The Duke of Wellington and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch have tabled an amendment to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill designed to block the Government’s plan to scrap nutrient neutrality rules for developers.
Last week, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) announced plans to introduce a Bill amendment that would enable homes to be built within sensitive river catchments without mitigation activities. DLUHC said tackling thes “defective EU laws” which affect 62 local authority areas would unblock 100,000 homes by 2030 and provide an £18bn boost to the economy.
DLUCH argued the water environment would be protected despite the change, citing “new environmental measures that will tackle pollution at source and restore habitats”. These included:
doubling investment to £280m in the Nutrient Mitigation Scheme run by Natural England. It said this would “offset the very small amount of additional nutrients attributable to up to 100,000 new homes”; and
developing bespoke plans under Protected Site Strategies in the catchments most impacted by nutrient neutrality and with the most acute housing pressures, with the aim of reducing pollution at source.
These will supplement existing nutrient reducing activities including: the Levelling Up Bill provision for water companies to upgrade wastewater treatment works in sensitive catchments to the highest technical standards by 2030; plans to mandate sustainable drainage in new developments from 2024; nutrient reduction targets set under the Environment Act; and various agriculture-based initiatives.
The announcement was met with delight from house builders and horror from environmentalists.
The RSPB led the charge with an X post accusing PM Rishi Sunak, environment secretary Therese Coffey and DLUHC secretary Michael Gove of being “liars” for backtracking on a promise not to weaken environmental protections. The RSPB has since apologised for focusing on the individuals.
In a blog, Wildlife and Countryside Link chief, Dr Richard Benwell,pointed out the government’s amendment operates by requiring public authorities to ignore the Habitats Regulations. He called the plan potentially “catastrophic for some of our most important freshwater spaces”. He said it would:
expose the UK’s most sensitive river ecosystems to yet more pollution;
weaken environmental law, in direct contravention of Government promises; and
foist costs on the public and the environment, rather than making the polluter pay.
Benwell argued: “The government is pretending that non-binding guidance and future public funding are equal to the certainty of strict legal protection and upfront mitigation. It is swapping the certainty of existing rules for a fantasy of flimsy promises.”
The Office for Environmental Protection has also been clear the government plan will reduce the level of environmental protection. In letters to Gove and Coffey, OEP Chair Dame Glenys Stacey added that the Government has not adequately explained how, alo
ngside such weakening of environmental law, new policy measures will ensure it still meets its objectives for water quality and protected site condition. Coffey has responded defending the plan.
The Duke of Wellington amendment would delete the requirement placed on local authorities to assume that nutrients in wastewater will not cause harm to the environment.
The amendments will be voted on in Parliament this month.
Comments