Natural England accused of favouring rewilding over saving farmland
Natural England has been accused of favouring rewilding over saving farmland.
The row centres on rules stipulating that when new homes are built in certain parts of the country, developers must offset any extra water pollution created.
Natural England advises councils on how to do this and runs its own schemes.
Most solutions involve taking nearby farmland out of food production and rewilding the land.
However, a company has developed an alternative method which can save farmland.
The company, Biocore Agri, claims that the scheme has been effectively blocked by Natural England, which is run by rewilding campaigner Tony Juniper and has been accused of having an 'anti-farming culture' over its push for reducing livestock and rewilding.
The row comes amid concern over a Government net zero push that could mean a tenth of all farmland is taken out of food production.
Mark Spencer, the former Conservative farming minister, said Natural England lacked accountability for its decision-making and called for the body to be scrapped.
'Natural England has become one of those monsters that is now uncontrollable,' he said. 'And I don't know how you escape from that, because the second you try and touch it as a politician, you're accused of being sort of anti-environmental or destroying wildlife.
'But they seem to be sucking all the common sense out of some of these decision-making moments.'
'Nutrient neutrality' rules
He added: 'They are ideologically wedded to this concept of conservation and removing food production and farmers from the countryside and rewilding.'
Local authorities consult Natural England on which schemes they should approve to provide offset credits to developers when approving new homes in their area.
The rules are known as 'nutrient neutrality' rules and were introduced by the EU.
Biocore Agri manufactures an organic alternative to chemical fertiliser and says this can satisfy the rules.
The company says its scheme provides a cheaper alternative to Natural England's nutrient neutrality schemes while avoiding farmland being taken out of food production.
Natural England's approach to reducing nutrient pollution focuses on turning farmland into woodland or wetland in the long term or ending agricultural activity in the short term.
A calculation from the Housebuilders Federation has estimated that more than 12,000 hectares of farmland could need to be taken out of production to offset some 140,000 homes planned in areas with nutrient neutrality rules.
That equates to around 126,000 sheep or enough wheat for nearly 35 million boxes of Weetabix.
However, Biocore Agri says that its scheme has been effectively blocked by Natural England after it secured interest from Somerset Council.
Conflicts of interest
Somerset farmer and developer Angus Macdonald had hoped to use the Biocore Agri product to switch away from chemical fertiliser on his farmland as a 'win-win-win' solution for homes he plans to build on his land
'I wanted to carry on food production and be able to reduce the phosphate that's going into our water systems, and to be able to build the houses,' he said.
Biocore Agri was initially told by Natural England in May 2024 that the watchdog had no objection in principle to the use of the company's approach and methodology to be used for nutrient neutrality projects.
The decision followed a months-long technical review, with input from relevant Natural England scientists, according to correspondence seen by The Telegraph.
However, objections were later raised by Natural England over the methodology following a later assessment from a local advisor after an approach from BioCore Agri at the request of Somerset Council.
The council were interested in using the scheme for projects including the land on Mr Macdonald's farm.
Mr Macdonald has now been forced to take fields that produce around 360 tonnes of wheat per year out of production to build 37 homes.
Biocore Agri founder Henri Willmott has made a complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority, asking it to investigate whether there are conflicts of interest in Natural England's decision-making.
Natural England does not have an official role in deciding which schemes get the green light, but local authorities rely on its advice to make their decisions on which offset methods should be used.
The quango is also an effective provider of credits through its nutrient mitigation scheme, launched in 2022 with £30m of taxpayer money to create new wetlands.
'We should be encouraging innovation'
Land equivalent to 442 football pitches on six farms in the Tees and Poole Harbour has been acquired to be converted into wetland and woodland habitats since the scheme was launched.
This includes what NE has called 'low-grade farmland' bought up by the Durham Wildlife Trust that is now part of a rewilding project.
In total, land on six farms has been taken out of production so far for Natural England's nutrient neutrality scheme, according to a Freedom of Information request seen by the Telegraph.
Biocore Agri's case for a CMA investigation has been backed by Labour MP, Lorraine Beavers, in whose Blackpool North and Fleetwood constituency Biocore Agri is based.
'The issue clearly appears to be one for the Competition & Markets Authority, who I have written to urging them to open a case urgently,' she said. 'The Government's mission for growth and our ambition to build 1.5 million homes means we should be encouraging innovation, not stifling it.'
Adam Robbins, an environmental consultant who assessed Biocore Agri's methodology, said there was a risk that nutrient neutrality and a similar biodiversity net gain scheme would lead to a drop in food production.
'You'll end up with a situation where you can build a house, but then you've got to sacrifice your food for the biodiversity gain and nutrient balancing,' Mr Robbins said.
'We were trying to find solutions where you could continue producing food, and achieve that nutrient and biodiversity balance, which is why Biocore, we thought, was a great option.'
'Different levels of risk'
Sources within the farming and land use industry told The Telegraph there is a perception that Natural England is reluctant to trust farmers to switch their fertilising methods to ensure pollution is reduced.
Local authorities have the final say in deciding whether or not to use a particular approach but rely on expertise from Natural England.
