6th Report - Environmental sustainability and housing growth

The Government has assured us that section 19 of the Environment Act 2021, which requires Ministers to give full consideration to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement (EPPS) when making policy, was complied with during the drafting of the latest revision of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and creation of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (PIB). Due to the strong public interest in the Government’s planning reforms, it is our view that it is imperative that they publish their considerations as to how the NPPF and PIB comply with the Government’s own Environmental Principles Policy Statement (EPPS). (Conclusion, Paragraph 22)

The Government should set out how the NPPF and PIB comply with the EPPS, in line with sections 17 and 19 of the Environment Act 2021. Two complete and separate statements should be shared with the Committee—one for the NPPF and one for the PIB—in response to this report. (Recommendation, Paragraph 23)

Improved data sharing is a fundamental enabler of efficient and effective cross-organisational work to deliver sustainable housing. While there is evidence of cross-departmental working between DEFRA and MHCLG on planning, nature and housebuilding, the evidence we have taken suggests that existing data platforms are still siloed within organisations. This inhibits the sharing of geospatial and ecological data which could improve decision making relating to environmental and housing building targets. The sharing of environmental and land use data is a key enabler for improving cross-departmental collaboration, supporting decision-making, increasing overall efficiency and allowing government departments, local planning authorities, and arms-length bodies to collaborate on individual cases, within a single, unified case working system. (Conclusion, Paragraph 31)

Within 12 months of this report, the Government should establish a shared geospatial and environmental data platform, integrated with a case working system. This should be designed for use across government departments, arms-length bodies and local planning authorities to aid decision-making and collaboration. It should be maintained by a cross- 85 departmental team. We note that mechanisms to consolidate and share data–such as the National Land Data Framework and MAGIC (Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside)–are in development. We recommend accelerating this into a fully operational data sharing platform. This would facilitate cross-government working on nature, planning and housebuilding decisions. (Recommendation, Paragraph 32)

We have heard strong and repeated concerns that the environment could be sidelined in the presumption for sustainable development, and that the current revision of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) could result in unsustainable and speculative development. The evidence we received suggests that the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as currently framed, prioritises economic growth over environmental protection, leading to outcomes that are inconsistent with the long-term goals of sustainability and the NPPF’s goal of sustainable development. (Conclusion, Paragrap 43)

We recommend that the Government do more to ensure that local planning authorities are able to, and do, produce up to date local plans, to ensure that developments are being assessed by appropriate local policies, rather than being subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. (Recommendation, Paragraph 44)

We recommend that the Government should amend the definition of the presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’ in the December 2024 revision of the NPPF to give greater weight to environmental sustainability. This should include strengthening safeguards against environmentally unsustainable, unplanned and speculative development. These revised definitions should be provided to the Committee in the Government’s response to this report. (Recommendation, Paragraph 45)

Stakeholders highlighted the importance of alignment between a national Land Use Framework, environmental policies and planning policies. Such alignment will help direct housing developments and nature conservation or restoration to appropriate locations. It will also help reduce confusion, avoid conflicting objectives, and support coherent decision-making and streamlined delivery. Crucially, it will provide clarity surrounding the application of planning rules and help prevent spurious challenges. In doing so, this supports the Government to achieve its goal of streamlining the planning system, resulting in more positive planning outcomes whilst offering clarity to all stakeholders as to what sustainable development really looks like. (Conclusion, Paragraph 57)

Any future national spatial planning or land use policies, such as a Land Use Framework or Spatial Development Strategies, must be aligned with, and complimentary to, all environmental targets, frameworks and policies. These include but are not limited to: Environment Act 2021 86 targets, the Environmental Improvement Plan, Biodiversity Net Gain, Nature Recovery Networks, Environmental Land Management Schemes, Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS), Environmental Delivery Plans (if in existence) and Flood Plans. The relationships between LNRS and other spatial planning and nature policies, such as the ones noted above, should be made clear. In its response to this report, Government should lay out how each of the policies mentioned above align and work together. (Recommendation, Paragraph 58)

Local authorities must ensure they have up to date local plans and environmental and climate planning policies. When combined, all local plans and policies should satisfy national environmental targets, allowing for flexibility as to how they meet these targets between areas, in reflection of unique and local environmental characteristics. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, should work together to audit all local plans once produced to ensure that, collectively, they add up to meet national house building and biodiversity targets. (Recommendation, Paragraph 59)

