Wild Justice starts legal proceedings against Government’s controversial Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Wild Justice says the bill would remove environmental protections that exist under current law, contrary to a claim by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner that the bill would not reduce the level of protection.

The bill was introduced to Parliament in March 2025, with the government claiming that it would slash delivery time for infrastructure projects.

In a statement to Parliament that month, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who introduced the bill, said the changes it put forward would not reduce the current level of environmental protection in law.

Wild Justice raised concerns that this would not be in the case, and commissioned expert planning barristers to review the bill, who concluded in a legal opinion that it would in fact weaken the existing level of environmental protection.

The legal opinion said a key factor was the removal of the requirement to be sure beyond reasonable scientific doubt that a development would not have a negative impact on a protected site, and that instead developers would be allowed to pay into a levy scheme in an attempt to mitigate any environmental harm.

This conclusion was supported by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), which stated that the bill in its current form would be a ‘regression’ of environmental protections.

The OEP has also confirmed to Wild Justice that the government did not seek advice regarding the effects of the bill on environmental protections in law. The OEP has since offered advice to the government on how these protections could be strengthened.

Wild Justice argues that there is no conceivable way that the bill would not result in a weakening of the levels of environmental protection offered by current regulations, and that any conclusion otherwise is irrational. It says allowing developers to pay into a so-called ‘nature restoration levy scheme’ to attempt to mitigate any environmental harm caused would be meaningless because the Secretary of State would no longer have to judge the level of mitigation on the basis of rigorous scientific evidence, but rather on the vague ‘likelihood’ that mitigation may be at an appropriate level.

In a pre-action protocol letter sent to the government, Wild Justice calls on Ms Rayner to correct the parliamentary record to make clear that her statement about environmental protection in the bill was not correct.

Wild Justice also sets out its intention to bring a judicial review claim if this step is not taken.

Dr Ruth Tingay, Co-Director of Wild Justice said:

“It’s important that the Secretary of State corrects her statement on the environmental ramifications of this bill because to continue to portray it as a ‘win win’ for nature and people is inaccurate and will mislead MPs into voting for something that is likely to have catastrophic consequences for protected species and habitats”.

Bob Elliot, CEO of Wild Justice said:

“Our laws were already failing to defend nature - this bill takes us from bad to worse. The government’s claim that it does no harm is simply false. There is still a chance to put this right, but they must act now before the damage to our species and habitats becomes irreversible. We will not stand by while the foundations of environmental protection are dismantled”.

Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents Wild Justice, said:

“The key thing for Wild Justice is that the Deputy Prime Minister has not been open and transparent about the fact that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will weaken environmental protections in existing law. They say it is for MPs to decide whether the growth at all costs agenda which the government is pursuing is worth trashing hard fought environmental protections, but they can only do that if they clearly understand what the bill entails".