Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq.

I was speaking to this group of measures at the tail-end of yesterday’s sitting. I discussed clause 55, I spoke to the purpose and effect of clause 56, and I mentioned Government amendments 97 and 98. I will now turn to the other amendments in this group, beginning with amendment 119, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, which seeks to amend the threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan.

Amendment 119 speaks to the shift from site-by-site assessments to our strategic approach. In developing an alternative to the existing system, we need to recognise that a strategic approach that covers a potentially large amount of development over a number of years is a materially different proposition from assessing the impact of a single development. We must therefore approach that proposition in a different way. Put simply, we cannot be as unequivocal about outcomes as we would be on a site-by-site assessment basis.

The drafting of the clause reflects that, as it would not be appropriate to replicate the approach applied to assessments of individual sites. Instead, the Bill provides a wider package of safeguards, such as appropriate monitoring, the ability to deploy back-up measures and the ability to amend environmental delivery plans, to ensure that plans deliver the positive outcomes over the plan period.

That is also why clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. It is also why clause 52(2) requires a draft environmental delivery plan to set out why the conservation measures selected are “considered appropriate” to meeting that goal.

As we have said since the Bill’s introduction, it is about delivering more for nature, not less. As I said in a previous sitting, we are therefore carefully considering the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection and its support for the intentions of the reforms. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will in time agree not to press amendment 119.

Amendment 14 seeks to introduce a new threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan. Again, in developing the new approach, we have always been clear that the nature restoration fund will deliver more for nature, but that is not a substitute for wider action to support nature recovery. While it is right that we seek to do more and to outweigh the impact of development, we must ensure that we are not asking developers to contribute more than their fair share. That is not a check on ambition, but an acknowledgment that positive results can be realised only if environmental delivery plans are a viable option for developers.

The test in clause 55(4) ensures positive outcomes, but it cannot be set at a level that would make it impossible to bring forward an operable environmental delivery plan—that would be a lose-lose situation for the economy and for nature. Again, on that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will not press amendment 14.

Finally, I turn to amendment 20, also tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. This amendment seeks to amend the operation of the overall improvement that the Secretary of State must consider before making an environmental delivery plan. As I have already clarified for the Committee, the nature restoration fund will provide a different route for developers to discharge existing environmental obligations. In establishing this new approach, it is necessary to depart from existing process.

As I have outlined, the new approach will go further than the existing system, which requires measures only to offset harm to achieve neutrality. By taking this new approach we will deliver more for nature, not less. Although the Bill does not require a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy, we believe it nevertheless effectively maintains that hierarchy, as does the chief executive of Natural England, who gave oral evidence to the Committee.

Moreover, the flexibility that the Bill provides in respect of the hierarchy will be used only where Natural England considers it appropriate, in line with the overarching objective of delivering better outcomes for the relevant environmental feature over the course of the environmental delivery plan. The hon. Lady’s amendment would remove that flexibility and tether the nature restoration fund to the existing status quo that we know—I emphasise that again—is not working for our sites and species.

I also emphasise, however, that I understand the importance of ensuring that the flexibility is used only where it needs to be, and that everyone can be confident that harm is being avoided. I very much understand the concerns about the certainty of outcomes. We want everyone to be confident, so I am open to considering ways to underpin that confidence in a way that still allows the model to work as we want it to and as it needs to; my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also asked yesterday what more the Government might consider in that regard. With that explanation, although I know further debate is forthcoming, I hope that the hon. Lady will consider not moving her amendment.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, although I do not expect hon. Members to just take me at my word; I think they should both interrogate the Bill and the provisions and reflect on my further comments. Although I caveat everything by saying that we are grateful to the Office for Environmental Protection for its recent advice and its support for the intention of these reforms—let us be clear: it supports the intention and we are carefully considering its advice —we are clear that this approach will deliver more for nature, not less. The important thing is that those improved outcomes—and they are improved outcomes; we are not talking about merely maintaining the status quo—can be achieved only if we are willing to do things differently. That is why the Bill establishes an alternative to existing processes, but only where that will lead to better outcomes.

I should make a brief comment about Natural England, as the other body that will be involved in the design and implementation of environmental delivery plans. It is slightly unfair, if I may say so, for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to suggest that there is a stark conflict of interest here. As I have said in previous sittings, Natural England has the expertise and ecological skills to make the right judgments. It will put in place suitable propriety barriers to ensure that it can act effectively as both an advisory body and the body tasked with preparing, designing and implementing EDPs.

[Ellie Chowns]

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?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think it will be, for the reasons I have given: suitable propriety barriers will be put in place and the House will be able to take a view on whether those are sufficient. I would also slightly push back on the idea that Natural England is judge and jury when it comes to EDPs. The Secretary of State has responsibility for judging whether an EDP meets the outcomes test on the basis of advice from Natural England.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make a bit of progress, then I will be happy to give way.

Hon. Members may say that those safeguards are not sufficient, but we trust elected Members in ministerial capacities to exercise their judgment, in line with the ministerial code and taking into account their obligations under both international and domestic law. We trust them to do that. If hon. Members take issue with the basic fact that a Secretary of State can exercise judgment, then we disagree.

