Impact of Environmental Regulations on Development (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Friday 19th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Built Environment Committee The impact of environmental regulations on development (2nd Report, Session 2022-23, HL Paper 254).

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by offering a few words of thanks to the committee and its current and former members. I am delighted to see so many of them here today contributing to the debate. I also thank the clerk of the committee, Kate Wallis, the researchers, Anna Gillingham and latterly Andrea Ninomiya, our administrator Hadia Garwell and, in particular, our specialist adviser Kelvin MacDonald both for his academic insights and his experience as a planner and former planning inspector. I will also take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Banner on what I am sure will be a very welcome maiden speech that will follow shortly in the course of the debate.

The time available for this debate is cruelly short, given the significance of the topic, so I have broken my thoughts down into three broad areas. The first is the general problem, the second is to illustrate it with some particular problems and the final point, if I get to it in time, is to ask whether there needs to be a problem at all, because perhaps there does not.

The general problem is that the Government have ambitions for building a certain number of houses—there are well-publicised housing targets—and to leave the environment in a better state than previous generations had it. The starting evidence for the committee is that neither ambition is likely to be met. In fact, we found very few people who thought the Government would hit their housing targets, and we heard authoritatively from various senior figures at some government agencies that they will not meet their environmental targets either. Even worse than not meeting them is the fact that they appear to be operating in antagonism with each other, so that, rather than cross-departmental working to achieve both, we appear to have two sets of targets working against each other the whole time.

In that context, it is worth saying that the environmental targets tend on the whole to win. Part of the reason for that is the legal background to the environmental targets, which is European Union law that we have inherited, particularly the habitats regulations. They are fundamentally coercive. They require things to happen or prohibit things from happening. On the other hand, housing is driven fundamentally by the Town and Country Planning Act regime, which is essentially a permissive regime—having planning permission does not oblige you to build anything—and is of course based on domestic law. There is no European Union background to it in particular. As a result, we have constant, unnecessary battles going on that arise in part from conflicting legal systems.

Of the particular problems that the report addresses, the most prominent and the one most deserving of time is summarised in the expression “nutrient neutrality”. This dates back to a judgment of the European Court of Justice delivered in 2018, I believe. It related to Dutch farmers. The Netherlands is very intensely farmed. For a small country, it produces an awful lot of food and a lot of pollution from that runs off into rivers. Various parties went to the European Court of Justice and said that this must stop. The European Court of Justice agreed and the Dutch Government completely kiboshed themselves by putting in place a draconian plan for buying up farms and closing them down, which has resulted in a sort of revolution in domestic Dutch politics.

That is not the key matter of interest to us. The key matter of interest is that Natural England, an unaccountable agency that exists under statute in the UK, decided that that judgment applied to England as well—we are speaking predominantly of England in this debate, incidentally, as noble Lords will be aware. It was backed up in this, I understand—although, of course, I have not seen it—by legal advice from Defra. As a result, it started to issue advice in relation to applications for residential planning permission which effectively banned them because they would add pollutants to nearby watercourses without any mitigation.

It is not possible for Natural England to actually ban or nullify a planning permission. It does so by way of advice. None the less, it is very potent advice because, first, local planning authorities live in constant terror of having judicial review proceedings brought against them and, secondly, it must be said that many local authorities are delighted to be told that they cannot build anything in their area, which is a further problem we have with our housing market.

In fact, of course, we all know that the pollution in our watercourses comes predominantly from sewage overspills and agricultural practices. These agricultural practices are licensed by the Environment Agency, another player in this complex ecology of quangos running round causing confusion in every direction. Natural England has no purchase on that, but it does have purchase on applications for planning permission—so the whole burden is being put on the housing market when in fact it belongs elsewhere. As a result, 14% of England’s land area is now effectively under a ban for residential development at a time when we need more housing.

Biodiversity net gain offers a contrasting story. What was notable about nutrient neutrality was that it arrived out of the blue, as court judgments tend to do, so those in the development world had no chance to repair or plan for it. In the case of biodiversity net gain, there was discussion and consultation, and the larger housebuilders have incorporated it effectively into what they are doing; but the smaller housebuilders, for whom the committee has great concern, have not managed to do that.

I remind noble Lords that, 20 years ago, 40% of homes were delivered by small and medium-sized housebuilders. That is now down to 10%. We have moved towards a highly oligopolistic market for the provision of homes and we have driven the small builders out, mainly through the costs of planning permission and regulation of this character. If you are building a small site, as smaller builders tend to do, incorporating biodiversity net gain is extremely difficult.

