Controversial government plans to allow developers to pay into a central nature levy  to meet environmental obligations has prompted increasing opposition.

The Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE) and the Green Construction Board (GCB) have written to housing and planning minister Matthew Pennycook calling for a rethink on planning reforms.

Concerns have been raised regarding Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill relating to development and nature recovery.

The bill will establish the Nature Restoration Fund (NRF), an alternative approach for developers to meet certain environmental obligations relating to protected sites and species.

It allows Natural England (or another designated delivery body) to bring forward Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs), that will set out the strategic action to be taken to address the impact development has on a protected site or species.

But the proposed nature levy has been criticised as a ‘pay to pollute’ buy-out mechanism.

ACE and the GCB say in their letter: “The scale of proposed reforms found in Part 3 need more time to consult and develop.”

The letter comes after a group of economists, former government advisors and leading conservationists, recently wrote to MPs and expressed similar concerns stating the proposals allow companies to ‘buy out’ of their legal obligations to nature, and in doing so, “dismantle key safeguards that have protected nature for decades”.

ACE and GCB letter said: “We are calling for Part 3 to be implemented to a timetable which would allow for full consultation with experts, piloting of the process and to investigate the potential for a different commencement date for Part 3 to the rest of the bill, to avoid delaying the implementation of other reforms contained in the bill.

“The other elements of the bill should be passed expeditiously, to provide much-needed support for our sector.”

It added: “More time is needed to evaluate the impacts of the proposed levy-based reforms, to determine where these can be most effectively applied, and to gain industry confidence in its administration by Natural England.

“We are concerned that otherwise developers may end up facing increased uncertainty, extended delays, additional costs, greater local opposition, and ultimately, a reduction in much-needed growth while at the same time nature loses out again.

“The narrative that nature is a blocker to progress is not supported by evidence. Indeed, well-planned green infrastructure improves wellbeing, increases property values, and delivers more resilient communities.

“The delays we see in planning are rarely the fault of environmental protections, but rather the result of underfunding, poor process and bureaucratic inefficiencies which we agree should be addressed.

“A potential unintended consequence of handing these significant delivery responsibilities to Natural England is that it could increase bureaucracy and slow market-led solutions by introducing uncertainty.

“The private sector has already demonstrated its ability to mobilise rapidly in response to environmental requirements, from phosphate and carbon credits to biodiversity net gain.

“In contrast, government-led interventions, such as the statutory biodiversity credit scheme, have struggled over operating costs (spending more on administration that was received in payments in 2024-25) and delivery of nature recovery efforts.

“This approach will allow us to properly evaluate and prepare the industry for the proposed transition.

“This recommendation will help address the ‘pay to pollute’ model critique and support the principle of environmental integrity, by addressing the full cost of mitigation.”

ACE and GCB say it’s vital the UK’s position as a “global leader” in environmental assessment continues to develop.

“Our industry has invested heavily in developing expertise, standards, and best practices, including through biodiversity net gain, which are now being exported internationally.

“Sidelining established processes, such as the mitigation hierarchy without a proper evaluation may become a setback for nature, but also for the profession and our international reputation.

“We encourage the government to clearly differentiate biodiversity net gain and the nature restoration fund to avoid a scale back of investment and a slow-down in growing the sector.

“The private market is pioneering the biodiversity net gain framework, and its continued independence is vital for maintaining trust and regulatory stability.

“We are likewise concerned about the social implications of this shift to centralising environmental compensation through offsetting, rather than encouraging on-site or local enhancements (as is directed in the biodiversity net gain guidance). 

“A joint goal is to address green-space inequalities and ensure that communities in high-development areas have more access to nature and green spaces. The value of nearby nature and green infrastructure promotes public wellbeing and reduces long-term costs to the health and care systems.

“Piloting Part 3 would allow us to evaluate the potential to maximise these benefits and fully understand public equality implications.”

The Office for Environmental Protection has also expressed concerns, stating it has identified “a number of areas where environmental protections in the bill should be strengthened”.

Dame Glenys Stacey, chair of the OEP, said: “In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law. As drafted, the provisions are a regression.”