[Ellie Chowns]

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.

[The Chair]

The Clerk is frowning at me and saying that the hon. Lady’s contribution was a little overlong for an intervention, which is usually on one point. It sounded a bit speech-like.

[Ellie Chowns]

I apologise.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady tempts me down a path of commenting on past Secretaries of State—I would enjoy that, but I will not do it. She is absolutely right that we must ensure that this legislation can be exercised appropriately by any Secretary of State, whoever they might be, in years to come.

Where the hon. Lady and I slightly differ is on what legislation is required to do in all circumstances. We rely on Ministers to exercise their judgment in line with the relevant legislation and other obligations, for example on call-in decisions that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in my Department are asked to make. They are judgments. They are exercised on the basis of a recommendation by the Planning Inspectorate, and of the relevant material considerations, but a judgment is still exercised. We are saying that the Secretary of State has to exercise a judgment on the “overall improvement test” but on the basis of advice from Natural England, once consultation has been carried out.

As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned, clause 55 gets to the heart of this approach. We are reflecting on the points made in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection. I want to set out why we feel our approach is right, and that the necessary safeguards are built in. I will deal briefly with the amendments in turn, starting with 119.

Changing “are likely to” to “will” would require a greater deal of certainty from the Secretary of State before they would be able to make an environmental delivery plan. That does get to the heart of the difference in approach. In moving away from a site-by-site assessment to trying to improve outcomes for nature in the round, over a wider geographic area, we have to move away from a time period in which those conversations, or offsets, can be delivered on those sites specifically. By its very nature, the approach requires a degree of, if you like, gazing into an as-yet-unknown future. The test of “likely” makes that difficult to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister makes my case for me, because we want to allow Natural England to have that flexibility.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady will let me respond to this point, I will then address her point.

It is precisely that flexibility that we want to allow Natural England to use, because over that wider geographic area, it can look at which conservation measures, in the round, will have the most impact, rather than costly gold-plating, which happens now in certain circumstances— I will not repeat the individual cases, but we hear about them in the press a lot—and often leads to bad outcomes, and which flows from the site-by-site assessments that must take place.

What gets to the heart of the approach, and is the reason why some of these amendments are deeply problematic, is that, under this approach, we cannot be as unequivocal as we can currently on the basis of individual site-by-site assessments. There needs to be the opportunity to take a forward view as to what will have the likely effect of having an overall benefit for nature in the round across the EDP area.

[Ellie Chowns]

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.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We think the Bill provides that certainty, which is why the Secretary of State felt able to make that statement, but—this is really important— while the hon. Lady has clearly indicated that she, like us, is unhappy with the status quo, and while I think she recognises the limitations of the impact we can have in terms of beneficial nature outcomes using the current, individual site-by-site-assessment basis, her amendment 20 would, in practice, result in the continued need to assess development on a case-by-case basis and would require conservation measures to address the specific impacts of each development. It does not provide the necessary flexibility that will lead to better outcomes for nature, while at the same time unlocking development and allowing it to be accelerated.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not sure how comparable they are. We are very mindful—this is something I was aware of before becoming a Minister, but it has certainly been brought home to me since—of the impact of specific wording in legislation. It is incredibly important.

In the interests of moving on, Dr Huq, I will probably finish here. I think we have had an extensive debate.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will give way to the hon. Lady one last time, then I will address the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington.

[Ellie Chowns]

It is important: the whole point of Committee is to look at the detail and really get to grips with it.

Replacing “are likely to” with “will”, as my amendment seeks to do, would not make it necessary to conduct a site-by-site assessment. It relates to the wording that clause 55 applies to the EDP overall. It is about the degree of certainty that an EDP will deliver—that a habitat-wide approach to delivering environment improvements will deliver—as in subsection (5), in relation to

“the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply”.

With respect, the Minister said a few minutes ago that the amendment would effectively take us straight back to a site-by-site approach. That does not apply here.

The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that this legislation will result in not just the maintenance of, but an improvement in, environmental protection while pursuing wording that explicitly and significantly weakens environmental protection. That is the point that the Office for Environmental Protection makes, it is the point that a number of nature protection non-governmental organisations have made, and it is contrary to the Minister’s stated intentions for the Bill, and contrary to what the public want. We can have development and nature protection together, but only if the legislation specifies that it must happen, not that it may possibly happen.

[Matthew Pennycook]

To be clear, in assessing that the amendment in question would result in the need for continued assessment on a site-by-site basis, I am referring to amendment 20. I am absolutely certain that that is what it implies. Amendment 119, which I think the hon. Lady has just spoken to—there is a slight risk of conflating the two—is problematic for other reasons. As I have said, it introduces an inappropriately high bar that will, in effect, make it incredibly difficult for the Secretary of State to meet the test.