We recommend that the Government should explicitly incorporate matters relating to biodiversity into the Duty to Co-operate, enabling local planning authorities to work together to meet national house building and biodiversity targets at a regional level. The Duty to Co-operate on biodiversity should eventually be integrated into Sustainable Development Strategies and be required to align with Local Nature Recovery Strategies. (Recommendation, Paragraph 60)

As our recent report on flood resilience stated, the planning system fails to account for the cumulative and cross-boundary impacts of development on flood risk. Land use decisions are often made in isolation, without considering downstream consequences, catchment-scale dynamics, or long-term resilience. This fragmented approach undermines catchment- based and natural flood management, can lead to new development in floodplains, increases exposure for vulnerable communities, and represents a critical weakness in national flood strategy. (Conclusion, Paragraph 61)

We reiterate that the Government should ensure that flood and climate resilience are embedded into the core tools of planning, regulation, and investment appraisal. The NPPF should be strengthened to prioritise flooding avoidance and climate adaptation, mandating sustainable drainage systems and consider the need for property flood resilience measures in all new developments through building regulations. As stated in our recent report on flood resilience, the Government should initiate a consultation on statutory requirements for assessing the cumulative impact of development on flood risk within local and regional plans by the end of

We acknowledge and welcome the Government’s amendments in June 2025 to Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Akin to the OEP, we see the potential benefits of moving towards a more strategic approach to nature recovery. The amendments are a promising step towards ensuring that the proposed strategic approach of Environmental Delivery Plans and the Nature Restoration Fund do not result in the reduction of any environmental protections, risking irrevocable harm to our national ecosystems. Nevertheless, the new approach to meeting existing environmental requirements, introduced in Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, is not enough on its own to ensure that the Government can meet its environmental targets alongside its housing target. Beyond the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Government must actively employ the full breadth of policy levers at its disposal to improve the natural environment. (Conclusion, Paragraph 77)

The Government must not veer down the path of viewing nature as an inconvenience or blocker to housebuilding. In most cases housing delivery is delayed or challenged due to unclear and conflicting policies, land banking and skills shortages. Using nature as a scapegoat means that the Government will be less effective at tackling some of the genuine challenges facing the planning system. At worst, this approach could lead to the degradation of the natural world, preventing the achievement of legally- binding climate and nature targets, upon which our society and economy depends. (Conclusion, Paragraph 78)

We are concerned about the levels of subjectivity that may arise if the Secretary of State for the Environment acts as the sole and final arbiter of whether an Environmental Delivery Plan satisfies the overall improvement test. (Conclusion, Paragraph 79)

In the interest of transparency, in response to this report, MHCLG and DEFRA should publish the criteria the Secretary of State will use to determine whether an EDP has passed the overall improvement test or not. It should also set out mechanisms as to how decisions made by the Secretary of State could be scrutinised and held accountable. (Recommendation, Paragraph 80)

Considering the conflicting roles Natural England (NE) are expected to play in developing, delivering and assessing Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) and the Nature Restoration Fund, we are concerned about the potential for either a real, or a perception of, a conflict of interest. We do not doubt the earnestness and expertise with which NE staff will seek to deliver EDPs, 88 but nevertheless it is essential that robust safeguards are in place to ensure transparency and accountability throughout the regulatory process. (Conclusion, Paragraph 84)

Natural England should publish a clear statement outlining how it will protect against conflicts of interest arising when developing, implementing and assessing Environmental Delivery Plans and the Nature Restoration Fund in response to this report. (Recommendation, Paragraph 85)

The Government and NE should regularly assess whether the implementation of the EDP policy is reducing public confidence in NE and consider how they can, from the outset, build confidence in NEs ability to be both producer and arbiter of EDPs. (Recommendation, Paragraph 86)

We accept that the initial impact assessment of the Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) was carried out on the basis of nutrient neutrality, due to limitations with broader data availability. However, as the NRF will have considerable implications for a wide range of environmental issues aside from nutrient pollution, a unidimensional impact assessment is not satisfactory. We welcome the reassurances from the Minister for Housing and Planning that the NRF will not reduce the existing protections of habitats and species. However, this does not provide a satisfactory substitute for a full and independent analysis of the impacts the NRF will have if applied to other habitats and species, which have vastly differing characteristics and management techniques. We believe it unwise to impose a policy solution on a problem that has not been fully accounted for. (Conclusion, Paragraph 89)

