Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders.
Sunak tweeted on Tuesday: “I want to see more homes built. It’s also what local communities want. But sometimes hangover EU laws get in the way. It’s not right. So I’m cutting the red tape to unlock thousands of new homes and I’m stepping up action to protect our environment.”
The nutrient neutrality scheme, aimed at saving England’s rivers from being overloaded with nitrates and phosphates, which cause algal blooms and choke oxygen from rivers, currently allows developers to pay for “credits” to improve local wetland areas. This allows them to offset pollution.
But the new amendment allows planning officials to ignore the extra pollution caused by sewage from new homes in sensitive areas and runoff from construction sites, with the taxpayer paying for the offsets instead.
Announcing the change, the levelling up secretary, Michael Gove, and the environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey, said they were getting rid of “defective EU laws”. However, officials claimed scrapping the rules would not weaken environmental protections due to the new taxpayer funding.
“Now instead of the polluter paying, the costs have been dumped on the environment and the taxpayer,” Craig Bennett, the chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts said. “Time and again the costs go on the environment and the taxpayer as a result of lobbying by industries and what we have seen here is another example of very effective lobbying from the construction industry.
“It is not only terrible value for money for the taxpayer but it’s breaking promises to the environment made only weeks ago by Rishi Sunak. How can we ever trust environmental promises he makes again?”
Housebuilders have rejoiced in the news. The executive chair of the Home Builders Federation, Stewart Baseley, said: “Today’s very welcome announcement has the potential to unlock housing delivery across the country, from Cornwall to the Tees Valley, where housebuilding has been blocked despite wide acknowledgment that occupants of new homes are responsible for only a tiny fraction of the wastewater finding its ways into rivers and streams.
“The industry is eager to play its part in delivering mitigation and protecting our waterways. We look forward to engaging with government on the right way to do so, now that ministers are acting upon the arguments that builders both large and small have been making for so long.
“With some areas having been blighted for four years, the prospect of a swift resolution will be much-needed good news for companies on the verge of going out of business, their employees and for households most affected by housing affordability pressures. Builders will be able to bring forward otherwise stalled investment in communities and get spades in the ground, so we need parliament to get this solution on to the statute book.”
There is discord between Natural England, Defra officials and ministers, and the levelling up department. Though many of the measures regard new funding and responsibilities for the government’s advisory body Natural England, its chair, Tony Juniper, declined to comment on the news. He had previously said removing these rules would result in “rivers full of sewage”.
Sam Hall, the director of the Conservative Environment Network, said: “Conservative environmentalists support both home ownership and environmental stewardship. The limited options for housebuilders to offset nutrient pollution from new homes meant that nutrient neutrality rules were acting as a de facto block on much-needed housing.
“A better approach for both nature recovery and housing supply is possible, and so the government was right to seek an alternative. The government’s mitigation measures, which will avoid additional nutrient pollution entering rivers until 2030 when water treatment works will have been upgraded, are welcome.
“It is disappointing, however, that the government has chosen to exempt housebuilding’s nutrient pollution from the habitats regulations, rather than seek a holistic reform with developers paying proportionally for their pollution.”
Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “What the government is proposing here is to remove legal protections for nature, throw away requirements for polluters to pay, and instead use taxpayers’ money to try to fill the gap. But a single, short-term capital injection will do nothing to make up for the harm that our rivers and wildlife will suffer as a result.
“Scrapping the rules may reduce the costs for big businesses, but those costs don’t disappear. Instead, the public will pick up the bill for pollution reduction, and the environment will bear an unbearable cost of yet more pollution in our most sensitive rivers and streams.”
