Dr Chris Lyons, planning director at SLR Consulting, discusses why the Nature Restoration Fund needs vision, scale and a system built for longevity
The UK Government’s new Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) marks a long-awaited shift in how environmental value is addressed in development. By allowing developers to contribute financially to a central fund rather than delivering biodiversity net gain (BNG) and other environmental impacts solely on-site, the NRF offers a more flexible, strategic and potentially more impactful approach to achieving nature-based outcomes.
But while the fund’s principles are a step in the right direction, its current scope leaves major gaps – particularly for mid-sized housing schemes that face the greatest practical challenges in meeting BNG obligations. For the NRF to deliver on its promise, it must evolve quickly into a model that is inclusive, scalable, and governed by organisations equipped for long-term ecological stewardship.
Rethinking on-site biodiversity: The limits of fragmentation
Under the traditional model, developers are expected to meet BNG and other environmental requirements usually within their site boundaries or with small local contributions. While this might sound intuitive, in practice it has resulted in a patchwork of small, disjointed green spaces across the country – often of limited ecological value, challenging to manage, and offering limited public benefit. Though these isolated green features may satisfy calculations on paper, they do not always contribute meaningfully to the broader landscape or local community needs.
Such fragmentation also creates logistical headaches. Developers are not typically land managers or ecological stewards. Once a site is completed, the ongoing burden of managing these minor habitats often falls to under-resourced management companies or local authorities, increasing the risk of long-term decline or neglect. Some of these sites become poorly maintained within a few years of completion.
By comparison, a model that pools developer contributions into a central fund managed by specialist conservation bodies has the potential to deliver more ecologically coherent, professionally managed and socially valuable outcomes. Instead of spreading limited resources thinly across hundreds of minor interventions, funds can be concentrated to create large-scale, high-impact habitats – wetland reserves, woodland corridors, rewilded floodplains and nature parks that benefit biodiversity and people alike. Getting the scale and input of these Environmental Delivery Plans right will be critical to delivering success.
The mid-sized development problem
While the fund may benefit smaller developments in practice, particularly those under the small site metric for BNG, its framework must evolve to better support mid-sized developments where on-site biodiversity delivery poses greater challenges. Large-scale developments, typically consisting of 200+ homes, normally have the space and design flexibility to integrate effective on-site mitigation. They often can deliver meaningful habitat zones without undermining viability.
However, it’s the middle of the spectrum – developments of 50 to 200 units – that are most constrained. These sites are too large to avoid environmental requirements, yet too small to comfortably accommodate them without compromising housing numbers, site design or commercial viability. Attempting to deliver BNG and other requirements often results in fragmented landscaping or poorly integrated ecological areas that deliver limited value and can considerably impact viability.
These mid-sized projects represent a large proportion of new housing being delivered across the country. If the NRF cannot adapt to support them, it risks excluding the very developments that would benefit most from a more strategic approach to environmental mitigation.
Moreover, the planning environment for mid-sized schemes is becoming increasingly complex, with tightening regulatory frameworks, greater scrutiny on environmental impact and mounting public expectations for green infrastructure. This places a disproportionate burden on developers, making the case even stronger for a centralised, expert-led funding and delivery model.
A smarter way to support biodiversity
Developers are typically driven by clear and consistent compliance frameworks. Few are unwilling to meet environmental obligations – but what they need is a system that recognises practical constraints, offers predictability and aligns incentives with good outcomes.
In its ideal form, the NRF would offer a simple tariff-based model, calculated on a per-unit basis, that allows developers to contribute off-site when on-site delivery is impractical. This creates financial certainty and frees up land for more efficient development layouts. In turn, the contributions are used to fund large, professionally managed biodiversity projects, overseen by organisations with the capability and expertise to deliver real results.
This isn’t about allowing developers to opt out of nature. It’s about giving them a practical pathway to support it – not through micromanaged landscaping plans and isolated green buffers, but by empowering conservation professionals to deliver and maintain nature-rich habitats at scale. This will also ensure ongoing and future management will be achieved.
Furthermore, a more flexible model of delivery can also unlock innovation. Strategic projects can integrate nature-based solutions to flood risk, heat mitigation and air quality, delivering co-benefits that extend beyond biodiversity alone. These multifunctional landscapes can serve as infrastructure that supports resilient, climate-ready communities.
Strategic green infrastructure for people and wildlife
The greatest potential of the NRF lies in its ability to support strategic, destination-scale green infrastructure. Projects that serve multiple developments and communities simultaneously offer far greater ecological value than small, site-specific interventions. They can connect existing habitats, provide new habitats at a strategic level, enhance ecological networks, and create public amenities that support health and wellbeing.
Imagine a regional wetland reserve funded by pooled developer contributions, offering flood mitigation, biodiversity restoration and a community resource for walking, education and recreation. Or a woodland corridor linking two previously isolated nature sites, enhancing species migration and biodiversity resilience. These kinds of initiatives can only be delivered through centralised funding and expert management – and they deliver benefits that far exceed the sum of their parts.
