By Zak Simmonds, National Rivers Consortium (NRC).
Across England, the pressure to unlock housing while protecting the environment has never been greater. Nutrient Neutrality has become a defining issue for planning authorities, developers and regulators alike, with thousands of homes delayed due to concerns over pollution in protected waterways.
In December 2025, the Planning and Infrastructure Act received Royal Assent, establishing Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) and the Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) as part of English planning law. For the first time, developers operating in nutrient-affected catchments have a potential alternative to site-specific mitigation: paying a Nature Restoration Levy into a centrally managed fund, with Natural England responsible for delivering strategic conservation measures at catchment scale.
It is a significant shift in direction. But as of June 2026, the system is not yet operational. And for developers with live planning applications, that gap matters.
What EDPs are designed to do
Under the Planning and Infrastructure Act, Natural England prepares an EDP for a defined catchment area. The plan sets out a package of conservation measures to address the cumulative environmental impact of development, funded through a levy charged to developers. Where a developer opts into an EDP, payment of the levy substitutes for their obligations under the Habitats Regulations for those issues covered by the plan.
Each EDP must pass an Overall Improvement Test: the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the conservation measures proposed will materially outweigh the negative effects of development. A minimum 28-day public consultation precedes approval.
In principle, this moves the industry away from piecemeal, site-by-site mitigation towards a more strategic model. The ambition is clear. The question is whether it delivers.
Where things stand in June 2026
Natural England has notified the Secretary of State of its intention to prepare 16 EDPs covering nutrient polluted catchments. The first formal consultations were expected to begin in spring or summer 2026. Secondary legislation setting out how the levy will be charged, who assumes liability and what penalties apply for non-payment has not yet been laid before Parliament as of this publication, though the Government has indicated it will follow during summer 2026.
The direction is set. The operational detail is still emerging.
For developers with applications moving through the planning system now, this creates a practical problem. An EDP with no confirmed approval date, no published levy rate and no completed secondary legislation cannot be relied upon as mitigation. Planning decisions cannot wait for a mechanism that has not yet come into effect.
The voluntary question
One of the most commercially significant aspects of the new framework is that EDPs are voluntary by default. Developers can continue to meet their Nutrient Neutrality obligations on a project-by-project basis through existing processes and providers. Only by exception, where Natural England considers it necessary and the Secretary of State approves, can participation in an EDP be made mandatory.
This is an important detail that has not always been clearly communicated. The EDP framework does not replace third-party nutrient credit schemes. Current Government policy direction explicitly indicates that they will continue to operate alongside EDPs once those plans come into effect.
Whether individual developers will find the levy or the credit route more commercially practical will depend on factors that are not yet determinable: levy rates have not been published, charging schedules have not been set, and the timeline to the first approved and operational EDP remains unconfirmed.
Why certainty still determines outcomes
The Home Builders Federation has consistently highlighted that nutrient neutrality has delayed the delivery of tens of thousands of homes across England. The introduction of EDPs is a genuine attempt to address that at scale. But the history of this issue is a history of policy intent outpacing delivery. What matters is not the framework; it is whether mitigation is available when a planning application needs it.
For developers, certainty is everything. Planning decisions, land acquisition and project viability all depend on a clear understanding of risk. If mitigation is uncertain, whether in availability, cost or delivery, it directly impacts confidence and investment.
For local authorities, the challenge is equally significant. They must be satisfied that any mitigation relied upon is enforceable and capable of delivering the required environmental outcomes over the long term.
For the Environment Agency, the priority is ensuring that water quality is genuinely protected and improved. This is where certainty becomes central: mitigation that is verified, deliverable, legally secured and scalable. Without these elements, the credibility of the entire system is undermined.
The role of proven mitigation
This is where practical, on-the-ground solutions become critical. Nutrient neutrality cannot be solved through policy alone. It requires delivery mechanisms that are already working, already proven and capable of scaling.
Solutions such as wetland creation, land use change and septic tank upgrades (STUs) are playing a growing role in generating nutrient credits through measurable reductions in pollution.
Natural England guidance is clear that mitigation must demonstrate additionality: it must deliver environmental benefits that would not have occurred otherwise. It must also be secured for the long term, often through legal mechanisms such as Conservation Covenants. This is not theoretical. It is practical, measurable and auditable.
At NRC, we are already delivering these solutions at scale, working with landowners, local authorities and developers to generate verified nutrient reductions directly linked to planning outcomes. The key difference is that our schemes are not dependent on future policy delivery: they exist, they operate and they produce results now.
Legal and financial certainty
Another critical component of certainty is how mitigation is secured over time. EDPs rely on the assumption that mitigation will continue to function effectively for decades.
This is why Conservation Covenants, introduced under the Environment Act 2021, are so important. They provide a legally binding framework to ensure that land is managed in a way that delivers ongoing environmental benefit. Without this level of security, mitigation could fail, degrade or be lost, undermining both environmental outcomes and the planning decisions that relied on it.
From a financial perspective, certainty also requires clear and transparent pricing. Developers need to understand the cost of mitigation upfront. Together, legal and financial clarity form the foundation of a system that works in practice.
A system that works in practice
The ambition behind the Nature Restoration Fund and Environmental Delivery Plans is to move from a reactive, fragmented system to one that is strategic, coordinated and scalable. For that ambition to be realised, the industry must remain focused on delivery:
- Prioritising mitigation solutions that are already proven
- Ensuring supply matches demand across affected catchments
- Embedding legal certainty through robust frameworks
- Maintaining transparency in how mitigation is generated and allocated
It also means recognising that the private sector has a critical role to play. Delivery cannot sit solely with public bodies. It requires organisations with the expertise, capability and track record to implement solutions at scale.
Conclusion
The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 marks a genuine step forward. EDPs and the Nature Restoration Fund, once operational, have the potential to address nutrient neutrality at a scale and with a strategic coherence the current system has not delivered.
But the system will not be judged on its legislative architecture. It will be judged on outcomes: homes built, rivers protected, environmental improvements delivered in fact rather than in principle. As of June 2026, no EDP has been approved, no levy rate has been published, and no secondary legislation has been laid. That is not a criticism of the policy direction. It is the current reality.
For that to happen, certainty must sit at the heart of the system. It is not just about having mitigation identified. It is about mitigation that is verified, deliverable, legally secured and scalable.
Because ultimately, Nutrient Neutrality is not about frameworks or funding mechanisms. It is about ensuring that every unit of development is matched by a real, measurable and lasting improvement in the environment. That requires mitigation that is not just planned, but delivered.