Polite Warning: This post contains a CALL TO ACTION.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill was read a second time at a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday 25 June 2025. The bill supports various ways to streamline the planning process and amongst which are the following:

• Meet Climate Targets and Support Clean Power: The Bill is designed to enable essential clean energy projects to be built as quickly as possible, supporting the Government’s clean power 2030 target. This involves reforms to the grid connection process to prioritise projects aligning with the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, moving from a “first come, first served” to a “first ready, first connected” approach.
• Better Deal for Nature: The Bill seeks to ensure a better deal for nature, which the public deeply cares about, moving towards a system that actively supports the recovery of protected sites and species rather than just offsetting impacts.

We don’t need to convince readers here that there is going to be tension between these two objectives. An aggressive developer is proposing to destroy large swathes of centuries old peat with “clean power” infrastructure. So far our local MPs have failed to grasp this conundrum and come down on our side to reject this development. This is of deeply disappointing as is the fact that all Labour MPs supported the bill at its third reading in the House of Commons:

Source: They Vote for Us

So far, the Bill is unlikely to outright prohibit building wind farms on peat. We also know that Cubico will put forward the argument that the restoration plan and the reduced CO2 emissions of the wind farm operation, outweigh the destruction of peat from constructing the wind farm.

However, there may be a ray of hope because following a meeting with a group of us, Elsie Blundell, MP for Heywood and North Middleton, has offered to take our concerns forward to ministers. A major one of these is the issue of carbon balance.

Now we know that the Scottish Government has instigated a review into the Scottish Government Carbon Calculator, since it has been found unsuitable for forests and peat moorland. This means that it is impossible for a wind farm developer to argue with any certainty that their proposal would lead to an overall reduction in carbon emissions.

And as we explain later, many Lords also expressed significant concerns and indicated their intention to propose amendments during the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

Therefore, we are requesting your help to push back against this bill and ensure that it contains specific protections for peat and blanket bog. We need to lobby our MPs and any contacts we have in the House of Lords. The more of us that write, and the more often, the better. It’s all too easy to get writing fatigue in campaigns like this but nevertheless, MPs will only get the message if they keep hearing from us. Therefore, please consider doing the following:

Our local MP contact details

Appendix: Key points from the Hansard Record

Specific mention of peat protection

• Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench) specifically highlighted concerns that the Bill “fails to include any mention of protection of irreplaceable habitats such as protected blanket peatlands, ancient woodlands, chalk streams and species-rich grasslands”. She argued that “Allowing harm to those irreplaceable habitats in exchange for future compensation would be a grave misstep”.
• Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Conservative) also stated his hope for “significant, stronger protections for irreplaceable habitats such as chalk streams, ancient woodlands, peatlands and so on as an insurance against the risks that have been highlighted in the Bill”.
• In response, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, stated: “On irreplaceable habitats, let me reassure everyone that we consider them to be just that: irreplaceable. The legislation is clear that an EDP [environmental delivery plan] can relate to a protected site or a protected species, with these being tightly defined in the legislation. As the Housing Minister made clear in the other place, the Bill does not affect existing protections for irreplaceable habitats under the National Planning Policy Framework. While there may be circumstances where an environmental feature is part of both a protected site and an irreplaceable habitat, an EDP will not allow action to be taken that damaged an irreplaceable habitat, as this would by definition be incapable of passing the overall improvement test”.

General calls for amendments to strengthen environmental protection (implicitly including peat)

• Several Lords from various benches expressed deep concerns about Part 3 of the Bill, which deals with nature restoration and environmental delivery plans, perceiving it as a weakening of existing environmental protections.
• Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative) stated the Official Opposition’s desire to “not weaken our position on nature restoration and appropriate environmental protections” and indicated they “will bring forward amendments” to strengthen environmental safeguards.
• Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat) stated, “We will work with the Government to improve the Bill”, highlighting that its current form “will degrade our nature and biodiversity”.
• Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench) specifically mentioned the need for “Pennycook amendments to satisfy the OEP”, referring to proposed government amendments to address Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) concerns.
• Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour) indicated that Part 3 would “need considerable change” and asked when “government amendments, signalled by Minister Pennycook in the other place, to address these concerns” would be seen.
• Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat) stated, “We will support the good, amend the bad, and call out the ugly,” particularly regarding environmental safeguards.
• Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat) expressed “very serious concerns” about Part 3 and called for mandating nature-friendly development.
• Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)stated the aim to “improve it” rather than “kill the Bill,” specifically noting that Part 3 “risks undermining protections”.
• Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench) said the Bill “needs amendment to achieve” light-touch environmental impact and positive impact, proposing bird-safe designs and making biodiversity benefits overcompensate losses.
• Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party) asserted that Part 3 “has to be thrown out” and that the Bill should guarantee that “irreplaceable habitats will not be up for negotiation”.
• Lord Roborough (Conservative) noted widespread concerns from environmental organizations and stated his intention to “remove or restrict these powers and to challenge the role of Natural England in Committee”. He also mentioned having “amendments that would have the effect of underpinning the Environment Act” and hoped to “strengthen these environmental protections and restore the mitigation hierarchy”.
• Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat) argued that “Fundamental changes to this part of the Bill are essential” due to the perceived dismantling of environmental governance structures like the precautionary principle and mitigation hierarchy.

Other areas where amendments were sought

• Compulsory purchase powers and compensation: Concerns were raised about the reduced compensation for landowners, particularly farmers, and the removal of “hope value”. Calls were made to revisit these provisions and ensure fairness.
• Democratic oversight and local decision-making: Many Lords criticized the proposed national scheme of delegation, arguing it diminishes the role of local councillors and undermines local democracy. Amendments were sought to maintain local control and accountability.
• Housing targets and quality: Questions were raised about the deliverability of the 1.5 million homes target, the lack of specific targets for social housing, and the quality of new builds. Calls were made for better design standards, protection against “slums of the future,” and more social housing.
• Planning system resourcing and efficiency: Many expressed concern about the chronic under-resourcing and staffing shortages in planning departments and the Planning Inspectorate, arguing this is a major blocker to progress. Suggestions included ring-fencing planning fees for local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, and increasing apprenticeships.
• Specific infrastructure issues: This included electric vehicle charging infrastructure, grid connections, and the consenting process for pipelines and energy storage.
• Protection of specific features/groups: Amendments were suggested for chalk streams, agricultural tied accommodation for farming families, Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, playing fields, and bird safety in new designs.
• Flood risk management: Several Lords advocated for measures to prevent building on functional flood plains and to implement property flood resilience.
• Mediation and dispute resolution: One Lord intended to table amendments to expand the use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution in planning.

The government, represented by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour), acknowledged that there was “scope for strengthening the Bill” and expressed an openness to “constructive amendments”. She committed to providing written responses to unanswered questions.