The Government should revise the impact assessment for the NRF, to take account of a variety of environmental issues, not only nutrient neutrality. It should consider the impact, role and budget of local authorities during the revision process. Only once a fully comprehensive impact assessment of the environmental aspect of the NRF has been completed can informed decisions about the efficacy of the NRF be made. The Government and Natural England must be clearer as to how approaches to the NRF will differ depending upon the environmental issue at hand. If this is not possible, then the NRF should only be applied to nutrient pollution, as we cannot be sure of the impact it will have on the environment otherwise. (Recommendation, Paragraph 90)

Given the weak impact assessment of the NRF, we ask the Government to prepare a regulatory assessment of the NRF, if and when it is adopted. This assessment should be completed before Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (PIB) is brought into force and should set out details of how it is to be implemented, such as timelines and actions to be taken by relevant stakeholders. We encourage the OEP to monitor and regularly report on the implementation of the PIB once in statute, including on 89 how successful it is at safeguarding protected habitats and species, the application of the overall improvement test, compliance with the EPPS Duty and the non-regression statement on the face of the Bill. (Recommendation, Paragraph 91)

The relaxation of the mitigation hierarchy (MH) in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has been a significant point of contention. The MH aims to ensure that harm to nature is first avoided, with destruction and compensation used only as a last resort. We believe that the strict application of the MH on housing developments should remain in place, unless it is proven, using the best available scientific evidence, that nature is better served by not adopting the hierarchy in specific and individual instances. (Conclusion, Paragraph 97)

Whilst accepting the Minister and NE’s assurance that the MH has remained in place, and would only be set aside where doing so would demonstrably benefit nature, we urge the Government and NE to publish site-specific evidence of the environmental improvements in all occasions where the MH has not been applied. This transparency is necessary to build confidence that nature a) has not been depleted and b) that it is benefitting from this alternative approach. (Recommendation, Paragraph 98)

We recommend that this evidence should include the systematic monitoring and review of the environmental outcomes on all sites where an EDP has been approved and introduced. NE should publish annual reports detailing the extent to which the MH has been applied to developments with an EDP, alongside evaluations of the effectiveness of the decisions made to improve the environment. (Recommendation, Paragraph 99)

It is too early to assess the overall success of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), as the policy is still establishing itself. Its long-term success is dependent upon the establishment of clear and effective regulation. The absence of standardised monitoring and enforcement protocols, clear lines of accountability, and insufficient resourcing, undermines confidence in the policy. Without strengthened oversight and consistent implementation across the country, BNG risks falling short of reaching its full potential. (Conclusion, Paragraph 111)

More clarity is needed on how off-site Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) projects will be maintained, monitored, and enforced over the full 30-year period. We ask the Government, in response to this report, to lay out clearly who is responsible for oversight and enforcement of BNG throughout its lifespan, and how monitoring and enforcement is standardised across Local Planning Authorities to ensure consistent delivery. (Recommendation, Paragraph 112) 90

We are concerned there is a risk that implementing Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) on housing developments may inadvertently result in unreasonable fees for residents or more expensive housing, which runs counter to the Government’s aim of creating more affordable housing. Communities of all socio-economic backgrounds should be able to afford to live in developments benefitting from onsite BNG. (Conclusion, Paragraph 113)

The Government should set out how it plans to control the long-term costs and implementation of on-site BNG initiatives, so they are delivered to sufficient standards and ensure unreasonable costs are not passed onto households; as part of this, the Government should consider the implications of third-party delivery models. In addition, the Government should explain to us what it is already doing to prevent residents from being overcharged for BNG services in its response. (Recommendation, Paragraph 114)

Introducing new exemptions to BNG when the policy remains in the early stages of implementation may have unintended consequences, particularly if applied too broadly. We believe more time is needed to assess the effectiveness of BNG before substantive changes are made. (Conclusion, Paragraph 115)

While the Government has completed its consultation on new exemptions to BNG, additional exemptions must not undermine the effectiveness of the policy, ecosystem integrity, or the establishment of the BNG credit market. Entire exemptions from BNG for small sites would undermine the policy. The Government should not exempt all small sites, but consider minor alterations, to ensure that the effectiveness of the policy is maintained. We reiterate our recommendation in paragraph 124 of our report on The Role of Natural Capital in the UK’s Green Economy. The Government should wait at least three years before making any substantial changes to BNG, as this could be viewed as a watering down of ambition. (Recommendation, Paragraph 116)

