Contribution
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for so ably introducing Amendment 242, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for Amendments 254 and 355. These amendments all relate to the protection of irreplaceable habitats—chalk streams and blanket bogs—so I will consider them together.
Amendment 242, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to prevent an irreplaceable habitat being an environmental feature for an environmental delivery plan. I begin by stressing the importance of irreplaceable habitats and the benefits for nature that they bring. It is important that this is properly recognised. Irreplaceable habitats are protected by the National Planning Policy Framework, which includes a strong presumption against permitting development that would harm these habitats.
I remind noble Lords that the National Planning Policy Framework is a statutory framework, so it has clout. It is clear that local plans should identify, map and safeguard wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, such as irreplaceable habitats. If significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for, planning permission should be refused. These obligations under the National Planning Policy Framework are not environmental obligations that can be discharged through the nature restoration fund, so I can be absolutely clear that this Bill does not affect the existing NPPF protections.
In rare instances where, despite the very high bar set by the NPPF, development impacting on irreplaceable habitat is proposed, such impact could be addressed through an EDP only if the habitat in question is also a feature of a site protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and if the proposed conservation measures satisfy the overall improvement test. Irreplaceable habitats are just that: irreplaceable. It therefore follows that an irreplaceable habitat cannot be recreated or offset once lost, so the overall improvement test could not be met where an irreplaceable habitat was damaged in this way. The important points that have been made by noble Lords serve to highlight the important role that the overall improvement test plays in ensuring that environmental delivery plans are deployed appropriately and where there are benefits to nature. That is why the Government tabled amendments to clarify this test.
Amendment 355 seeks to treat chalk streams and blanket bogs as protected sites for the purposes of the nature restoration fund. Amendment 254, table by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, goes further in seeking to designate all chalk streams as protected sites. As has previously been set out, the purpose of the nature restoration fund is to provide an alternative route to discharging environmental obligations that would otherwise be required of developers in relation to protected sites. Should additional sites require protection through designation, an evidence-led process is already in place. Where there is a question over the designation of sites, we believe it should be addressed through this existing process.
Of course, wider actions are also being taken to support these habitats. On chalk streams in particular, I note that they are already protected as habitats of principal importance and the Government are working to increase the protection of chalk streams through measures such as the water restoration fund and the water environment improvement fund. Alongside this, we are directly investing in projects that will improve chalk streams, including investing £1.8 million through locally led chalk stream clean-up projects across affected regions. Water companies will also invest £2 billion over the next five years to deliver more than 1,000 targeted actions for chalk stream restoration as part of our plan for change.
Chalk streams are also specifically referenced in the definitions of “natural environment” and “environmental protection” for the new system of environmental outcomes reports that the Government intend to introduce. This will ensure that protection of chalk streams is taken into account as part of this new approach to environmental assessment.
Chalk streams and blanket bogs should also be safeguarded through local plans. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that plans should identify, map and safeguard local wildlife-rich habitats and ecological networks such as chalk streams as they are priority habitats. The Government are actively working to enhance their protection, including through measures such as the water environment improvement fund, as I just mentioned.
With this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.