This influential role is acknowledged by Natural England in internal correspondence seen by the Telegraph from one of the body's advisers.
'LPAs [local planning authorities] will have different levels of risk but their acceptance of the scheme and its enforceability will inevitably be led by our response,' it reads.
'If we say fine they may well rely on that approval, if we ask how the LPA intend to monitor and enforce they may not.'
Natural England told The Telegraph that its advice does not constitute approval of any nutrient neutrality scheme and that it was happy to continue engaging with Biocore Agri on its methodology, and did not consider that its advice had been inconsistent.
Mike Burke, Natural England director, sustainable development, said: 'We are working across government and businesses like Biocore Agri to help restore nature and sustain food production while tackling the housing crisis.
'Nutrient mitigation schemes are a successful example of that - enabling much-needed homes to be built and tackling harmful pollution in our rivers.'
'Our role in this planning process is advisory, and decisions on accepting mitigation measures are made by Local Planning Authorities.
'Natural England has provided advice on many mitigation measures, this is always based on scientific evidence and how effective it will be in reducing nutrient pollution.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
39 minutes ago
- ITV News
Treasury technicalities plus party politics bring more attention for the North East
The Chancellor's big ticket items for the North East came early - which is somewhere between encouraging and disconcerting when we're talking about public transport projects. Around £2.8 billion from the Spending Review was announced last Wednesday for infrastructure in our region, including extending the Tyne and Wear Metro to Washington. By comparison, Rachel Reeves' big speech today was a bit of an anticlimax. In the small print afterwards, we found that areas of Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Stockton that 'have been too easily left behind' are to receive up to £20m over the next decade for things like improving parks and tackling graffiti. The government are calling them 'trailblazer neighbourhoods', which sounds a bit like a spoof initiative from The Thick Of It, and a lot like the Conservative governments' various funding pots for local regeneration schemes. The Tories talked a lot about what they called 'levelling up', with mixed results. Labour have talked less about tackling regional inequalities, but have made a technical tweak that might make a big difference. They've revised the Treasury's 'Green Book', used to judge value-for-money for investment. London and the South East normally deliver bigger bang for your buck, so have often been prioritised for new infrastructure. The government says: no more, wider impacts will be considered, so regions like ours will be able to compete. Despite some government departments having their budgets squeezed when it comes to day-to-day spending, there is money around for investment due to another tweak to government rules, around borrowing. Rachel Reeves made a passing promise today to set out the government's plans for 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' in the coming weeks. Campaigners say it should mean a high speed rail line from Liverpool to Hull, and up to the North East. It's hard not to be sceptical, given it's been talked about in many forms over many years. The Chancellor spoke quite a bit today about the government being focused on ensuring there's economic growth, and people have opportunity, in every part of the country. She also dedicated a fair amount of time to attacking Reform UK, reflecting the threat they pose to Labour, after their local election successes in places like County Durham. The Chancellor has been accused of doom and gloom in her first 11 months in office, focusing on what she claims has been a horrible inheritance from the Conservatives. With this Spending Review she tried to change gear and set out a more positive plan for the years ahead. The North East will hope to play a big part.
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Fact check: 2025 spending review claims
On Wednesday Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves delivered the Labour Government's first spending review, outlining its spending plans for the next few years. We've taken a look at some of the key claims. How much is spending increasing by? At the start of her speech Ms Reeves announced that 'total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms'. That headline figure doesn't tell the full story, however. Firstly, 2.3% is the average annual real-terms growth in total departmental budgets between 2023/24 and 2028/29. That means it includes spending changes that have already been implemented, for both the current (2025/26) and previous (2024/25) financial years. The average annual increase between this year and 2028/29 is 1.5%. Therefore, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said, 'most departments will have larger real-terms budgets at the end of the Parliament than the beginning, but in many cases much of that extra cash will have arrived by April'. Secondly, it's worth noting that the 2.3% figure includes both day-to-day (Resource DEL) and investment (Capital DEL) spending. Capital spending (which funds things like infrastructure projects) is increasing by 3.6% a year on average in real terms between 2023/24 and 2029/30, and by 1.8% between 2025/26 and 2029/30. Day-to-day departmental budgets meanwhile are seeing a smaller average annual real-terms increase – of 1.7% between 2023/24 and 2028/29 and 1.2% between 2025/26 and 2028/29. Which departments are the winners and losers? Ms Reeves touted substantial spending increases in some areas (for example, the 3% rise in day-to-day NHS spending in England), but unsurprisingly her statement did not focus on areas where spending will decrease. Changes to Government spending are not uniform across all departments, and alongside increases in spending on things like the NHS, defence and the justice system, a number of Government departments will see their budgets decrease in real terms. Departments facing real-terms reductions in overall and day-to-day spending include the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (this factors in reductions in aid spending announced earlier this year to offset increased defence spending), the Home Office (although the Government says the Home Office's budget grows in real terms if a planned reduction in asylum spending is excluded) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Did the Conservatives leave a '£22 billion black hole'? Ms Reeves made a claim we've heard a number of times since it first surfaced in July 2024 – that the previous Conservative government left a '£22 billion black hole in the