Rico Wojtulewicz is head of policy and market insight at the National Federation of Builders
On 22 July, the Times reported that the government is considering whether development projects will be permitted to secure nutrient-neutrality mitigation during construction, rather than before work begins.
While this acknowledges that the existing system is unfair, it retains the flawed thinking that homebuilders are the cause of our polluted waterways, not the failing water companies and polluting agricultural sector.
“Why are homebuilders paying hundreds of millions to clean up pollution they didn’t cause?”
Despite this reality, many environmental campaigners still argue that not taxing homebuilders would weaken environmental regulations, with some expressing disapproval that the timeline for securing mitigation might change. This raises the question: is clean water and reducing pollution really about the environment or is it a proxy for anti-development nimby sentiment?
Unfortunately, to many, it feels like the latter because we are clearly not ‘following the science’.
The governmental advisory body on the natural environment, Natural England, which has shown a preference for offsetting via credits over ‘at source’ pollution reduction, accepts that new-build housing is not the main polluter. Research by TDS and WA Consultancy attributes nutrient pollution to less than 1 per cent of nitrate and phosphate pollution. That same research shows that agriculture contributes to 70 per cent of nutrient pollution, and water companies between 25 and 30 per cent.
Improved monitoring has even shown that in some of the 27 current nutrient-neutrality catchment areas, water quality has worsened despite there being a moratorium on new development. An excellent example of this is the River Wye and River Lugg catchment in Herefordshire, which covers three-quarters of the county.
So why, particularly when occupants of new buildings are paying water companies to clean up their nutrient pollution (waste), are homebuilders paying hundreds of millions of pounds to clean up historical pollution and new pollution they didn’t cause?
And why are many clean-water campaigners so comfortable with the perverse strategy that’s not delivering cleaner water?
Blame game
Homebuilders have been highlighting this reality since a 2018 European Court of Justice ruling on nutrient neutrality, yet the government has continued to blame builders. It has also done little to ensure nutrient calculators and mitigation credits are in place, and only recently recognised onsite water treatment as a solution.
In some catchments, the lack of calculators or credits brought the construction of all new homes to a halt. In others, development was suspended as mitigation credits didn’t exist. Herefordshire Council recently stated that new homes are responsible for around 0.023 per cent of phosphorus load in the River Wye – an inconsequential level. Yet its moratorium on new homes, which ended six months ago, may as well still be in place, as local construction groups describe the availability of offsetting credits – which are necessary to build new homes – as ‘elusive and glacial’.
In 2022, the government finally placed a legal duty on water companies in nutrient-neutrality areas to upgrade wastewater treatment works by 2030. Yet no national planning policies were implemented to ensure works could be completed more easily.
This is why the National Federation of Builders recommended that the government grant emergency planning powers to expedite infrastructure projects such as reservoirs, water-treatment systems and connection upgrades. Had the government listened, we may have seen more Poole Harbour-type successes, where wastewater-treatment upgrades have ended phosphate mitigation.
Scapegoating isn’t helpful
The errors of judgement don’t end there, as farms are being closed to create nutrient-neutrality credits. The Home Builders Federation identified that more than 30,000 acres of farmland would need to be taken out of operation for planning permission to be granted on the 142,000 homes stuck in planning due to credit unavailability.
So what is driving this systemic failure? It cannot be incompetence, as the science is clear and people care deeply about the environment, food security and local businesses. It therefore seems impossible to ignore that nimbyism is polluting the debate and convincing well-meaning campaigners that non-polluters must pay for pollution.
Something must change because taxing scapegoats is not helping the environment and is worsening the housing crisis by making development impossible or unviable. We desperately need the pragmatists to stand up.
