Tory proposals to scrap EU water pollution rules are not the answer to the housing crisis

A London housing development
Support us and go ad-free

On 29 August, the Tory government tabled an amendment in the House of Lords that would strip back EU-era water pollution restrictions. Housing secretary Michael Gove proposed the change, stressing its necessity in order to boost housebuilding.

However, given that private water companies are already heavily polluting our waterways, such proposals show a willful disregard for our embattled environment. Naturally, the move angered green campaigners.

Doug Parr, policy director at Greenpeace UK, asked:

Who would look at our sickly, sewage-infested rivers and conclude that what they need is weaker pollution rules? No one, and that should include our government.

What’s more, the taxpayer is – of course – set to foot the bill for the environmental damage.

Nutrient neutrality

The ‘nutrient neutrality’ rules bar new developments from adding harmful nutrients to nearby waters. Under these laws, developers have to prove that their housing wouldn’t release nitrates or phosphates – often from sewage – into our rivers. The areas protected include Somerset, Norfolk, Teesside, Kent, Wiltshire, and the Solent.

Craig Bennett, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts, stated that:

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

The government has made repeated pledges that they won’t weaken environmental standards and committed just eight months ago to halve nutrient pollution by the end of the decade…

This is another broken promise and makes clear that the prime minister would rather look after the interests of developers than the environment – money talks.

A government spokesperson said:

Over 100,000 homes held up due to defective EU laws will be unblocked between now and 2030, delivering an estimated £18 billion boost to the economy.

They added that nutrients entering rivers “are a real problem”, but the contribution made by new homes is “very small”.

Private profit, public problem

However, that “very small” contribution is belied by the cost to fix it. The UK will have to double investment in its nutrient mitigation scheme to £280 million “to offset the very small amount of additional nutrient discharge” from the new homes.

Government ministers have already conceded that this cost would fall at the public’s feet. As such, the Tories are essentially removing regulations which protect the environment, enriching private companies and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces.

If all of this sounds a little familiar, it should. Back in April, environment secretary Thérèse Coffey likewise announced that public money would also be used to fix the sewage-dumping mess caused by privatised water companies. 

The proposed changes to housing regulations come at a time of of increasing demand for houses but declining supply. The Home Builders Federation claimed earlier this year that housebuilding in the UK could fall to its lowest level since World War II. However, simply building new houses is far from a holistic solution.

Housing in crisis

Campaign group Action on Empty Homes reported that, earlier this year, over a million UK homes were standing empty. This figure included the 250,000 buildings that the government has declared empty for over 6 months.

However, it also factored in 200,000 homes that the government didn’t count due to council tax exemptions. Add in 257,000 ‘furnished empty’ second homes, and 70,000 ‘second homes paying business rates as short-term lets, and the empties quickly pile up.

The choice to enrich house-building firms – and the landlords who buy from them – also has an environmental cost in itself. As the Big Issue reported:

building a new home has a carbon footprint of 80 tonnes of CO2 – equivalent to building five brand-new cars. But refurbishing an old house carried much less of a carbon footprint, equating to just eight tonnes in comparison.

Building new homes is already a dicey prospect for the environment, even without removing pollution safeguards. The new proposals will create just 100,000 new homes, whilst endangering our waterways in the process. Considering that fact in the light of the hundreds of thousands of UK homes just standing empty quickly exposes the bogus nature of the government’s stated reasoning.

However, the push to build new houses at ever-greater costs to the environment is perfectly in line with the motivations of a landlord class of politicians hellbent on private profit. And, as ever, the public will have to pick up the tab for the this pollution nightmare.

Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Philafrenzy, resized to 770*403,  licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Support us and go ad-free

We know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support

The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.

The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.

So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.

Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. AS IF!! As if simply removing this environmental protection will “unlock” 100,000 new homes. This doesn’t add up at all. More likely, some large Tory donors from the water industries are wanting to see higher personal profits, and Corporate PLP are openly courting them.

      So now we have TWO pro-corporate Parties vying on who can screw the Public more.

      As ever, think “What would Corbyn do?” :thoughtful :

      We can be sure HE wouldn’t have been reducing Public protections and rights even for new builds. And yet somehow they would get done.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.