Nutrient Neutrality – the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?

Nutrient Neutrality – the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?

 

Anybody involved in the development industry will know all to well the impact that nutrient neutrality is having on delivery in certain parts of the country, and none more so than in East Kent, where the Stodmarsh catchment has stifled any development that includes overnight accommodation in all but a few isolated exception cases.  Development in these instances can only be granted permission if they can evidence ‘nutrient neutrality’, something usually unattainable and/or unviable in most cases.

 

Whilst this issue is hampering the delivery of much-needed new homes in many parts of the country (reportedly affecting and directly preventing the delivery of c160,000 new homes based on research undertaken by the Home Builders Federation), there was some welcome news recently as Natural England published an amended Stodmarsh catchment map, which now excludes large areas south and east of Canterbury from the restrictions, as illustrated in the figure below.  DHA have a number of sites awaiting a resolution to the issue within this area, which can now hopefully be progressed and applications determined, subject to re-consultation with Natural England.

 

 

Whilst this development is welcomed, it represents only a modest step towards solving the problem.  Moves are however afoot to help the situation further, with Ashford Borough Council recently approving  a package of mitigation measures designed to unlock their own housing programme backlog and that of its subsidiary companies.  These measures will include removal of land from intensive agricultural productive use, changes to the land management of Council sites (e.g. the introduction of reedbeds and the cessation of grazing at Conningbrook Lakes), and the reduction in water use across the Council estate by retrofitting control flow devices in its 5,000+ homes.  These initiatives are a good illustration of the types of measures that can be used to deliver nutrient neutrality (and other sustainability benefits), but provide a case by case opportunity rather than a universal solution.  That solution will undoubtedly rely on central government intervention.

 

After a false start under the previous government, whereby attempts to effectively overturn the primary legislation (derived from EU Law) were defeated in the House of Lords in September last year; the new Labour Government are now seemingly looking to revisit the issue as part of its mantra to ‘get Britain building again’.  Whilst the King’s Speech itself lacked any direct reference to tackling nutrient neutrality (references to funding nature recovery were open to interpretation), subsequent comments from the Environment Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister have clearly signalled their intentions to try and seek a resolution to the matter, which will be crucial if they are to get even close to fulfilling their ambitions of building 1.5m homes in the next 5 years.

 

As widely reported in the press, it appears the solution will focus on mitigating impacts, rather than tackling at source.  In a recent letter to environmental groups, Reed and Rayner stated that “we want to use the value gained from enabling development to proceed quickly and smoothly to support nature recovery — and to do so in a way that gives everyone involved greater certainty”.  This, it is reported, would involve allowing developments to commence and then subsequently enter into agreements on mitigation measures, such as creating new wetlands elsewhere, but still precluding occupation of dwellings until the mitigation measures themselves have been completed.  It is expected that these provisions will be introduced as part of the awaited Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

 

The detail of these provisions and the changes in legislation will be eagerly anticipated by all those who are affected by the current nutrient impasse.  Key though will be understanding how this principle will work in practice and how it would in reality differ from the current situation.  Whilst delaying the point at which mitigation must be agreed to post-planning might theoretically allow developments to commence, it is difficult to see how that arrangement would give developers and their funders sufficient comfort and control to progress on site, without certainty over occupation if mitigation agreements are not in place at that point. 

 

DHA will continue to monitor developments with a keen interest and remain happy to advise any clients impacted by the nutrient neutrality issue as and when more details emerge.