Mitigation schemes: enough help for developers?

The introduction of Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme initially sparked industry optimism, as the supply of new developments had been held up since the issue became prominent several years ago.

The UK government has also reported comparisons of soil nutrient balances from 2000 to 2020, which show a 17% decrease for nitrogen and 27% for phosphate due to reduced use of fertilisers and the increased offsetting of nitrogen and phosphate.

However, many developers and housebuilders have criticised the scheme for having only a limited impact on solving nutrient pollution. Lawrence says it will not meet developers’ needs due to its lack of coverage across threatened catchment areas. “The government’s nutrient mitigation scheme only covers one area currently—the Tees catchment—and, even when fully up and running, will only be able to meet a fraction of the demand for mitigation generated by new development.”

To be granted planning consent in areas affected by nutrient pollution, developers must provide local councils with evidence that the new development could either achieve nutrient neutrality or list mitigation measures. However, this has caused delays as developers must spend longer collating the evidence, and councils must dedicate time to assess the claims and measures. “We need as many mitigation schemes coming forward as possible because of the massive level of demand to deal with not only the backlog of planning applications that are still held, but also future applications coming forward,” states Simon.

The growing need for mitigation has led to local authorities taking matters into their own hands and delivering their own, smaller schemes, adds Simon. “There are other mitigation schemes coming out that are being delivered by local authorities, landowners and farmers. The more that come onto the market, the better.”

In addition, the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill will require all water companies to invest in wastewater treatment by 2030 to prevent excess nutrients working their way through treatment systems and ending up in rivers. The bill aims to eliminate planning delays for housing projects. The government expects authorities to allow developments to proceed in anticipation of the benefits of future water quality improvement initiatives, rather than after mitigation measures are implemented.

However, Richard claims the government’s proposals will create uncertainty over the severity of nutrient pollution and lead investors to believe the issue has been solved. According to him, legislative plans could cause investors to falsely believe they do not need to invest in mitigation initiatives because the government’s wastewater bill would solve the issue. He believes the bill is a strategic move by central government to appear proactive in combating nutrient pollution, while potentially deterring private investors from investing in nutrient mitigation schemes. “Uncertainty over government intervention to try to tackle the problems caused by diffuse pollution has, in some cases, negatively impacted the supply of nutrient neutrality schemes to the market by the private sector. Potential investors in those schemes have got cold feet,” he adds.

Jack Potter, biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality director at Galingale—which provides nitrogen mitigation services in the Solent region—agrees that the biggest barrier to private investment in nutrient mitigation is uncertainty. Adding to the confusion are “rumours that the government will make the problem disappear, rumours that councils are going to do something themselves but not delivering, and Natural England developing its own schemes and selling credits at cost”, he divulges. “Private investment to bring solutions to the market could be rapid if the government and councils drew a line in the sand to create certainty in the market.”

Jack highlights the importance of attracting investment from private companies and investors to create more mitigation opportunities and better competition between mitigation schemes. He claims that if there were more mitigation providers, this would result in a liquid market, which would reduce costs for developers and improve viability.

Richard notes that the scheme focuses solely on preventing additional nutrients from entering water systems, but does not address the problems of existing nutrient pollution in rivers or removing excess algae—both of which are needed to increase oxygen levels and support river ecology. “The scheme neutralises the potential impact of new development on protected sites which are in an unfavourable condition,” he comments. “But it is not designed, in any way, to improve the unfavourable condition of those protected sites.”

Moving targets

Simon claims developers struggle to stay on top of mitigating nutrient pollution because Natural England continues to alter its requirements. He adds that originally it stipulated that developers had to mitigate only nitrates, but later added the obligation to mitigate phosphates. “Last year, Natural England determined that the level of phosphates in the River Itchen in Hampshire had gone over the limits as to what it considered reasonable. Therefore, phosphates became a new nutrient that had to be mitigated. That was on top of the need to mitigate nitrate that was in existence already.”

Simon adds that the constantly changing nature of the scheme has also prevented developers from taking a proactive approach and staying ahead of new requirements. He says that developers—small- and medium-sized ones in particular—struggle to meet the significant investment required to take pre-emptive action.

Jack reveals that many developers and housebuilders continue to struggle with nutrient neutrality because it is a niche issue that requires specialist expertise. He says that as the industry collectively lacks this, many developers have been left not knowing who to turn to for advice and information. “The professional ecology bodies have not provided the same level of attention to training their membership about the problem, solutions, and methodologies, as they have done for other environmental disciplines such as biodiversity net gain, which may be in part to blame.”

Making it work better

To ensure all developers have the necessary resources moving forward, Jack urges the government to legislate for a standard calculator to work out additional nutrient levels. “Currently, multiple calculators with different methodologies are being used. Standardising with a government-endorsed version would set a clear and simple direction.”

There is currently no ability for commercial use to be factored into a nutrient impact assessment within calculators which, according to Jack, has unfairly impacted a large proportion of SMEs’ development plans. The addition of commercial use is important because many developers are proposing to change use from commercial to residential, so existing commercial water discharge should be able to be used to offset that from the proposed residential use, he expresses.

Residential developments produce domestic sewage from activities such as washing dishes and cooking at home, which the UK’s sewer systems are designed to cope with, whereas commercial premises create trade effluent, which can be more toxic and harmful to health and the environment, so it must be managed at sewage treatment facilities. Therefore, Jack suggests developers should be encouraged to convert developments from commercial to residential to ensure less polluted water is produced and the reliance on sewage treatment works is reduced. “Much of the housing backlog falls into this category. A simple tweak to the methodology, which is justified and evidenced, would instantly unblock these permissions,” he adds.

Further tweaks to the government’s Habitat Regulations could also reduce the backlog of planning applications as interpretations of the assessment have created additional delays, notes Lawrence.

A Habitat Regulations Assessment evaluates the potential impact of a development plan on a protected site and tests whether the plan could significantly harm designated features of the site. Lawrence explains that if a development fails to comply with just a single issue, an entirely new assessment is required to reconsider the effects of the proposal. “There needs to be a commonsense approach by local planning authorities when interpreting the Habitat Regulations—an interpretation that is proportionate to the scope of what is open for consideration,” he states.

Richard suggests that Natural England should promote the use of natural resources to rectify the diffuse problem of water pollution at its source. This would entail implementing long-term land-use strategies that reduce the nutrient input into rivers. “An example of this is creating riparian buffers formed of scrub and woodland between farms and rivers. A buffer of even 10 metres between a farm and a river can significantly reduce nutrient run-off with only a modest impact on food production,” he explains. Such approaches would ensure efforts to combat nutrient pollution are focused on finding long-term, sustainable solutions and reduce the burden on developers, he adds.

Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme was designed to facilitate the delivery of thousands of new homes by providing developers with a streamlined way to mitigate nutrient pollution and allow planned building to continue. As a trial scheme, the initiative is open to being amended to address developers’ and housebuilders’ concerns and incorporate suggestions.

It is essential the final scheme effectively reduces excess levels of nutrients to prevent the disruption of natural processes and devastation of wildlife, as well as tackle the issue of nutrient pollution at the source. But it is clear that any amendments to the scheme must also ensure planning permissions are granted sooner—or we could end up in an even bigger crisis.

A place where you can get to the shops, the cinema, and the doctor within 15 minutes on foot or by bike sounds both homely and green. But how and where can such places be built in the UK?