In the event that BNG requirements do render brownfield sites less attractive or viable then the Enhanced Regeneration Programme could be an appropriate approach, particularly in areas that require housing growth but have struggled to secure investment, related to viability concerns. (Recommendation, Paragraph 117)

The Government should conduct an assessment of the capacity and performance of monitoring of BNG commitments by local authorities. Local authorities must understand their responsibilities to ensure that BNG promised is delivered and buy in expertise and resource if it is not currently employed. LPAs should be held to account for adequate monitoring of BNG and resourced to deliver it. (Recommendation, Paragraph 118) 91

We recognise and welcome the recognition of the importance of green infrastructure in the latest revision of the NPPF. However, we heard that more can be done to promote it within the planning system. (Conclusion, Paragraph 126)

The Government should be more prescriptive on the standards of green and blue infrastructure in new developments. The Government should mandate initiatives like Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework in new and refurbished developments to seek to ensure high standards of green and blue infrastructure are applied consistently across local planning authorities. (Recommendation, Paragraph 127)

As recommended in our Flooding Resilience report, nature-based solutions are highly effective and underutilised in protecting England’s properties from flooding. The Government should embed nature-based solutions as a core component of national flood resilience strategy by 2027 and make Sustainable Drainage Systems mandatory in all new developments. (Recommendation, Paragraph 128) Sustainable Construction

Reducing embodied carbon is vital to decreasing the carbon emissions of the built environment and meeting the UK’s legally binding climate targets. Considering that key milestones for reducing carbon emissions are rapidly approaching, the Government must accelerate the introduction of policy in this area. (Conclusion, Paragraph 140)

We reiterate and support the recommendation given by our predecessor Committee on embodied carbon and whole-life carbon assessments: a. “The RICS Professional Statement on whole-life carbon assessments is fit for use and already familiar to UK industry. We recommend that, as soon as possible [ … ], the Government should seek to establish the RICS methodology as the UK industry standard for whole-life carbon assessments”. (Recommendation, Paragraph 141)

Additionally: a. “We recommend that following the introduction of whole life carbon assessments, the Government should develop progressively ratcheted carbon targets for the built environment, to match the pathway to net zero set out in periodic carbon budgets. These ratcheting targets should be reported on annually, and progress reports towards achieving these targets should be published annually as part of the Net Zero Strategy indicators”. 92 b. “We recommend that a clear timeframe for the introduction of mandatory whole-life carbon assessments and ratcheting targets should be set by Government by the end of this year”. (Recommendation, Paragraph 142)

The Government should consider what other steps it could take to encourage low-carbon approaches to building, including reviewing taxation policies to incentivise home owners, housebuilders, landlords and tenants to favour homes with lower levels of embodied carbon. (Recommendation, Paragraph 143)

We recommend that the Government commission a review into Council Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax and any other tax policies to consider the merit of offering lower bands of taxation for homes with lower levels of embodied carbon. (Recommendation, Paragraph 144)

We would encourage any amendments made to the RICS whole life carbon assessment framework to be accompanied with a formal statement, detailing the amendments and confirming that they have been approved to become part of the UK industry standard. This will ensure clarity for stakeholders and reinforce the updates made using the best available information and research. (Recommendation, Paragraph 145)

Major developers should submit whole life carbon assessments as part of planning applications to local authorities; this should be mandatory for all major developments, as defined in the NPPF. The Government should consult on ways to financially incentivise housing development to lower full lifecycle carbon, such as introducing a levy on new build properties containing higher levels of lifecycle carbon alongside reduced taxation on lower carbon homes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 146)

The revised NPPF does not contain explicit reference to embodied carbon, despite a widely held opinion that the NPPF must play a central role in supporting low-carbon housing. This oversight limits the NPPF’s ability to minimise carbon emissions from new buildings and undermines efforts to meet the UK’s emission reduction targets. (Conclusion, Paragraph 152)

The December 2024 revision of the NPPF should be updated to include clearer and stronger expectations on embodied carbon for new developments. The current Government should also honour the promise made by the previous Government and conduct a consultation on how embodied carbon should be measured and reduced in UK buildings, potentially through Building Regulations, without compromising levels of operational carbon; this consultation should commence no later than March

