text. The words “mitigation hierarchy” appear nowhere in the Bill. The word “mitigation” appears four times, always in relation to climate change. The word “avoid” appears only once, in relation to unavoidable delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects, and the word “harm” appears only once, in relation to commercial interests. If the Bill does not say anything about the mitigation hierarchy, mitigation or avoiding harm in relation to nature, how can the Minister claim that it upholds the mitigation hierarchy? Amendment 54 specifies that a developer needs to demonstrate taking “reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy”. The Minister emphasised his desire for the legislation to have flexibility. My amendment offers that flexibility; his Bill offers no support for the mitigation hierarchy. For that reason, I will not withdraw the amendment, because it is fundamentally important. I would like to press it to a vote.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief. I strongly support amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Accepting the amendment would go a long way towards addressing the concerns about enforcement, late payment and so on. Let us adopt it.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 92, Clause 62, page 93, line 42, leave out from “features” to the end of line 2 on page 94 and insert— “are funded by the developer. This amendment would define the purpose of the nature restoration levy as being that costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status of environmental features should be met by developers.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I fully support this.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in very strong support of amendment 18 to clause 50, which is one of a number of amendments I have tabled to part 3. I have significant concerns about part 3—concerns clearly shared by a wide range of environmental organisations, the Office for Environmental Protection and by many prominent scientists. Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that irreplaceable habitats, those rare and exceptional ecosystems that, once lost, cannot be recreated, are explicitly excluded from being subjected to environmental delivery plans under the Bill. In simple terms, it provides a critical safeguard for our most ecologically valuable places by ensuring that EDPs, tools designed to offset and manage environmental harm from development, cannot be applied to irreplaceable habitats or to features whose degradation would harm such habitats. It is not possible to offset an irreplaceable habitat; it is, by definition, irreplaceable.