public finances'. That figure comes from a Treasury audit that forecast a £22 billion overspend in departmental day-to-day spending in 2024/25, but the extent to which it was unexpected or inherited is disputed. The IFS said last year that some of the pressures the Government claimed contributed to this so-called 'black hole' could have been anticipated, but others did 'indeed seem to be greater than could be discerned from the outside'. An Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) review of its March 2024 forecast found an estimated £9.5 billion of additional spending pressures were known to the Treasury at that point in time, but were not known to the OBR as it prepared its forecast. It's true that this review didn't confirm the £22 billion figure, but it also did not necessarily prove that it was incorrect, because Labour's figure included pressures which were identified after the OBR prepared its forecast and so were beyond the scope of the OBR's review. We've written more about how the Government reached the figure of £22 billion in our explainer on this topic. How big is the increase in NHS appointments? Ms Reeves took the opportunity to congratulate Health Secretary Wes Streeting for delivering 'three-and-a-half million extra' hospital appointments in England. The Government has previously celebrated this as a 'massive increase', particularly in light of its manifesto pledge to deliver an extra two million appointments a year. Ms Reeves' claim was broadly accurate – data published last month shows there were 3.6 million additional appointments between July 2024 and February 2025 compared to the previous year. But importantly that increase is actually smaller than the 4.2 million rise that happened in the equivalent period the year before, under the Conservative government – as data obtained by Full Fact under the Freedom of Information Act and published last month revealed. What do announcements on asylum hotels, policing, nurseries and more mean for the Government's pledges? Ms Reeves made a number of announcements that appear to directly impact the delivery of several pre-existing Labour pledges, many of which we're already monitoring in our Government Tracker. (We'll be updating the tracker to reflect these announcements in due course, and reviewing how we rate progress on pledges as necessary). The Chancellor announced an average increase in 'police spending power' of 2.3% a year in real terms over the course of the review period, which she said was the equivalent of an additional £2 billion. However, as police budgets comprise a mix of central Government funding and local council tax receipts, some of this extra spending is expected to be funded by increases in council tax precepts. Ms Reeves said this funding would help the Government achieve its commitment of 'putting 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles in England and Wales', a pledge we're monitoring here. The spending review also includes funding of 'almost £370 million across the next four years to support the Government's commitment to deliver school-based nurseries across England', which Ms Reeves said would help the Government deliver its pledge to have 'a record number of children being school-ready'. The Chancellor also committed to ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament, with an additional £200 million announced to 'accelerate the transformation of the asylum system'. When we looked last month at progress on the Government's pledge to 'end asylum hotels' we said it appeared off track, as figures showed the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was higher at the end of March 2025 than it was when Labour came into Government.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Reeves ‘failed' to back English councils in spending review, MPs warn
The Treasury will pump an additional £3.4 billion per year into councils by 2028/29, compared with 2024/25, which combined with yearly council tax rises is set to boost their spending power by 3.1% in real terms. But Mr Forster warned that 'in the detail of the statement', the Government 'is only investing an extra 1.1% in local government next year and the year after'. The Liberal Democrat MP told the Commons he was 'very disappointed' with the Chancellor's statement and asked: 'What does the Chancellor say to councils across the country and to my constituents of Woking to justify that lack of investment?' Ms Reeves replied: 'Well, that's real-terms increases in spending every year, that this Labour Government are giving to local authorities. 'And that compares to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration from 2010 to 2015 that cut real spending by 2.9% every year, so I'm much happier to stand on my record as Chancellor than what the Liberal Democrats did when they had a chance of being in government.' Woking issued a section 114 notice two years ago, in June 2023, when it faced having to plug a £1.2 billion deficit. Billpayers in the Surrey borough faced a 9.99% council tax rise the following year. Mr Forster, who is a member of the Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, told the PA news agency: 'In today's spending review, the Chancellor has failed to invest in local government – and she is refusing to acknowledge the harm this will cause. 'In my constituency of Woking, our local authority has already gone bankrupt, I fear more will soon follow. Following the former Conservative administration bankrupting Woking, we have seen public toilets close.' He called on the Government to 'support councils more'. The spending review which Ms Reeves fronted on Wednesday pledged 'wider reforms' which 'will ensure funding is effectively targeted, based on an updated assessment of need, and will consolidate funding to give local authorities greater flexibility to innovate'. Local government reorganisation will 'improve the join-up between local services, enabling councils to deliver services more efficiently', according to The Treasury. Conservative MP for Broxbourne Mr Cocking, who is also a member of the Commons committee, described the spending review as 'devastating'. He said: 'Councils that are going through local government reorganisation, where councils that have been run really well, are going to be potentially lumbered into new super-unitary councils, with councils that haven't managed their finances well'. Mr Cocking said that where authorities merge, 'you'll find that residents that have got sound council finances, have had good services, are now going to be subsidising areas that have made bad decisions', and added that the spending review failed to compensate for this. Surrey's district and county councils are set to merge, with new single-tier authorities taking on town hall functions, as part of the Government's push towards 'unitary' councils throughout England set out in last year's English Devolution White Paper.
