No 10 blocked nature concessions in planning bill amid Labour rebellion, sources say

Yahoo

12-06-2025

Downing Street and the Treasury intervened to stop any concessions in the planning bill, after pro-housing MPs voiced anger over a Labour rebel amendment that attempted to strengthen nature protections in England.
The Guardian has been told that ministers drew up amendments to the bill last week in an attempt to head off the anger of wildlife charities and rebel Labour MPs amid a backlash against the bill.
Two sources with knowledge of the discussions said they had been expecting the amendments to be put in the Commons this week. But the amendments never appeared, after No 10 and the Treasury intervened.
On Tuesday evening MPs voted 306 to 174, a majority of 132, to approve the planning and infrastructure bill at third reading. The housing minister Matthew Pennycook told the Commons: 'This landmark bill will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal.
'It is critical in helping the government achieve its ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5m safe and decent homes in England in this parliament.'
On Monday night, 15 Labour MPs rebelled against the government to back an amendment by Labour's Chris Hinchliff to the bill that would have imposed new environmental obligations, including a rigid timetable, on developers.
The Labour Growth Group (LGG), a large caucus of pro-housing MPs, had raised the alarm with the Treasury and No 10. The LGG had criticised the amendments on X on Monday, saying its members were 'against these wrecking-ball amendments, and for getting Britain BUILDING'.
Hinchliff then hit back at his Labour colleagues in a post, saying he was 'not joining them in doubling down on 20 years of failed deregulation that delivers under 2% social housing a year'.
Related: Planning bill will 'push public towards Reform': Labour's Chris Hinchliff on standing up for nature
Senior sources suggested there had been strong opposition from the Treasury and No 10 on any new amendments or making any firmer commitments to look at adopting any of the proposals.
Pennycook declined to comment but an ally said he had not been minded to accept Hinchliff's amendments in any case. The LGG had argued strongly that mitigations in the bill would mean further delays to new housing and threaten the government's 1.5m new homes target.
'For years voters have been telling politicians what they desperately need: lower my bills, get my wages rising, breathe life back into my local area, give my kids a shot at owning a decent home,' an LGG source said. 'Under the Tories, time and again they were ignored.
'This bill is a cornerstone in the government's strategy to show them we are on their side and will deliver those things – we're very clear that demands from pressure groups must not be allowed to derail it.'
Leading environmental groups are warning the government that verbal promises over part 3 of the bill – which is focused on environmental obligations – are not enough and the legislation needs to include solid guarantees of environmental results with scientific assurances.
Beccy Speight, the chief executive of the RSPB, said that without amendments the bill was a regression in environmental protection. 'Until we see actual amendments tabled that address the concerns held by us, many other organisations including the independent environmental watchdog, and thousands of people, we will continue to call for part 3 to be scrapped.'
Speaking at the dispatch box on Monday night, Pennycook said the government would be looking at strengthening national planning policy – rather than directly legislating – on some key environmental policies such as introducing swift bricks in new houses for nesting birds.
Pennycook denied the plans would allow developers to damage habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, which campaigners have called 'cash to trash'. He said some of the bill's critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the changes would do.
Hinchliff said the nature restoration fund was a 'kernel of a good idea', and said his amendment would give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'.
MPs voted to reject the amendment, which was backed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats – but not by Reform UK. Pennycook told MPs he was giving serious consideration to Office for Environmental Protection concerns, particularly that part 3 of the bill rolled back environmental laws and left protected sites vulnerable to development.
Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said the government needed to go beyond verbal assurances and ensure the legislation contained rock-solid guarantees of environmental results, scientific assurances that new approaches could work, and transparent delivery plans for nature benefits. 'Fixing the serious risks posed by part 3 will need more than cosmetic change,' he said.
Nigel Farage's party had backed an amendment to install swift bricks in new homes, which Pennycook said the government would look at doing through guidance.
Pennycook said he would continue to take advice and give 'serious consideration' on what more could be done for environmental protection, with further challenges to the bill expected in the Lords.
Hinchliff said his amendment had been an attempt at compromise. 'Britain's biggest nature charities are so concerned by this bill that they have been calling for the entirety of part 3 to be removed,' he said.
'If we can't improve this bill in the Lords we won't just risk harming nature, there will be severe damage to our relationship with an electorate that cherishes green spaces. I was encouraged to hear that the minister was listening to concerns yesterday – my door remains open – I want to help the government get this right.'
• This article was amended on 11 June 2025 to make clear that the aspect of the planning bill relating to development and nature protections applies to England only.