Were the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill amendments an appropriate choice?
The Government’s Levelling Up & Regeneration Bill includes substantial planning reforms, setting out frameworks for the levelling up missions and introducing a range of devolution measures. The amendment of its “nutrient neutrality” rules was under fire from rebels and Tories, with the bill currently in the House of Lords, for blocking much-needed housebuilding. As housing targets are made advisory only and a reduction in housing requirements over the next few years, 100,000 more houses will be able to be built thanks to Michael Gove's agreement to the amendment (NC77). On the other hand, environmentalist groups are outraged by the amendment as they claim it would further increase water pollution, despite the fact that this new road has opened up the property market and will benefit the economy by approximately £18 billion.
Over its 13 years in power, the Conservative Party has continuously been divided over the subject of housing. This recent change is undoubtedly a huge victory for rebels led by former cabinet minister Theresa Villiers. “It will enable thousands of new homes to be built which are currently blocked, while also securing real progress on cleaning up our waterways” according to Villiers. It has been obvious that a retreat was coming since the first sign of mutiny emerged a few weeks ago when Gove postponed a Commons vote out of fear of losing. Additionally, several of the leading Tories were furious. During Liz Truss' brief office, Sir Jake Berry, the former party chairman, fumed: "Conservatives need to deliver for the next generation if we ever expect them to vote for us." It was a key pledge in the Tories’ 2019 manifesto and supporters claimed it was in keeping with Margaret Thatcher’s crusade for a property-owning democracy and new homes for younger voters. Thus, Truss’s Levelling Up Secretary Sir Simon Clarke blamed the failure to build more homes for the Tory vote in London collapsing, accusing the party of “pulling up the ladder” for younger voters. Contrastingly, Labour's shadow housing secretary Lisa Nandy further accused the government of being "weak", calling the move "unconscionable in the middle of a housing crisis".
In accordance with regulatory requirements, Natural England and the Government are collaborating with local planning authorities (LPAs) to ensure that wastewater produced by new homes does not increase pollution in our rivers and coasts while also allowing for quicker decisions that enable the construction of the homes the nation needs. To establish the legal context for this matter, it is necessary to go back in time to 1974 when the Control of Pollution Act initially seized control of waste disposal. When it took effect, a lot of old landfills were discreetly shut down and, for the most part, forgotten about—perhaps by residents of the area. The Government now also plans to cooperate with the housing sector to make sure that larger developers contribute fairly and appropriately to this programme during the ensuing years. In order to put protected sites on the road to recovery in the most affected catchments with the highest housing demand, Natural England will develop new Protected Site Strategies, and the government will then accelerate work on full site restoration.
London councils who support the amendment see it as a method for them to set their own planning fees to cover the cost of the service provided, improve performance, and solve
resource and capacity shortages in local planning departments as well as to cover costs associated with the service. However, the proposal might result in a new infrastructure levy rather than more affordable housing, which would mean fewer new affordable houses. However, it would provide local authorities the authority to demand that a certain amount of the infrastructure charge be delivered on-site. In a time when there is widespread concern that poverty and health disparities have gotten worse, housing policy can either help to increase disparities in society or be a method to reduce them. According to a source in the housing sector, “This is undoubtedly good news for Britain’s housing supply. The only question is why it has taken so long for the government to get around to doing something about this”. The District Local Network, meanwhile, welcomed the news and pointed out that in some local areas, nutrient neutrality regulations have limited the supply of affordable homes and raised the price of new homes for purchasers.
Local authorities in hundreds of protected regions across England have been encouraged to not approve any new construction that is anticipated to increase river nutrients like phosphates and nitrates, either through wastewater from new residences or runoff from construction sites. The EU first imposed such rules in an effort to stop the growth of harmful algae and other plants that can suffocate aquatic life. Existing regulations required builders to reduce increasing nutrient loads brought on by expanding populations in homes, either on-site or in other parts of the same catchment. By making investments in new wetlands or by establishing buffer zones along rivers and other watercourses, they can achieve this. This has been criticised by builders as being expensive and time-consuming. Former cabinet minister and ASI Patron Sir Brandon Lewis, MP for Great Yarmouth, told PoliticsHome Gove’s proposals were welcome and a “really good move”. As opposed to theoretical proposals for a long-term plan, Lewis said scrapping nutrient neutrality would allow the Government and developers to build more homes very quickly.“It's not a solution to everything, but it releases 100,000 to 140,000 homes. That's a lot of homes, a lot of jobs, and a lot of opportunity.” The neutrality announcement also included a £280 million increase in support in Natural England's nutrient reduction programme, which helps builders reduce the impact of developments on water pollution. Additionally, farmers and water businesses will receive incentives totaling £166 million for slurry infrastructure.
Katie-Jo Luxton, director of conservation at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said: “If nutrient neutrality rules are scrapped, pollution will accumulate unchecked and our rivers face total ecological collapse.” In agreement with Luxton, Doug Parr, policy director at Greenpeace UK said “Who would look at our sickly, sewage-infested rivers and conclude that what they need is weaker pollution rules?”. He acknowledged that it would necessitate requiring water companies and home builders to utilise their revenues to upgrade treatment facilities and pipes to the level that a modern, functional nation would demand. Developers contend that farming is a considerably greater source to the pollution in question while asserting that Natural England is enforcing the regulations in such a severe manner that they have been compelled to halt the construction of up to 120,000 new houses. In response to protests from developers, ministers introduced a mitigation programme in 2022 that allowed builders to purchase "credits" in order to obtain clearance for their projects. However, according to those developers, the procedure for buying such credits has occasionally resulted in unforeseen repercussions, such as the acquisition of farmland to put it out of production in an effort to lessen water run-off. In order to reduce the likelihood of slurry leaks, they will provide payments totaling around £400 million to farmers and water
businesses. They will also spend about an additional £300 million assisting developers in reducing the effects of their projects.
According to the Dasgupta review, investing in nature leads to wealth since it serves as the foundation for all we do. Leonardo Da Vinci once remarked that "water is the driving force of all nature" and that no society can function effectively without it. Nutrient pollution does not affect the bulk of house projects nationwide, but in 74 of England's 333 Local Authorities, pollution levels in some areas with abundant natural beauty are so high that additional mitigation measures are required. However, along with the elimination of the nutrient neutrality rules, new environmental measures will be implemented, such as increasing investment in and developing Natural England's "Nutrient Mitigation Scheme" (NMS), a programme that enables developers to purchase credits to offset nutrient pollution from housing development. Therefore, while the government moves forward with its housing ambitions, the neutrality statement has in fact slowed down environmental initiatives. To improve opportunity and the nation's environment, however, a number of mechanisms have been adopted to absorb the loss when pollutants and houses are built.
In conclusion, despite objections from environmental groups, the amendment that was agreed upon was generally a good decision. Mr. Gove thanked backbenchers in a statement for "their hard work and support to drive forward these much-needed changes to create a planning system that works for all". More affordable housing offers a respite from the dark clouds of rising interest rates and inflation. So, while still investing in a healthy environment, we can see how the removal of the "nutrient neutrality" laws will be good for the economy and for the people in the long term.