Notwithstanding our recent post, readers may not intuitively make the link between the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (PIB) through which the government is seeking to deliver its flagship planning reforms, with the work of The Animal Sentience Committee (ASC) which considers how central government policy decisions take account of animal welfare. However, on 24 June 2025, the ASC sent a letter to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRA) outlining its views on the impacts on animal welfare of the planning policy proposals set out in the PIB.
The purpose of ASC reports is to support accountability to parliament in relation to the government policy decisions under consideration and the relevant Secretary of State is required to lay a response in Parliament to each ASC report. It is then a matter for parliament to decide how to proceed. In this case, it is unclear whether the relevant Secretary of State is Steve Read (Defra) or Angela Rayner (HCLG).
The letter makes the observation that the proposal to replace the current case-by-case negotiations around Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) for every planning application with an alternative approach where developers pay a flat-rate tax which will contribute to a Nature Restoration Fund and be used to support the delivery of Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) risks undervaluing the negative impacts of development on the existing population of sentient animals in favour of creating habitats and ecosystems elsewhere that may be inhabited by a future (but different) population of sentient animals. In the words of the letter, the existing animals “may be killed directly (for example, by plant machinery), killed indirectly (if their burrows or food sources are destroyed) or displaced to highly uncertain futures. These severely negative welfare impacts apply whether the animals are of high conservation concern (like newts and bats) or relatively common (such as rabbits, voles, wrens and three-spined stickleback).”
The ASC says that:
- “A requirement to predict and consider the impact on animal welfare during construction would be beneficial. This could result in measures such as avoiding breeding seasons and placing developments away from established habitats or feeding grounds wherever possible. It may also be possible to translocate certain species to a suitable alternative habitat. This would have less of a welfare impact than simply allowing animals to die out of sight.
- A requirement to consider the welfare of wild animals through thoughtful design would be beneficial. This could result in measures such as the incorporation of designs that reduce roadkill (such as tunnels or bridges), avoid light pollution, reduce bird-strikes, and minimise cat predation and disturbance from dogs. Other approaches include hedgerows and wildlife corridors, ‘swift bricks’ and requirements to plant native regional flora, to support populations of wild animals within the development as far as possible.
- A requirement to consider how new housing could promote the welfare of companion animals would be beneficial. This might be achieved by, for example, undertaking ‘pet sufficiency assessments’ to ensure the inclusion of adequate suitable areas for companion animal exercise and gardens that would allow enough space.”
and its recommendations are as follows:
- “The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and all relevant planning and infrastructure policies, should include consideration of the types of measures suggested above, to pay due regard to ways in which a policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of sentient animals. The committee would expect such considerations in line with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022.
- When EDPs are developed, Natural England should also consider the impacts of development on the welfare of all sentient animals directly and indirectly affected, regardless of their conservation status.
- Developers should be provided with guidance on how to reduce short- and long-term welfare risks to all wild animals, and how to promote long-term welfare benefits for companion animals.”
Whilst there are obvious trade-offs between development and the animal world, it is easy to see how, if adopted, these recommendations would result in a double-bind for developers of having to pay both the Nature Fund tax and continue to fund the full range of on-site investigations and mitigation measures to limit the adverse impacts on existing populations of both protected and non-protected species – even pests such as rabbits which a landowner has a legal responsibility to control.
We will be monitoring how the relevant Secretary of State responds.
