Ali Morse, water policy manager for The Wildlife Trusts, makes the case for defending the EU-era nutrient neutrality rules.
The Government contradicted itself when it announced its plans to weaken rules that prevent pollution of some of our most precious places for wildlife. Promises not to dismantle environmental protections are now void and its goal to ‘deliver the most ambitious environmental programme on earth’ hangs by a thread.
The Government’s proposals will force local authorities to turn a blind eye to pollution – regardless of their views or those of their communities. Instead, local authorities should support calls to drop this amendment, and demand that existing solutions to this issue – which have already unlocked thousands of new homes – are shown the necessary support.
Our rivers, lakes and coastlines are already suffering from excessive nutrient pollution. This pollution places at risk some of our most precious habitats, such as internationally rare chalk streams, and species. The salmon populations of many English rivers are now threatened with disappearing forever.
Developers being given carte blanche to build more houses without worrying about risks to waterways will only make a bad situation even worse. Extra people flushing toilets means extra sewage. Current legislation requires permission to be refused when a development would add pollution to protected sites already in poor condition, unless that pollution can be mitigated. We cannot afford for these protections to be removed – there is far too much at stake.
The Governments’ claims that current rules created a ‘housing moratorium’ are disingenuous. Government, local authorities and others have established schemes that allow developers to pay to reduce sources of water pollution locally meaning that, on balance, the development would be ‘nutrient-neutral.’ This has meant planning permission could be granted, safe in the knowledge that, overall, the development would not make pollution any worse.
In removing these protections, the Government is hoping that a package of pollution controls will be enough to ward off public criticism. Put simply, we do not think their current offer adds up.
As things stand, the Government is using the Levelling Up Bill, currently passing through Parliament, to alter the Habitats Regulations. These are essential rules that protect internationally important wildlife sites, including rivers. Changes mean that planning authorities, when considering planning applications, would have to ‘assume that nutrients in urban wastewater from the potential development… will not adversely affect the relevant site.’ This spells nothing but catastrophe for our already beleaguered waters.
Instead of making developers pay to offset their pollution, eating into their profits, Government will increase funding to the nutrient mitigation scheme run by Natural England – meaning that taxpayers rather than developers will pay to prevent pollution. This doesn’t benefit nature nor the public and instead only shows that Government is happy to subsidise big business using the public purse.
There are of course other sources of pollution of rivers and lakes beyond housebuilders, such as water companies and agriculture, and these sources urgently need to be tackled. Does that mean developers should be allowed to pollute with impunity? We don’t think so and neither does the public.
A recent survey found that pollution is seen as the top issue of concern for Wildlife Trust members and the wider public. Ninety-nine percent of our members and 76% of the public say pollution has negative or strongly negative impacts on nature. More than half of our members believe that cleaning up pollution from rivers and seas should be a priority for an incoming Government, making it second only to tackling climate change in terms of overall priorities, and more important than delivering sustainable transport, energy, and housing.
The Government argues that tackling pollution from sewage and farming means that we don’t need to worry as much about how building pollutes wildlife sites. But giving developers a free pass on pollution means that other industries are likely to look for the same – and indeed such calls have already been heard from the farming sector. Letting housebuilders off the hook when it comes to pollution sets a dangerous precedent.
Yet we can build more houses and protect nature – it is not a question of choosing one or the other. Just two active schemes – in Dorset, and Hampshire – have offset enough nutrient pollution to enable the building of 4,000 new homes. We urge local authorities and the public to stand up to this threat to help protect our environment now and in the future.
Waterways are the arteries of our natural world, but they are already under huge pressure and not a single river in England is in good health. Do we really want a race to the bottom to line the pockets of a few, or instead choose a cleaner, greener, and healthier future for our country?
If this article was of interest, then check out our feature, 'Against nutrient neutrality rules'.