The larger housebuilders often get permission to deliver it off-site, and here we come to another conflict with government policy, because they do that by buying up agricultural land and turning it fallow, yet Defra tells us that it has an objective that we must continue to produce food for this country. At the moment, we produce 60% of our own food. The Defra target is that that figure should not fall, yet it is encouraging people to buy up agricultural land and turn it into a nature reserves, or whatever.

Finally on biodiversity net gain, there are perverse outcomes in relation to derelict sites. Everyone agrees that building on a brownfield site is better than building on a greenfield site. Yet a brownfield site, if left derelict, becomes biodiverse quite quickly. The weeds come, the birds, the bees and the rodents arrive, and so on. So, if you are going to take a brownfield site that has been left derelict for some time and build on it, the first thing you do is contribute negative biodiversity net gain, as you will flatten it and destroy all of that. What you have to supply to make up the difference and the additional 10% starts from a lower base and is a bigger challenge. We are perversely encouraging greenfield site development when we say we want to encourage development of brownfield sites.

Finally under particular problems, I come to the question of what is referred to as “water neutrality”. This is a slightly misleading expression as it suggests some parallel with nutrient neutrality. It is almost better described as “water sufficiency”. We do not have enough water for many of the developments. It was announced in the Sunday Times while we were doing our report that the Secretary of State had said there were going to be 250,000 homes built in Cambridge. It was pointed out that a planning application for 5,000 homes in Cambridge was being held up because the Environment Agency claimed there was insufficient water to supply them.

Happily, when we quizzed the Housing Minister on this, she was able to assure us that the Secretary of State had said no such thing and it had appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times entirely as a matter of speculation. So it was a great consolation to us to know that that article had no basis in the thinking of the Secretary of State, given that there is no water to service these 250,000 houses. But it does raise the question: why have we not built any reservoirs for 40 years, or whatever it is, that might help and contribute to our housing target?

I will be very brief now. Is there a problem? I think there is a problem at the moment. Does there need to be a problem? Of course not. We are a reasonably well-off country. A reasonably well-off country can both build houses and improve the environment. It should not be that difficult. There should not be a conflict. But it requires a vision and a plan—and, in the case of pollution in rivers, a plan that will take at least 30 or 40 years to deliver. It requires buy-in to that plan; it requires leadership and selling that vision, and then delivery with cross-party support.

I think that can be done. The current way is to go around insisting that you are entitled to have what you want now. Well, nobody is going to get what they want now. The only answer will be a long-term plan. Somebody has to take the lead. I look to my noble friend on the Front Bench to do that as she steps forward and explains how the Government are going to resolve these problems for future generations. Sadly, it is unlikely that she is going to resolve them for this generation. If we can cast light on that and point at a path, we can feel that we have done something very valuable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I add my particular congratulations and thanks to my noble friend Lord Banner on his maiden speech. Given the time constraints, I hope that the noble Lords who spoke will forgive me if I do not respond individually to each of them but instead confine myself to making a few remarks in response to the comments from my noble friend the Minister.

All of us in this Chamber are agreed, I think, that the objectives of building housing and of improving the environment are desirable and, if properly planned, attainable. That is also true of my noble friend the Minister; we are all as one on this. I was pleased to hear from my noble friend that the Government are doing various things they can boast of, but what I did not hear was an acknowledgement, as was well identified in this report, that the system we are operating with is broken—not necessarily fundamentally broken, but there are systemic problems—nor that the Government are going to grasp the problem. What I heard was that the Government are spending money, perhaps for the highly desirable objective of trying to work around the nutrient neutrality bans on housing, but not what they are doing to address the overwhelmingly predominant cause of the pollution in our rivers: farming practices and the discharge of sewage and other pollutants. It seems to me that the Government have not quite grasped the seriousness and systemic nature of the problems that the report identified.

I am gratified on behalf of the committee that the report itself attracted so many compliments from noble Lords who spoke. If I may say so, I am very proud of it. I am pleased that I can say I have been associated with it. It has lessons that any Government should seriously learn; that is true of not only current Ministers but Ministers who will hold office after the general election that we must expect this year. These problems are not going away; they require a long-term, well-thought-out solution. Whoever’s laps these problems land in, I hope they will find this report a useful guide to what they should do.

Motion agreed.