There are also strong economic and planning rationales for this approach. By removing the need to dedicate valuable development land to fragmented green infrastructure, more homes can be delivered within existing sites. For example, removing BNG delivery from a constrained site might free up enough land to deliver additional housing units – helping to meet local needs and accelerate delivery. This accepts that there still needs to be open space and room around the site for it to ‘breathe’.
Strategic green infrastructure also contributes to long-term place-making. Well-designed, high-quality nature assets are increasingly seen as essential ingredients for thriving communities. They enhance visual character, create identity and can increase local property values. With careful planning and delivery, the benefits are felt not only by the environment, but by the economy and society as well.
The importance of inclusion and access
While strategic nature restoration offers clear advantages, it must not come at the expense of equitable access. On-site green space remains essential – particularly in developments serving lower-income households or communities without access to private transport. If all meaningful biodiversity is pushed off-site, there’s a risk of creating a two-tier system: one where affluent, mobile residents can enjoy restored habitats elsewhere, while others are left with little more than token landscaping.
Strategic sites supported by the NRF must be accessible by public transport, integrated with green walking and cycling networks and designed with inclusivity in mind. At the same time, developers must continue to deliver essential green infrastructure on-site – particularly in denser or car-free developments. The NRF is not intended to replace on-site provision but to complement it, offering an alternative where scale and impact call for a broader, more co-ordinated approach.
Inclusive access should also consider the needs of diverse users – from families with young children to elderly residents and those with disabilities. Strategic green spaces should be welcoming, safe and multifunctional, with facilities and design that support engagement and community use.
Trust, governance and long-term viability
A key challenge for the NRF will be building trust in its governance and outcomes. The history of environmental offsetting in the UK is mixed, and communities are rightly wary of promises that fail to materialise. To succeed, the fund must be transparent in how contributions are allocated, rigorous in how outcomes are monitored and ambitious in the quality of what it delivers.
Delivery bodies must be trusted, expert-led organisations with a track record in ecological restoration and land management. Wildlife Trusts and similar conservation charities are well placed to take this role, and many are already engaging with developers and planning authorities on long-term habitat creation projects.
Crucially, stewardship must be built in from the start. Restoration is not a one-time investment; habitats take decades to mature and require careful management throughout their lifecycle. The NRF must embed long-term funding models and oversight mechanisms to ensure the value created is retained in perpetuity.
Additionally, success metrics should extend beyond basic habitat creation to include biodiversity quality, resilience and community engagement. Governance models should reflect not just the number of hectares restored, but the functionality and connectivity of those habitats within the wider ecological network.
Funding adequacy and future scalability
The government has allocated £14m to the NRF for 2025/26. While this is a useful pilot, it is unlikely to meet the scale of ambition required to transform the delivery of biodiversity in the built environment. If the fund is to become a viable national model, it will need to scale significantly.
That doesn’t necessarily mean a dramatic increase in public funding. If structured correctly, the NRF could be largely self-sustaining, funded through developer contributions and expanded in line with housing growth. Most developers would be willing to pay into a well-governed scheme that provides a clear, cost-effective alternative to on-site delivery. Over time, the fund could support an entire ecosystem of strategic environmental initiatives across the country.
To support this growth, the government should explore opportunities to align the NRF with wider policy agendas such as the Environment Act, climate resilience strategies and UK Government Funding, formerly known as levelling-up objectives. Strategic nature projects can support multiple goals simultaneously and deserve a more integrated funding and policy framework.
Aligning housing and environmental goals
Perhaps most importantly, the NRF offers a route to reconcile two policy objectives that have too often been in conflict: the need for more housing, and the need to restore nature. By shifting the burden of delivery from constrained plots to co-ordinated, landscape-level interventions, it allows for smarter land use and a more collaborative approach between planners, developers and environmental stakeholders.
The result is not just faster development, but better places – places where people live closer to meaningful green infrastructure; places that are resilient to climate change, rich in biodiversity, and socially inclusive. Places where planning isn’t a trade-off between growth and the environment, but a framework that enables both.
This balance will be critical in the years ahead. As climate pressures grow and the demand for housing continues to rise, integrated approaches like the NRF can help align short-term delivery with long-term sustainability.
A strong start, but not the full solution
The Nature Restoration Fund is a welcome intervention. It recognises the inefficiencies and limitations of the current system and proposes an alternative model rooted in scale, expertise and long-term stewardship. But its current scope is still narrow, its funding is too limited, and its structure is still in development.
To succeed, the NRF must become more than a compliance mechanism. It must evolve into a strategic platform for delivering nature recovery alongside sustainable development. That means expanding its coverage to mid-sized sites, embedding equity into access and design, building robust governance frameworks and scaling funding to meet real-world needs.
Nature cannot be restored through half-measures or isolated interventions. It requires vision, coordination and scale. If the NRF can deliver that, it will not only change how biodiversity is managed in planning – it will help create better homes, stronger communities and a greener future.
Because ultimately, you can’t solve a systemic problem with pocket-sized policy. Restoring nature means thinking big and thinking long-term.