There is, as I have said, a necessary degree of future gazing here, in terms of the change in approach. I certainly do not want to curtail debate, but I do want us to debate the other clauses in the Bill. I think I have firmly set out the Government’s position—why we think the Bill does achieve the very clearly stated intentions that we have set out—but I go back to the fact that we are very cognisant of the concerns in this area. We want to ensure that sectors have confidence in the operation of environmental delivery plans, and that is the reason— I am more than happy to debate it with the hon. Lady outside the Committee and at later stages of proceedings on the Bill—why we will reflect on the very specific points that the OEP has made on a number of clauses.

Amendment 97 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 119, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.— (Ellie Chowns.)

This amendment would mean that an EDP would only pass the overall improvement test if it is certain that the proposed measures will outweigh any negative environmental effects caused by the development.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

It is with great excitement that we move on to another clause. I will speak briefly, but this is an important amendment. In the same way that protests from developers, in another part of the planning system, about viability end up affecting the outcomes of planning applications by, in particular, reducing social housing numbers, we are concerned that protests from developers could lead to calls to change EDPs. If EDPs are to be changed—this is a very simple point—that should not mean a reduction in the environmental protection therein.

Amendment 15, also tabled in my name, is in line with our amendments 14 and 11, to which I have already spoken, which were about strengthening the environmental tests. The Government have made it clear that they seek to achieve a win-win here, but in our opinion that will not happen without that additional wording and strengthening.

We have heard from the Minister that his point of reference, like ours, is to improve the status quo. At the moment, we are not convinced that the status quo will be improved. I am grateful to him for being extremely generous with his time on all the clauses by accepting numerous interventions, and for his assurances that he will reflect. I am sure that he will do so, but for such a, dare I say, common-sense amendment—that changes to an EDP should not mean a reduction in environmental protection—he might do even more than reflect: perhaps reflect positively on it. We feel that the amendment is entirely pragmatic, sensible and difficult to refute, although no doubt attempts will be made to do so.

[Ellie Chowns]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

It will be for Natural England to determine what conservation measures are in place. There are reporting requirements on Natural England in terms of the overall body of EDPs. On the flexibility that is required—this speaks directly to the amendment from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—it is unlikely that a Secretary of State would be able to reduce the number of conservation measures provided without reducing the development capacity of the plan, as that would not meet the overall development test. But there may be circumstances where the development capacity and the environmental conservation measures need to be reduced, and we need scope to be able to amend plans.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire pressed me to refer to the concerns highlighted by the OEP about there being no requirement to consult on amended EDPs. As I have said, amendments to EDPs could be for a variety of reasons and could be extremely minor. In such cases, it would not be appropriate to require a consultation in every instance. Instead, there is provision for the Secretary of State to direct Natural England to consult on an amended EDP where expertise is required to inform its decision on the overall improvement test—for instance, if there is a material change to the development included or the conservation measures proposed. We think that that is a more proportionate and tailored approach to different EDPs.

[Ellie Chowns]

Where in clause 58 does it specify that consultation should or should not happen? I cannot see it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily write to the hon. Lady on where that is set out but, as per previous debates, I will not pre-empt our reflections on the OEP- specific points.

I again make the general point that, through regulations and guidance, further detail on many aspects of the Bill will be brought forward. However, the central point is that we do not think that it is proportionate or effective to require consultation on every amendment to an EDP, which in some cases could be very minor.

The central safeguard here is the overall improvement test that an EDP is required to pass. That means that when amending an EDP, the Secretary of State would not be able to reduce the amount of conservation measures without amending the scale of development that can rely on the EDP in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I am just trying to be helpful. Clause 58(4) clearly sets out the process where a Secretary of State directs Natural England to consult, and the detailed consultation procedure is set out in clause 54. We have had a big debate on consultation procedures, which are not necessarily what we would like in other clauses of the Bill, but consultation is clearly set out in clause 58(4).

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is the Chair’s job to say so, but I do not think the hon. Lady can intervene on an intervention. I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. It would not be the best use of our time if I were to flick through the Bill while on my feet and attempt to find the relevant subsection. I will happily write to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to set out how the requirements in clause 58 operate.

In designing the legislation, we have sought to avoid situations where the Secretary of State would be forced to revoke an environmental delivery plan where it would still meet the test of securing better outcomes for nature. A practical example of where it would be right to allow such amendment is where an EDP has proposed conservation measures to cover more development than is subsequently expected to come forward. There may be instances where the level of development is reduced, and then it may be appropriate to amend the EDP. In such circumstances, it would be right to amend and to reflect the reduction in the scale of development covered and the corresponding conservation measures. Amendment 11 would prevent that and would force the Secretary of State to revoke the environmental delivery plan or to keep the inaccurate plan in place.

In the event of a substantive change to the environmental delivery plan, both a public consultation and approval by the Secretary of State would be required. That would give the opportunity for environmental groups and local stakeholders to have their voices heard, and for Natural England to present evidence that provides assurance that the overall improvement test would continue to be met. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Clause 59 establishes the process for revoking an environmental delivery plan, and the circumstances under which the power will be used. When the Secretary of State approves and makes an environmental delivery plan, they are taking a decision at a specific point in time. However, we recognise the need to retain the ability to revisit this decision if necessary and ultimately to revoke an environmental delivery plan if the overall improvement test is no longer met.