Natural England’s draft plan shows how the Nature Restoration Fund could change the way developers and landowners address environmental impacts through planning.

Published: 20 October 2026
Authors: Sarah Millington

Natural England has published for consultation a draft Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP) for nutrient pollution affecting the Norfolk Broads and River Wensum. It provides the first detailed indication of how the new Nature Restoration Fund regime could operate in practice and, for developers, landowners and strategic land promoters, points towards a potentially significant change in the way environmental impacts are dealt with through the planning system.

The central proposal is relatively straightforward. Rather than every development having to solve the same environmental problem individually, an EDP allows Natural England to identify the environmental harm expected from a defined amount of development. It then puts in place a strategic package of conservation measures intended to more than offset it. Developers covered by the plan can then contribute towards those measures through the new Nature Restoration Levy.

For a development industry which has spent several years grappling with nutrient neutrality and the resulting impact on housing delivery, it is a potentially important change. However, the consultation also raises significant practical questions around cost, capacity and timing. It remains necessary to ask whether applicants will benefit from using the new system where an established  public or private mitigation route may be available at a lower cost.

From individual mitigation to strategic delivery

The Norfolk EDP addresses nutrient impacts on the Broads Special Area of Conservation, Broadland Ramsar site and River Wensum Special Area of Conservation. It is intended to cover up to 15,780 new homes over a 10-year period and is confined to houses and flats within the defined development area, excluding the protected sites themselves and a 50 metre buffer around these.

Under the proposals, participation will generally be voluntary. A developer whose scheme falls within the EDP can choose to use it and commit to paying the Nature Restoration Levy. For this EDP, the draft levy is £2,675 per dwelling, subject to indexation.

That payment has an important regulatory consequence. Once Natural England accepts the developer's request and the developer is committed to the levy, the nutrient pollution impact covered by the EDP can be disregarded for purposes of assessment pursuant to the Habitats Regulations. Although if there are other potential effects on European sites not covered by the EDP then an appropriate assessment may still be required. The EDP is specifically concerned with nutrient pollution from wastewater and surface water runoff from new homes. Other environmental impacts and obligations remain to be dealt with in the usual way.

In practical terms, the regime therefore offers something more significant than another mechanism for purchasing nutrient credits. It potentially transfers responsibility for devising and delivering the relevant strategic conservation response away from individual development sites and towards Natural England. A further benefit is that Natural England’s plan or project for addressing nutrient mitigation in the catchment does not have to be delivered and operational before dwellings can be occupied. This is a major benefit for developers who have been railing against conditions requiring mitigation to be in place (or the waste water authority to confirm volumetric and /or qualitative upgrades to their systems) before occupation can occur, or occupation beyond a certain number of units.

What does the process mean for applicants?

Natural England proposes an online service providing an indicative quote based on dwelling numbers. Once a request is accepted, a commitment certificate would be issued for the planning process. A pre-commencement condition would prevent development commencing until the levy, or the first agreed instalment, has been paid. This too is a benefit as at present credit purchase agreements (CPA) need to be in place, the funds paid and the credits secured before planning permissions will be granted. Instalment options are rare, with most CPAs requiring payment of the full sum upfront.

Developers should build the levy into appraisals, land agreements and project programmes. Capacity also matters. The draft covers a maximum of 15,780 homes, with capacity reserved when Natural England accepts a request and issues a commitment certificate. The charging schedule is expected to close to new requests after year six of the ten-year plan, leaving time to deliver the conservation measures.

Will applicants benefit from the new system?

The principal benefit is certainty rather than cost. The EDP offers a standardised route and transfers responsibility for the strategic conservation response from the individual development to Natural England. This will be valuable where other public or private mitigation is unavailable, difficult to secure or likely to delay determination or commencement.

However, the EDP will not necessarily provide the most cost-effective option. We act for a client promoting 4 linked residential developments within the proposed EDP area where a comparison of costs between the proposed levy with the cost of purchasing nutrient credits from Norfolk Environmental Credits Limited (NEC) has been conducted. On the current figures, the NEC credit route is estimated to cost approximately £1.18 million, compared with approximately £1.47 million under the EDP representing a difference of nearly £300,000 across the schemes, but with indexation being payable as well under the EDP which, depending on the timing of payment, would boost the differential.

The position will vary between developments, depending on the credits required, their availability and the proposed development phasing. Even so, our client’s experience shows why applicants should compare the levy with the options available to their scheme rather than assume that the public system offers the lowest-cost route.

Cost is not the only consideration

Price is only part of the picture. Developers should ask whether any premium is justified by savings in time, risk and complexity. The comparison should cover when EDP capacity or public or private credits can be secured, the evidence needed for the planning application, the effect on commencement, occupation and phasing, and who bears delivery, monitoring and under-performance risk. A cheaper route offers little value if it cannot be secured reliably or aligned with the development programme. NEC Ltd is an established not for profit joint venture company composed of 5 Norfolk local authorities in collaboration with Anglian Water, the risk of under-performance is therefore considered to be low.

Opportunities and constraints for landowners

The regime also creates demand for land on which to deliver conservation measures. The Norfolk package includes wetland creation and restoration, agricultural land-use change, fen management and river and hydrological works. Natural England can secure measures through land acquisition, land-based agreements, conservation covenants, section 106 obligations or other agreements, potentially for 100 years. In addition, the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduced new compulsory purchase powers for Natural England connected with the delivery of EDPs and the Nature Restoration Fund.

For rural and strategic landowners, this creates a potential income stream. But they should weigh any payment against the long-term effect on title, management, agricultural operations, future development potential and successors in title. They should also consider how the arrangement interacts with biodiversity net gain, nutrient schemes and other environmental payments, particularly where stacking and additionality rules apply.

Not every environmental issue disappears

The EDP covers a specific impact: nutrient pollution from wastewater and surface-water runoff associated with new homes affecting the identified protected sites. It does not replace environmental assessment generally. Development within the protected sites or the proposed buffer cannot rely on the EDP in respect of those impacts. In addition, where a development relies on the EDP but uses non-mains foul drainage, the proposals provide for a planning condition to secure the performance of the non-mains drainage system, including any package treatment plant.

Early ecological and planning due diligence remains essential, even where the levy route is available.

What developers and landowners should consider now

A number of questions need to be considered:

• is the site within the EDP area and is the development eligible?
• how does the levy compare with available public, private or bespoke mitigation?
• when must capacity or credits be secured, particularly for phased schemes?
• what planning evidence, conditions and residual assessments will remain?
• could land within the ownership be suitable for conservation measures?
• what would a long-term covenant or obligation mean for use and value?

A significant shift, but not an automatic advantage

The Norfolk EDP shows how the Nature Restoration Fund can address environmental impacts strategically. It gives applicants a clearer and more predictable route while supporting conservation at catchment scale. But it is an alternative, not an automatic advantage.

For some developments, transferring delivery risk and gaining greater programme certainty will justify the levy. For others, other public or private credits will remain cheaper and sufficiently secure. The key question is whether the EDP's additional certainty is worth the cost for the scheme in question.

Deadlines

The consultation closes at 9.29am on Tuesday 27 October 2026. Read the consultation and submit your response.

If you are considering what the EDP could mean for your development, our Planning team can help you assess the available options and respond to the consultation.