Housing is right at the centre of British political debate as we approach party conference season. Last week, we heard that new towns are to be the “building blocks” of Labour’s plan to deliver thousands of new homes and economic growth. On Tuesday, the Government responded by saying that it would unlock over 100,000 new homes by reforming inherited EU rules on nutrient neutrality.

Cue uproar from environmental groups. Douglas Parr from Greenpeace has said that the decision was a “sure sign that ministers have completely given up on saving our great waterways and the precious wildlife they host. Tim Farron called the move “disgraceful”; not to be outdone, the Wildlife Trust described it as “disgusting”.

 Is there a zero-sum trade-off to be made between new housing and high environmental standards?

Is there a zero-sum trade-off to be made between new housing and high environmental standards? The existing regulatory regime would suggest there is. As it is currently applied, if a local authority cannot be entirely certain that a new housing site will not affect nutrient levels in adjacent waterways, then development must be paused indefinitely. The choice, it seems, is binary; either build more homes, or protect the environment. Indeed, in 74 authorities across the country, advice from Natural England has led to an effective moratorium on new homes; even new homes which have already received planning permission have in some cases been paused.

Mitigating nutrient pollution is undoubtedly an important objective in the cause of ecological conservation; changing nutrient levels in rivers and estuaries can have a profound effect on natural processes, and can lead to eutrophication and a loss of biodiversity. None of this is in question, especially at a time when legitimate concerns exist over the general condition of the UK’s rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

However, as I argue in a recent Policy Exchange paper Re-Engineering Regulation: An A to Z of Reform, what certainly is in question is the way that regulators with a planning-related remit are currently weighing up the competing imperatives they face. We are in the middle of an acute housing crisis. The backlog of homes stands at over four million. Young people are being priced out of buying a home of their own because supply cannot respond to high and persistent demand.

This urgent issue — undoubtedly one of the biggest policy challenges facing our country — should clearly be given substantial weight in the way we think about decisions over planning and development. But currently, it is not. As it stands, Natural England guidance is the final word, and trumps all other considerations. We must choose between housebuilding and environmental protections, and the regulatory regime implicitly demands that we choose the latter.

The idea that these imperatives are irreconcilable, however, is a misguided one; we can both support developers to deliver the homes we need and maintain high environmental standards. This thinking underpins the Government’s announcement this week that they will be amending the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill to remove the stipulations around nutrient neutrality. They argue that we can free up housebuilders, get rid of this one-size-fits-all regulation and tackle water pollution at source, all at the same time.

It is preposterous to place the entire burden of mitigating against nutrient pollution on the shoulders of developers

It is preposterous to place the entire burden of mitigating against nutrient pollution on the shoulders of developers when new homes contribute comparatively little to the problem. Upgrading water and waste treatment facilities, establishing new wetlands, reducing agricultural run-off and pushing water companies to do more to improve their operations – all these initiatives will go a long way towards improving the health of our rivers. Most importantly, they can be implemented without having to impose a de facto ban on housebuilding.

Regulations are vital. They set the rules of the game and ensure a level playing field for market participants, whilst offering important protections for individuals against externalities like pollution. Many of us have long advocated for design codes to ensure new housing is well-designed and fits in with local vernacular styles. None of us want identikit housing developments that blight our local communities. All of us want to conserve our natural environment so that we can pass it on to the next generation.

But the truth is, regulation is not the answer to every policy challenge we face in the UK, and often it is a blunt and ineffective tool. Well-intentioned rules can have adverse unintended consequences. In this case, they are holding up desperately needed new housing supply.

The Government has made the right call in getting rid of this ill-designed requirement on nutrient neutrality. They should not be deterred by environmentalists who would rather we built nothing at all.