The Environment Act review published by Defra on 3 November 2026 finds that England’s environmental planning framework is largely established, but some of the results promised by the legislation are still difficult to demonstrate. Its post-legislative scrutiny memorandum looks at the Environment Act 2021 five years after Royal Assent, with particular implications for biodiversity net gain, local nature recovery strategies and development proposals.
For planners and developers, the most useful distinction is between a statutory system existing and that system delivering measurable improvements. The government says the biodiversity net gain market has expanded quickly and that larger schemes are broadly implementing the rules. Yet its Environment Act review also identifies difficulties for smaller developments, limited capacity in public authorities and delays in putting nature recovery strategies into place.
This is not a new amendment to the planning legislation or a replacement for the regulations already in force. Instead, the Environment Act review provides a new official assessment of how the established duties are working. Its evidence matters when councils assess biodiversity plans, landowners consider off-site habitat schemes and local plans begin to incorporate published nature recovery priorities.
What the Environment Act review actually says
Defra’s post-legislative scrutiny memorandum was published on 3 November 2026 for submission to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Its executive summary acknowledges that the evidence base is not yet mature enough
to establish whether some intended environmental results are materialising. The report examines implementation across environmental governance, water, waste, air quality and nature. The planning implications are concentrated in its nature and biodiversity sections.
There is an important jurisdictional limit. The report covers the Environment Act 2021 as a whole, but most of the measures relevant to biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery strategies operate in England. It includes some assessments relating to other nations, where the provisions apply, without creating a common biodiversity gain regime across the United Kingdom. The Environment Act review should not be treated as a change to Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish planning rules.
What the Environment Act review finds on BNG
Defra characterises implementation of mandatory biodiversity net gain as broadly successful for larger developments
. It reports that developers are obtaining ecological advice earlier and taking greater account of habitat retention and creation when designing sites. Those are encouraging signs, but they are government assessments of early implementation, not audited proof that every approved habitat project has delivered its promised ecological value.
One striking figure concerns off-site provision. The memorandum says more than 10,000 hectares of habitat created or enhanced are listed on the national biodiversity gain register, with further projects being prepared for registration. That is evidence of a growing market, not a claim that 10,000 hectares have already completed their full maintenance period or achieved every ecological outcome. Habitat quality, legal security and monitoring remain as important as the number on a register.
The Environment Act review also acknowledges that smaller developments and certain types of site have struggled with the compliance burden. Defra recounts earlier consultations and the changes made during 2026, including a small-site exemption and revised biodiversity gain hierarchy. The current statutory exemptions, application dates and conditions remain decisive for any particular application. A post-legislative report cannot itself make a development exempt.
For developers, the practical message is to assess the site’s existing habitat, priority habitats and potential off-site needs at the outset. A last-minute biodiversity calculation can still reveal a costly problem. For landowners offering off-site gains, the memorandum is evidence of demand, but saleability depends on the local market, the relevant metric, registered allocation and legally secured long-term management, rather than headline hectares alone.
Local nature recovery strategies remain behind schedule
Another measurable finding is that 45 of England’s 48 local nature recovery strategies had been published by the end of September 2026. Defra says most were completed more slowly than its original 12 to 18 month expectation. That figure is explicitly a September snapshot: it should not be presented as a live count of published strategies on 3 November without a fresh area-by-area check.
The strategies map existing habitats and locations where nature restoration or enhancement would be particularly useful. They are not new planning permissions or automatic barriers to development. Nevertheless, they matter for biodiversity metric strategic significance, plan-making and decisions informed by local ecological evidence. The Environment Act review explains that newer planning legislation requires several kinds of plans, including local plans and spatial development strategies, to take account of relevant strategies.
The assessment also describes a shift from preparing maps to delivering projects. Responsible authorities are expected to work with landowners, businesses and delivery partners on proposals that can be funded, monitored and maintained. That is especially relevant to local authorities updating green infrastructure evidence and developers looking for habitat interventions that support an area’s identified priorities rather than isolated token measures.
Capacity and monitoring are the harder tests
The review highlights an initial evaluation of the strengthened public-authority biodiversity duty. About one third of respondents to that evaluation were unaware of the duty or uncertain whether it applied to them. Defra identifies shortfalls in resources, ecological expertise, tailored guidance and organisational support. The survey finding should not be extrapolated into a claim that one third of all councils are non-compliant. It is a warning about the need for understanding and capacity.
There is a familiar tension here. Developers must prepare more detailed assessments while planning authorities need the expertise to review, condition and enforce them. The Environment Act review does not establish that these duties have failed. It says the legal mechanisms are now operating, while the ability to evidence environmental outcomes and sustain delivery remains less mature. A strong planning case should therefore identify who will deliver habitat improvements, who will monitor them and how problems will be corrected.
In the separate context of nationally significant infrastructure, mandatory biodiversity net gain began applying to qualifying development consent order applications from 2 November 2026. That commencement was already made under separate legislation. Our NSIP biodiversity gain report covers the new application threshold and the statutory requirements. The present Environment Act review assesses the wider system; it does not create that infrastructure obligation afresh.
What happens next for environmental planning
Defra’s published assessment is a useful check against two simplistic narratives. It would be wrong to say that biodiversity net gain is merely a bureaucratic obstacle without any uptake. It would be just as wrong to equate a register entry, a published strategy or an approved condition with a fully achieved biodiversity improvement. The government recognises progress, alongside questions about delivery capacity, monitoring and the time needed to measure ecological outcomes.
The next milestones will be the implementation and monitoring of habitat gains, publication of any remaining recovery strategies, and any further regulatory decisions following consultations. Planning applications must continue to be tested against the law and policy actually in force. The Environment Act review gives practitioners new evidence about how that system is performing, but does not remove the need to check the current legal tests for each site and consent.
0 Comments