Ben Goodwin, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at IEMA, said: “The UK faces a critical challenge: addressing the critical need for new housing and infrastructure while safeguarding the environment for future generations.
"However, under this new approach is the Government essentially saying scrap the 'polluter-pays principle' and replace it with a 'pay-to-pollute' principle?"
Currently developers may need to secure mitigation for environmental harm before being granted planning permission. This approach will mean developers don’t have to pay for individual site level assessments for matters covered by the Nature Restoration Fund and will no longer have to deliver the mitigation needed.
Under these new reforms, a single payment by developers into the new Nature Recovery Fund will enable building to proceed immediately. A delivery body, such as Natural England, will then take responsibility for securing positive environmental outcomes, for example, delivering a reduction in nutrient pollution affecting the water environment or securing habitats to increase the population of a protected species.
Ben Goodwin continued: "Principally the government is saying pay into this pot for wider strategic enhancement of the natural environment and you can crack on and build.
"This is the opposite of the ‘mitigation hierarchy’. Effectively saying compensate for environmental damage as the first step, instead of avoiding environmental damage, and runs contrary to good practice and established principles of environmental protection.
“Likewise, the ‘proximity principle’ – that environmental damage should, as a priority, be addressed at its origin to avoid the need to remedy its effects later. Rectification at source should result in approaches that are more cost-effective, efficient, and equitable in the long-term. This is one of the principles in the Environmental Principles Policy Statement.
“It is also not clear how wider potential impact from developments – such as air quality, noise and flood risk – that are key issues addressed in Environmental Impact Assessment and are issues identified in the UK’s Environmental Improvement Plan, will be considered under this new regime.”
Environmental Outcomes Reports
This reflects the Government’s ongoing work behind the scenes to move away from a conventional approach based on Environmental Impact Assessment to one focused on Environmental Outcomes Reports (EOR).
Ben Goodwin said: “Neither the previous Conservative Government nor the current Labour Government have been clear about what constitutes a 'good environmental outcome'.
“There is a huge risk that environmental safeguards are weakened without high-quality, evidence-based impact assessment in the planning process.
“The UK has an opportunity to get this right: to build high quality development in the right places, in the right way, for the benefit of society and the environment alike.
“More broadly, there is real concern that the shift to an EOR approach isn’t being joined up with other aspects of government policy concerned with enhancing the natural environment. This includes, for example, the government’s flagship Environmental Improvement Plan, which is considered the main instrument for driving nature enhancement and is currently subject to revision itself.”
Nutrient Neutrality
The new Nature Recovery Fund will water down Nutrient Neutrality regulations which guard against runoff from development causing increased levels of phosphorous and nitrates in water ways, decreasing levels of dissolved oxygen and causing a decline in the diversity of fish and aquatic life.
Ben Goodwin said: “Given just 14% of rivers in England have a ‘good’ ecological status and only 6% of Britain’s rivers are due to be in a ‘healthy’ state by 2027, nutrient neutrality is critical to prevent further damage to the UK’s watercourses. While the need for new housing is urgent, development must include robust measures to mitigate environmental impacts, protecting biodiversity and preserving ecosystems for the future.
“We cannot on the one hand point the finger at water companies when sewage is allowed to pollute our water courses or wring our hands at farmers for not preventing agricultural runoff, and then water down protective measures to prevent similar impacts from housing development.”
