Peers criticize “haphazard” implementation of environmental regulations

Government housing and environmental targets are in danger of being missed, a House of Lords committee has found.

Peers on the Built Environment Committee said both could and should be delivered but “a lack of leadership and poor implementation is limiting opportunities to do this”.

They said in a report The Impact of Environmental Regulations on Development that housebuilding targets should be given statutory weight and equal status with environmental goals.

Among specific criticisms of the Government’s performance, the peers said it had failed to provide sufficient support for smaller developers, who they feared could be driven out of business by onerous environmental regulations.

The report said public sector development mitigation schemes “should prioritise provision for small and medium-sized developers” who were “being disproportionately burdened by the new requirement to deliver biodiversity net gain.

“By allowing them to deliver offsite solutions and ensuring demands are not made ahead of statutory deadlines the Government can ensure these vital local businesses are able to survive.”

Brownfield development was “being stymied by the interaction between planning permissions and [environmental] permitting”, the committee said, urging the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to review planning and permitting requirements for brownfield land and eliminate overlap.

The committee said it heard evidence of “unresponsiveness, time-consuming duplication, delay and overlapping responsibilities on the part of Government departments and of Natural England and the Environment Agency”.

This had included accounts of integrated plans “which lacked a strategy for their implementation”.

There was “a confusing and unclear policy landscape where Government guidance has made the situation worse, not better”, the report added.

It said protection of local habitats and species was poor and not fully understood or considered in the round.

This meant resources were used on isolated pockets of mitigation that did not address system-wide pollution “or the ingrained impact of historic decisions”.

The Government was this month defeated in the House of Lords over its attempt to relax rules that prevent housebuilding where this would contribute to nitrate pollution, although it has indicated it will seek to resurrect these proposals at some future date.

Peers said that during their inquiry they heard that 45,000 new homes per year may not be delivered because of recent Natural England advice on the nutrient, water and recreational applications of the Habitats Regulations.

This had brought about “effective moratoria" on housebuilding which "risked putting small developers out of business in affected areas”.

Committee chair Lord Moylan, a Conservative, said: “The current approach to managing any conflict between new homes and the needs of the environment is failing to deliver for either side.

“Our inquiry found that the achievement of the Government’s housing and environmental policies has been hampered and sometimes completely blocked by lack of co-ordination in policy-making and haphazard and unbalanced implementation.

“There is no way the Government can deliver on its housebuilding targets unless it is brave and displays the political leadership necessary to deliver and implement a comprehensive strategy for both development and the environment.”

Lord Moylan said housebuilding should be accorded equal status with environmental goals, after which cross-government plans should be developed to address major pollutants.

A Government spokesperson said: “The recent reforms we set out would have unlocked 100,000 much-needed homes and deliver a significant package to restore waterways to leave our environment in a better state than we found it. 

“We have already invested £10 billion to increase housing supply since the start of this Parliament, including £1 billion to unlock unloved brownfield sites, so we can build more of the right homes in the right places. 

“We will now consider the committee’s findings and respond in due course.”

Mark Smulian