好色先生TV

The government has been defeated in the House of Lords over its plan to relax nutrient pollution rules for housing developments.

Peers voted by 191 votes to 161 to reject the government鈥檚 amendment to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill which would have required councils to ignore evidence of nutrient pollution from housing development sites.

However, Labour peers last night led a successful revolt against the plan and parliamentary procedure means the government cannot now re-introduce the amendment when the bill returns to the Commons.

In the debate yesterday, levelling up minister Baroness Scott stressed the 鈥渦rgency鈥� of the need for interventions to resolve the nutrient issue, which has been estimated by industry to be holding up 150,000 homes.

She said: 鈥淭he government believes action is needed now to get on with housebuilding.

鈥淥ur plan would do that while protecting the environment. What is being proposed instead [by Labour] amounts to dithering and delay鈥攁nd adds confusion rather than clarity.鈥�

Scott also said the assumption it would be asking councils to make is limited to developments where wastewater has been treated by a regulated treatment works, and that secondly there is a package of mitigations to offset the nutrient flows.

However, Labour spokesperson Baroness Hayman said that while the current nutrients rules do not work, the government鈥檚 proposed solution didn鈥檛 either.

Hayman said 鈥淲e certainly do not agree with the powers being introduced鈥�[it]鈥�means abandoning legal protections for the nation鈥檚 most precious and sensitive habitats, on the premise that this is the only way to increase housing supply.

鈥淎s we have heard from noble Lords, this is completely wrong. It is entirely possible to balance the need for more homes with the need to protect nature.鈥�

Hayman instead called for a 鈥渁 public consultation to consider the alternatives, allowing for an evidence-based approach that the government鈥檚 new schedule completely lacks鈥�.

Labour peer Lord Best described the current rules as an 鈥渁rbitrary, damaging and unfair housing ban鈥� and said something must change, saying he has heard evidence that less than 5% of the problem was attributable to new homebuilding.

However, he described the government鈥檚 proposal to take nutrient neutrality out of consideration for planners altogether as a 鈥減retty crude approach.鈥�

He said: 鈥淎 long-term solution has to address the intensive farming issues and get on top of the water company failures. A more considered and comprehensive policy change with clear guidance for planners and practitioners needs to set nutrient neutrality alongside water neutrality and all the other nature recovery measures.鈥�

The government鈥檚 proposals were also attacked by Conservative peers, with former environment secretary Lord Deben, now chair of the Climate Change Committee, accusing the government of 鈥渘ot being conservative鈥�. He said: 鈥淭hey are asking local authorities鈥擨 can hardly believe it鈥攖o disregard the facts. This is the kind of attitude that we see in the Republican Party in the United States, the people who do not believe in climate change, the anti-vaxxers, who say 鈥淒on鈥檛 look at the facts鈥�.

鈥淭his is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen, and I have been around a long time鈥�, adding that if it the changes were so obvious and so vital, the government should have put in the bill from the start.

好色先生TV鈥檚 sister title Housing Today鈥檚 calls on the government to act strategically to tackle the nutrients issue.

Responding to the vote, Stewart Baseley, executive chair of the Home Builders Federation, described the government鈥檚 handling of the nutrient neutrality issue as a 鈥渘ational disgrace.鈥�

He said: 鈥淎midst an acute housing shortage and with housing supply plummeting it is a damming indictment that after four years politicians have completely failed to find a solution.

鈥淒espite the occupants of new homes making a negligible contribution to the issue, and house builders giving water companies over 拢1bn in the past three years alone, the impasse goes on.

鈥淓xtending the ban will do nothing to improve the shocking state of our rivers, polluted by agricultural runoff and the failings of water companies, but will exacerbate our housing crisis still further.

鈥淲ith growing waiting lists, a generation unable to buy, local economies damaged, and jobs lost, the mishandling of this issue is a national disgrace.鈥