First EDP criticised for impact on nutrient mitigation market

Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) are the government’s answer to the challenge of increased nutrient pollution from nitrates and phosphates in England and will offer developers the option of paying a fee into a Nature Restoration Fund which Natural England (NE) will use to pay for conservation measures at scale.

This is designed to speed up the delivery of new housing. It is an alternative to the current method which sees developers buying nutrient mitigation measures for individual sites in the private market, largely by paying landowners and conservation bodies to alter land use to create nutrient credits.

See also: Planning bill set to change environmental markets for farmers

This system allows developers in more than 70 local planning authority (LPA) areas to achieve “nutrient neutrality” for their developments – in other words that the development will be “nutrient neutral” by not adding to nitrate or phosphate levels in a catchment.

Criticism and market concern 

There has been widespread criticism of the proposed Norfolk EDP. 

The risk, say critics, is that developers will be paying for actions that are potentially ineffective, which don’t prevent pollution from their developments, and may even increase the problem.

Environmental Farmers Group (EFG) has built a network of more than 650 farmers in nine regional groups and is active in creating credits in several catchments, in particular in the south of England.

It fears that the suggested levy by NE of £2,675 a home will significantly undercut nutrient projects that farmers are bringing forward in certain catchments.

“This will therefore likely severely impact the private market, which is exactly what the government is trying to support,” says managing director Digby Sowerby.

“The structure and design of the EDP does exactly the opposite of what it is set out to achieve – its ambition to deliver strategic nutrient mitigation which we support, but the top-down design and race-to-the-bottom approach will ensure less effective interventions, with race-to-the-bottom results.”

EFG estimates the typical cost of nutrient mitigation through the private market to range from £3,500 to £9,000 per home.

Consultancy Greenshank Environmental put the range at £2,500-£10,000, depending on the catchment and local conditions.

With no timeline having been given for the further planned EDPs, existing markets have been left uncertain, says Digby, adding that the market is already being undercut by local planning authorities (LPAs) purchasing land and working with NE, using government grant aid to offer mitigation at lower prices.  

The CLA raised concern at the legislative stage over the potential impacts of EDPs on existing nature markets, the costs of administering the plans and the risks of compulsory purchase by NE to achieve the scale of measures needed. 

Its consultation response will also include how the EDP proposals will affect smaller developments typical of CLA members, and whether the levy per house will be an attractive proposition for private landowners and managers to enter into agreements.

Market tension

The flat rate introduced by the EDP represents a new tension in the market, says Matthew Tucker, a director in the planning and compulsory purchase team at law firm Burgess Salmon.

“It will remain to be seen whether private actors continue to engage in the nutrient neutrality regime where market value could be drastically influenced by Natural England’s charging schedules.”

The proposed Norfolk EDP is a clear attempt to ease the developer’s journey to building houses, says Matthew, while also commenting that there is a core risk of underfunding for the EDP.

“While Natural England can revise charging schedules, there is significant onus on NE to generate accurate budgets to ensure that the EDP remains deliverable within the funding provided through the Nature Restoration Levy,” he says.

Matthew sees EDPs as the first of three limbs in tackling the nutrient issue, expecting that measures by farming and the water companies will also be required.

Call for urgent review of EDPs

Lawyer Alexa Culver is general counsel at environmental consultancy RSK Wilding, which advises landowners and others on habitat restoration for nutrient mitigation, biodiversity net gain and other conservation measures.

Alexa believes the whole system of EDPs needs to be halted and urgently reviewed. “It is evidently not fit for purpose, and wasn’t from the beginning,” she says.

In the meantime, she encourages those concerned about the proposed EDP to contact their MPs, respond to the consultation, and contact the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP).

“The OEP can be called upon to ensure there is transparency over how best available scientific evidence has, or hasn’t, been used by Natural England, and to ensure the conservation measures set out in the EDP comply with the law,” says Alexa.

© Cavan Image/Alamy Stock Photo

Sally Hayns, chief executive officer of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, has expressed alarm at over-reliance on compensation measures in the EDP, rather than mitigation.

She says that only a third of the proposed measures appear to directly reduce nutrient loads while some have been discounted.

“Nutrient-stripping sustainable Suds, designed to filter nitrogen and phosphorous and reduce the volume making its way to watercourses, would have been a reasonable additional requirement for developers, a planning condition for them to design into their schemes, as well as higher water efficiency targets for developments.”

Riparian buffer strips, integrated constructed wetlands, creating extensive areas of pools and marsh which have a filtering effect, would also be suitable measures, says Sally.

She also questions whether there will be sufficient funding to carry out everything that is required