Alternative building materials, such as timber and hemp, offer practical and effective ways to reduce the embodied carbon of buildings. Their use supports Government ambitions to reach net zero and continue to deliver on their sustainable housing target, in addition to stimulating economic growth through the development of relatively nascent industries. (Conclusion, Paragraph 158)

Whilst the Government has taken initial steps to promote timber through the Timber Construction Roadmap, there remains a lack of clear incentives and guidance to encourage the adoption of low-carbon material in housebuilding. The Committee believes the Government should take a more active role in shaping how low carbon materials are popularised. This could be done by providing market signals that reward sustainability. One such measure could be the introduction of eco-labelling for building products, enabling builders and developers to identify materials with lower embodied carbon. (Recommendation, Paragraph 159)

The Government could also consider other financial incentives in product areas where the cost differential makes adoption of lower embodied carbon products unattractive and support for manufacturing set up of lower embodied carbon products. We recommend that the Government consult, by April 2026, on what further incentives could shift the dial in this area. (Recommendation, Paragraph 160)

Retrofitting existing buildings is more environmentally friendly and sustainable than demolition and new construction. We accept that not all existing properties can be converted into residential buildings, and do not deny that some new homes do need to be built. However, prioritising the retrofit and regeneration of existing buildings could contribute substantial numbers towards the Government’s 1.5 million house building target, with minimal harm to nature and with minimal carbon emissions. (Conclusion, Paragraph 166)

Although retrofit and regeneration of buildings is already encouraged in policy, it is often sidelined. Strengthening focus in this area should be prioritised, considering the range of benefits associated with doing so. (Conclusion, Paragraph 167)

Government should prioritise and incentivise retrofitting over demolition by strengthening requirements to reuse, repurpose and refurbish buildings before any demolition. It is contrary to the Government’s environmental objectives to incentivise carbon-intensive new building over the re-use of existing sites. To encourage the retrofit and repurposing of existing buildings, the VAT on retrofit projects should be reduced from 20% to reflect environmental benefits and support uptake. Government should therefore confirm that a property brought back into use would count towards its, and a local authority’s housing target. (Recommendation, Paragraph 168) 94

As with the embodied and operational carbon recommendation (Para 138nb mbnj ) we believe that the Government should investigate how it can use the tax system to reduce the tax burden on properties that reduce their carbon footprint and/or increase the tax burden on environmentally regressive properties to create a greater incentive for making retrofitting decisions that reduce the carbon footprint of a home, as part of the review we recommended. (Conclusion, Paragraph 169) Skills and Resourcing

One of the strongest messages we have heard throughout this inquiry is that local planning authorities are severely under-resourced in terms of ecological expertise. Addressing this should be a priority, as without rapid and meaningful support, the Government will struggle to meet its house building targets while adhering to environmental standards. The Government must ensure that local planning authorities are adequately resourced in order to hire and train ecologists to execute the range of recently introduced and proposed environmental planning policies, such as Biodiversity Net Gain. (Conclusion, Paragraph 187)

We recommend that the Government should invest in and prioritise the training and upskilling of talent in ecology as a priority. As a temporary measure, to address current staff shortages, the Government should pilot and establish local ecological resource hubs, consisting of qualified ecologists and environmental planners, who are available to local authorities facing acute resource challenges. The Government should establish a pilot programme for ecological resource hubs by July 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 188)

Qualifications in ecology may not always contain sufficient practical elements in the courses that equip future ecologists with the necessary skills for professional practice. The Committee has heard that some students may require additional training to develop the necessary competencies needed for professional roles after gaining formal qualifications such as degrees; this can add to planning delays and capacity issues in the sector. (Conclusion, Paragraph 189)

We recommend that the Government, via Skills England, begins working with ecology qualification providers to standardise and embed essential practical components into ecology course design, by April 2026. This is to ensure that courses are geared towards modern policy demands and individuals are sufficiently equipped with the necessary skills for their professional practice. This should include training on the planning system for ecologists. (Recommendation, Paragraph 190) 95

The Government should partner with professional bodies to accelerate the training of early-career ecologists through a national level, government- supported pathway, similar to that of the Pathways to Planning programme backed by the Local Government Association and MHCLG. The first iteration of this programme should be introduced by September 2027, at the very latest. (Recommendation, Paragraph 191)

