Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Earl of Caithness and Lord Fuller

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak strongly for Amendments 334, 346DD and 346DE in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough. Two years after your Lordships’ House last considered nutrient neutrality, my noble friend’s amendments seek to break the nutrient neutrality deadlock, de-layer this cat’s cradle of conflicting regulations and allow us to focus on those things for best effort.

Three and a half years ago, in 2022, nutrient neutrality rules were created, and then, at a stroke, they hunky-bunkered over 200,000 planning applications in over 75 planning authorities—planning authorities which for the most part have the greatest housing potential, because they are the ones clustered around the conurbations and thus have the greatest capacity to deliver housing growth.

I was the council leader in one of these areas. At a stroke, together with our two neighbouring authorities, over 45,000 houses in a plan were made mute. We will never get roofs over people’s heads, including through affordable and social housing, while homes are not being built.

My noble friend’s amendment gets to the heart of this; it allows us to ask the fundamental question as to whether stopping housebuilding will clean up our rivers. At the outset, let us be clear: the statutory responsibility for ensuring a clean environment falls variously upon Defra, the Environment Agency, Natural England—the statutory water undertakings for the effective running of sewage treatment works.

These bodies have the funding, the powers and the responsibility for cleaning up our rivers, but the nutrient neutrality rulings transfer those responsibilities to a completely different class of organisation with no obvious statutory or financial resources to do so: local councillors, the planning departments of local planning authorities, and the housebuilding industry more generally. It is a buck-passing from those who should be designing and implementing solutions, in favour of the LPAs and builders who do not have any control over the matter at all. Taking all the homes in the UK, the Home Builders Federation estimates that, of all the current planning applications that would be built, it would add just 0.92% to the overall housing stock of 25 million dwellings.

We have to consider materiality here. At this point, I feel I should declare that, when I was not leading a council in a previous life, my business was in the fertiliser industry. I have a degree in agriculture, I studied soil science, and I have built a career around advising on effective plant nutrition and the role of nutrients in soils. If I was on Mastermind, this would be my specialist subject.

As I reflect on my own experience, it is now widely understood that the nutrient effect of the impact of new homes, over and above the existing homes in rural places such as Norfolk or Herefordshire, might contribute just 0.2% of the total phosphate load in a catchment. Put another way, out of 500 potential mitigating strategies, 499 are more likely to reduce phosphate emissions in a catchment than prevent new homes being built. In essence, not building a handful of homes in Holverston connected to a Klargester will not clean-up Rockland Broad, to give a very local example.

It is important to restate why the restrictions have been imposed. The test in the habitats regulations and in law is to avoid “significant damage” to a special area of conservation—significant damage, not purely harm. I will never understand why we have stopped our second-largest economic sector, construction, and put tens of thousands of people out of work while serially sacrificing our housebuilding targets on the altar of nutrient neutrality—a marginal future gain of just 0.2%, when the problem exists here and now.

We are aiming at the wrong target by stopping housebuilding. Just ask the people of the Hereford catchment of the River Wye whether building a few less homes will clean up their river, or whether the wholesale processing and removing of animal waste from the catchment might be a better approach. There, it is generally accepted that 80% of the nutrient load in places like Herefordshire comes from poultry manures—not from industry, or even existing homes; still less from homes that have not yet been built.

Elsewhere in your Lordships’ House, the Environment and Climate Change Committee recently heard that over 20 million tonnes of sludges, slurries and digestates are applied to land from anaerobic digesters, and some of it on valley sides. I would venture to say that the Government would be better advised to focus on this issue, rather than stopping builders building. In essence, there is a dilemma. Do we focus on the 80%, or the 0.2%?

That is why I like the noble Lord’s amendment. It enables us to focus our minds on where the substantive problem is. It directs us at the big numbers, not the trivial numbers. It stops us worrying about the 0.2% that might come from the building of new homes and from the flushing of their loos, damaging a significant contributor to the local economies and supply chains. Instead, the amendment seeks to allow a regulatory focus on where the real problem lies, which is principally with organic manures and digestates applied to land on bare stubbles, with nutrients which become mobilised much later in the summer, after harvest, when the ground has warmed up. The summer rains produce the ideal conditions to break them down into mobile phosphates, but not when the growing crops are there to absorb them, so they run off.

If we focus on some of the bigger issues rather than the marginal ones, it might allow the Government to have a joined-up approach. We might even start to provide the grounds again for slurry schemes and storage, which were cancelled in the previous year; that is the key to handling the problem. The best chance of breaking this deadlock and getting new homes built quickly, as the noble Lord has said, is to take the rapier to Part 3 of the Bill and to work out how can we solve the problem, rather than misdirecting ourselves towards small harms. We need to address the big consequences that are harming our economy and our ability to grow, and to get roofs over the heads of the people who need those homes. These are not rich people. We need affordable housing, housing in villages, and housing on brownfield land. All this is hunky-bunker, and we must sweep it away and focus on the big target, not the little one.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, Part 3 of the Bill gives new wide-ranging powers to Natural England, which has been heavily involved in all aspects of Part 3, much of which has been made up on the hoof as the Bill progressed. Part 3 also contains a good dollop of empire building by Natural England. We should be very circumspect about agreeing this when the Office for Environmental Protection criticises it as environmental aggression and a leaked report suggests that the EU has similar concerns.

