The Government has rejected several cross-party recommendations to mitigate and reduce housebuilding’s impact on nature and the environment, in its response to the Environmental Audit Committee report on ‘Environmental Sustainability and Housing Growth.
UK Parliament writes:
… the Environmental Audit Committee has published the Government’s response to its report on environmental sustainability and housing growth, which assessed how the Government was balancing its housebuilding agenda with environmental targets. In its report, the Committee found that measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Act were not enough to allow the Government to meet both its environmental and housebuilding targets, while severe skills shortages in ecology, planning and construction put its housebuilding ambitions at risk. The Committee has reiterated these recommendations in a submission to the Government’s consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.
The document details the Government’s response to the Committee’s concerns around key policies such as the Nature Restoration Fund, Biodiversity Net Gain, carbon accounting for buildings and skills shortages in ecology, planning and construction. More details follow below.
The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Toby Perkins MP, said:
‘Growing the economy must go hand in hand with protecting and restoring nature and the environment. I’m therefore pleased to see the Government’s commitment to a ‘win-win’ solution for nature and development, and to Biodiversity Net Gain, a policy that many regard as pioneering. But the Committee is concerned that the Government has rejected recommendations which we believe would have increased transparency and given greater confidence about its ability to achieve these twin aims. We are disappointed that the Government has rejected our recommendations to establish ecological resource hubs – a critical element of the skills challenge in planning – and to mandate whole-life carbon assessments.’
Nature Restoration Fund
The success of the Nature Restoration Fund will ‘come down to the delivery of the win-win for nature and development’, the Government says, adding that this is the metric by which Natural England will be judged by the public. In response to the Committee’s concerns about the ‘weak’ impact assessment for the Nature Restoration Fund, the Government claims that ‘numerous legislative safeguards’ will ensure that the NRF’s implementation is ‘robustly monitored’. It says it will bring forward regulations setting out the approach Natural England should take to prioritise different types of conservation measures. However, the Government rejects the Committee’s recommendation to publish evidence of specific environmental improvements to sites when the mitigation hierarchy has not been applied.
Biodiversity Net Gain
The Government also says that it remains committed to the Biodiversity Net Gain policy and wants to make the process simpler for smaller developers. It says its proposals to exempt small sites up to 0.2 hectares will ensure the policy can meet the country’s needs for both housing and nature recovery. It plans to publish an implementation timeline for these plans ‘shortly’.
Skills Shortages
In response to the Committee’s recommendations around skills shortages in ecology, planning and construction, the Government points to several investments, including £48 million in planning capacity at the last Budget and £625 million at the 2025 Spring Statement to recruit 60,000 new construction workers by 2029. However, it rejects the Committee’s recommendation to establish separate ecological resource hubs, and says it has no plans to develop mandatory training for planners in ecology or decarbonising buildings.
Whole life carbon accounting
The Government also rejects the Committee’s recommendation to introduce mandatory whole-life carbon assessments for the built environment, which measure the total emissions associated with a building throughout its life. Instead, it says it will apply a voluntary approach to carbon accounting. To meet Carbon Budget limits, the Government suggests it can let emissions rise in one area if they are balanced by further carbon savings or greenhouse gas removals in another part of the economy.
See the response HERE