The shortage of planning professionals in local authorities is undermining the planning system’s ability to function effectively. Planning officers are unable to thoroughly consider applications within statutory timeframes and are unable to adequately pre-consult. This capacity gap compromises the quality, transparency and timeliness of planning decisions. This is problematic, as Natural England has gaps in its own expertise and relies on knowledge from local authorities. (Conclusion, Paragraph 202)

Planning qualifications do not adequately equip professionals with sufficient levels of carbon literacy or ecological knowledge. This undermines planning officers’ ability to fully consider environmental factors in their decision making. To ensure that climate resilience, carbon emissions and ecology are fully incorporated into planning decisions, training on climate change and ecology must be incorporated as core components in planning qualifications and training courses. (Conclusion, Paragraph 203)

Planning qualifications and accreditation should include mandatory training in ecology and carbon literacy, to ensure that planning professionals have adequate knowledge of nature and climate issues to address these challenges in the built environment. We recommend that the Government, via Skills England, works with a relevant body, such as the Royal Town Planning Institute to: a. Develop mandatory training in ecology and the decarbonisation of buildings for those working towards Chartered Town Planner status. b. Review current planning qualifications to ensure they adequately test knowledge of ecology and carbon literacy. (Recommendation, Paragraph 204)

In addition, we recommend that the Government works with the Planning Advisory Service to develop suitable continuous professional development modules in ecology, carbon literacy and climate change, for qualified planning professionals and support their delivery through local authorities. These should be in place by September 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 206) 96

We have heard concerns that the construction industry does not have the numbers, nor the skills, needed to deliver the volume or types of homes that will enable the Government to meet its targets for housing, the environment, nature and net zero. We welcome the Government’s acknowledgment of this, along with its investments and policies to expand the construction workforce by 100,000 and equip it with the skills needed to deliver on its ambitious plans. (Conclusion, Paragraph 216)

However, we are yet to be convinced that this alone will be enough. As the Government itself has acknowledged, the construction sector will be instrumental in meeting wider Government commitments. Recruiting new talent is essential but training takes time and, in the interim, the existing workforce is already overstretched but expected to increase output. We are concerned as to whether the Government has adequately demonstrated that the existing and future construction workforce will have the full range of skills needed to meet housing and environment targets. These skills include the ability to work with new materials, install a range of technologies, maximise the productivity of brownfield sites, use the latest digital tools, and have the knowledge and skills to interact with planning professionals and ecologists. (Conclusion, Paragraph 217)

We recommend that the Government, in response to this report, should: • Provide a realistic assessment of the construction workforce and what is needed to deliver the Government’s housing targets for each remaining year of this Parliament. This should include: ○ Annual estimates of the number of construction workers needed to meet the Government’s yearly and five-year home building targets. ○ The projected natural wastage (i.e. rates of retirement) for each year from the existing workforce, to establish a baseline for recruitment and anticipate the impacts on home building. ○ Projections as to how many new recruits are expected to join the construction workforce, after adequate training that focusses on building residential properties. ○ Possible contingencies, for each year, if existing and projected workforce levels are insufficient to deliver annual housing targets. • Set out an analysis of the skill set the Government believes will be required to deliver 1.5 million homes, in line with climate and biodiversity targets. This should include an analysis of any significant gaps and how they will be addressed, in addition to: 97 ○ Skills required to install sustainable building materials. ○ Digital skills and tools to improve efficiency and support the measurement and reduction of embodied and operational carbon. ○ Skills and knowledge to maximise the development of brownfield sites for housing. ○ Skills needed to retrofit existing housing stock, to meet environmental and net zero standards. ○ An ability to work with ecologists and planning professionals to ensure optimum environmental and nature-based outcomes and support key policies such as Biodiversity Net Gain. (Recommendation, Paragraph 218)

If the environmental objectives of the Government are to be achieved, it is vital that Natural England (NE) is adequately resourced. However, NE does not currently have the necessary resources to deliver the Government’s expectations of it. Its reliance on partners, such as local authorities, is concerning considering they are also subject to severe under-resourcing. (Conclusion, Paragraph 226)

The Government should publish a paper, by March 2026, clearly laying out the Government’s housing targets, NE’s role as a statutory consultee and in developing and implementing the NRF, and what resourcing will be required for NE going forwards to deliver this. This paper should include details as to how NE will operate in light of staffing cuts and the additional responsibilities that it will be given when the current Planning and Infrastructure Bill is enacted. (Recommendation, Paragraph 227) 98