Like many of your Lordships, I have been concerned about NE for some time. There have been regular press comments about the mistakes that it makes. It is often criticised for being slow, bureaucratic and inefficient in decision-making. It seems too focused on prescriptive top-down solutions, ignoring the experience of the practitioner, and slow to embrace new technologies in environmental management. Farmers and land managers have lost trust in it, which is a disaster for nature. NE is not fit for purpose. I want to examine why.

Some key factors interlink and have a compounding effect. A major problem for NE is its structure. Where scientific expertise and sound judgment is a prerequisite, there is a lack of good in-house scientists and the consultants that it uses sometimes do not have the expertise needed. Over the last 20 years, due to budgetary constraints, the best scientific experts—and therefore the most expensive to employ—have left the organisation. It used to employ highly regarded scientists but now, with some notable exceptions, it is an organisation operated by low-grade civil servants with insufficient supervision or control by scientific specialists. Yet it is an organisation on whose judgments Ministers must rely, and legal regimes rest. Making those scientific judgments is even more challenging due to Section 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which sets out a requirement to prove a negative. This is a reversal of the usual burden of proof under the law, raising a fundamental problem which only good scientists can tackle competently.

The job is made much harder because the precautionary principle, which is not mentioned in the habitat regulations, has been established by case law and must be applied to habitat assessment. Here we have a problem. What is the precautionary principle? It has no constant legal definition. Regardless of that, it is cited by NE as justification for giving weight to hypothetical risks for which there is no credible evidence and without being questioned.

So the requirement to prove a negative must be very tightly regulated, as without proper oversight the system is open to abuse. Because of NE’s structure, that abuse is increasingly evident. It is much easier for the civil servant to say no, even though that decision is based on myth or prejudice rather than sound science. This then sets a precedent for future decisions and the downward spiral continues.

That “safe decision” attitude, which pervades NE, is now the ingrained cultural attitude and the reason why it makes so many perverse decisions. Such decisions lead to more costly and/or delayed development, with little or no benefit to the environment. As an example, NE’s assessments of general licence applications 43 and 45 have revealed inconsistencies, a lack of understanding that game management activities are intrinsic to releasing activity, an overprecautionary approach based on bird flu risks and a presumption of negative impact. GL43 and GL45 were brought in to address environmental and legal issues, not bird flu.

NE has become an increasingly powerful organisation that can do what it wants without challenge. Frighteningly, the Bill seeks to give it yet more power. It cannot be challenged from within. However good the executives or members of the board of trustees are, they are not ecologists and they are not equipped to challenge the scientific approach, even if based on myth adopted by the case officer.

It is hard to challenge from without. Developers know how powerful NE is and do not want to campaign publicly for fear of damaging their relationships and having greater difficulty with their schemes in the future. This leads to a conspiracy of silence. Those who wish to challenge NE from outside are faced with every obstruction. I will go into the case of Biocore Agri Ltd in more detail on later amendments. In summary, Biocore was given approval by NE for its scheme in the nutrient market, only for NE to say it would refuse a detailed application due to a change of mind. Not surprisingly, this inconsistency has upset Biocore and it has challenged NE. I am told that, in retaliation, NE has now threatened not to answer future correspondence from Biocore. Given that NE has obstructed the private sector on nutrients, what confidence can we have that NE will not behave in exactly the same way when it comes to EDPs?

I have had the temerity to question NE’s science and scientists. Luckily, I have no land and NE has no hold on me. On 22 April, I wrote in some detail to the CEO setting out my concerns about the science that NE uses regarding wildfires and asked for a meeting. After long delays and a refusal to be allowed to speak to her or her office, I received a reply from a member of her staff, which included the words: “We do not feel such a meeting to discuss our approach to evidence would be productive”. However, I have now heard from the CEO, who has offered a meeting. It will be in October, six months after I asked for it, but it would not be taking place had I not asked the Minister, to whom I am grateful, to look into the matter.

I ask your Lordships to contrast the arrogant, complacent and discourteous attitude of NE with that of the director of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which I emailed on 28 June with concerns about the problems fiprinol and imidacloprid are causing to the environment. I received a detailed response before the end of July. That reply gave rise to further questions and, on return from holiday, I asked for a meeting on 20 August. The response was immediate and the meeting took place before the end of the month.

Inadvertently, with NE an organisation more fearsome than the environmental arm of Rostekhnadzor in Russia has been created. This part of the Bill does nothing to rectify the deep-seated problems NE has. A wise Government would drop Part 3 and sort out NE for the benefit of the environment, development and the growth that this country so badly needs before giving it more powers which, unless reformed, it will only abuse.