Stand up for local wildlife!

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is the set of national rules that guide how councils prepare their local plans and, now for the first time, how they decide which planning applications submitted by developers should be approved or rejected in England.   Together these processes determine what gets built, where it goes, and how the natural environment should be protected.

The framework is meant to strike a balance between development and nature. It influences things like green space protection, biodiversity, housing growth, and whether harmful projects get rejected or approved. Any changes to the NPPF can therefore have a huge impact on wildlife, local neighbourhoods, and some of England’s most important natural places

We need more wildlife where we live. Bringing nature back isn’t a luxury, but rather it’s essential. When we help struggling species recover, we improve the places we live too. Healthier habitats mean healthier communities. It’s a win-win, and right now we’re missing it.

Nature not at the heart of planning design

• The draft National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) fails to secure strong, consistent requirements for nature-friendly design. 
• Measures like swift bricks and other basic biodiversity features remain not legally required, weak, and easy for developers to avoid. Scotland has already shown these features can be made compulsory, England is lagging behind.

Limiting local councils’ ability to make nature-friendly choices 

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) ensures developments leave wildlife in a better state than before the development was started - the law requires at least 10% better. Developers can achieve this through creating new habitats on the development site, creating new habitats on other land near the site, or buying credits that create new habitats in other areas of the country.

• The NPPF would largely prevent local authorities from setting BNG requirements above the national minimum of 10%. 
• This blocks ambition, particularly in areas with high land values and low existing biodiversity.
• Plus, a major loophole also remains: developers can claim BNG exemption without providing evidence, leaving councils unable to challenge them.

Nature when local spaces are reused and built on

• The draft introduces a “default yes” to reusing brownfield sites and increasing urban density - including through building on gardens. 
• But many brownfield sites hold significant wildlife value, and these proposals risk losing nature-rich pockets within communities unless proper ecological assessments are required.

We can’t meet our national commitments to protect and restore nature if we keep weakening the very places meant to safeguard it. This is another missed opportunity to give protected areas the strong, reliable protections they deserve. 

Irreplaceable habitats not safe from development 

• The NPPF continues to allow development on irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland, lowland fen and other unique ecosystems if the project is deemed to be in the “national public interest”, including major infrastructure projects.  
• This leaves critical habitats exposed at a time when we can least afford further losses.

Habitats protected nationally could face further risk 

• While protections for internationally designated sites remain relatively strong, nationally important sites - especially Sites  of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) - are left with weak safeguards.  
• They can still be overridden if development benefits are judged to outweigh environmental harm, a vague test open to broad interpretation.  
• We want protections for SSSIs strengthened to match those of internationally important sites.