Greenshank's Response to the Draft Norfolk Nutrient Pollution EDP Consultation

Natural England opened its consultation on the first draft Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP) on 17 September 2026. The draft covers nutrient pollution affecting the Broads Special Area of Conservation (Yare and Bure), the Broadland Ramsar site and the River Wensum SAC. It would let up to 15,780 homes go ahead on payment of a Nature Restoration Levy, set at £2,675 per home to start with, with the money funding conservation measures.

We are a nature markets provider, so we have a direct interest in how the plan works. Our central concern is that the plan does not show the measures it funds will offset the nutrient pollution it allows.

What follows is our response in full. It follows the questions on the consultation form, with the question wording, our rating for each and our comments where we gave them.

Chapters 1 and 2 - Executive Summary and Introduction

1. To what extent do you think the overall purpose of the EDP is sufficiently clear?

• Not very clear

2. To what extent does the Executive summary and the Introduction (chapters 1 and 2) clearly set out the approach the EDP will take to deliver a material improvement that outweighs the negative effect of development?

• Not clear at all

Chapters 1 and 2 identify the problem in terms of impacts from nutrient pollution that will result from new development but there is no clear link made to how the Conservation Measures will address this impact. Conservation Measures are listed and para 9 uses the language of ‘multiple benefits from these measures’ as a smokescreen for not dealing with the actual impact while stating it is NE’s ‘opinion’ that Conservation Measures will ‘materially outweigh’ negative effects from nutrient inputs resulting from the EDP. There is minimal signposting where in the EDP there is evidence showing how a material improvement will be delivered, which presages the rest of the documents.

Chapter 3 - Scope of the EDP

3. Is the EDP period clearly set out?

• Somewhat

It is clear that it covers a period of 10 years but how the EDP will operate in practice in this period in terms of accepting levy contributions and using these to fund Conservation Measures is not clear.

4. To what extent do you agree that the geographic scope of the EDP has been clearly defined?

• Not very clear

The sub-catchment areas that the EDP applies to is clear but the exclusion of the catchments that drain to the Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI, Trinity Broads SSSI and Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes SSSI due to a limited development in these catchments (para 46) seems at odds with the stated strategic goals of the EDP. These catchments are subject to nutrient neutrality advice because the aforementioned SSSI units are failing their nutrient targets. Why is it deemed that these catchments should not benefit from delivery of some Conservation Measures as part of a wider strategic approach to the Broads Special Area of Conservation?

It is also not clear how impacts in the Wensum catchment are treated. Under the current NN system, there is a need to site mitigation schemes upstream of the point of impact on the Wensum SAC. NE’s own rationale for this, stated in their NN Principles, is in order to provide mitigation prior to the point of impact. The point of impact from new development is normally considered as the point at which additional sewage discharges enter the Wensum SAC, whether via direct discharge to the river or via the confluence of a tributary to which there is a direct discharge.

The EDP seems to disapply the NN spatial principle. This will result in nutrient inputs from new development allowed under the EDP that will enter the Wensum prior to any impact from a Conservation Measure. It seems that through a lack of spatial planning, stretches of a river that is already breaching its P targets will see further P inputs while Conservation Measures may be delivered some distance downstream with no benefit to upstream reaches that will receive extra P inputs. Is this really an ‘Overall Improvement’ to the SAC?

5. To what extent is the methodology used to define the maximum development capacity (15,780 dwellings) under this Norfolk EDP clearly set out?

• Not very clear

The methodology relies on prediction from housing completions in a period prior to NN advice, which will have slowed down completions. Future forecasts for development seem likely to be better informed by a detailed analysis of Local Plans, housing targets and the capacity for the LPAs to meet five-year housing land supplies which then links to the potential for windfall development to be more important.

The approach to quantifying the maximum development capacity impacts the amount of money available to deliver conservation measures. If the approach is inaccurate, either in terms of the total amount of development coming forward or when it comes forward, the EDP may not be able to collect sufficient levy payments to deliver its programme of Conservation Measures or the NRF will not have sufficient funds to deliver them in a timely manner, either requiring funding from central government or resulting in measures being delivered notably after an impact has occurred.

It is not clear how the EDP will reconcile a difference between maximum capacity of the plan against the actual take up of the levy and what this will mean for delivering against the Overall Improvement Test. The current NN system intrinsically accounts for the requirement to deliver a sufficient quantum of environmental improvements to meet development demand because developments cannot progress through planning without first securing a solution to nutrient impacts. The EDP should reflect this approach by apportioning nutrient loads to expected housing delivery and ensuring that sufficient nutrient offsets are procured ahead of forecast housing delivery.

Chapter 4 - Plans and Strategies Considered during EDP Preparation

6. Are there any other relevant plans and strategies you think this EDP should take into account?

• Yes

The EDP should consider the existing mitigation schemes that are already secured and delivering nutrient offsets within the sub-catchments. To what extent can these be engaged by the EDP with mitigation procured to immediately show that the EDP is not going to result in increased nutrient loading to protected sites as it is currently drafted to do?

The EDP also needs to rationalise its own statements on existing plans. Para 69 states that NE has had regard to the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) and that the EDP will support certain EIP goals including:

1. “Mobilising private investment and finance to restore and protect nature in England;”
2. “By December 2030 50% of SSSI features to have actions on track to achieve favourable condition (this is an Environment Act interim target);”

Arguably the EDP makes it harder to achieve both these goals. The first goal is impeded because, as stated in the EDP, there is “emerging evidence that the Nature Restoration Levy will be cheaper than alternative routes to mitigating nutrient impacts" (para 293). This will discourage investment in nature markets (an effect already being seen in Norfolk), with a cooling effect on investment appetite that will spread to other catchments that have been listed as soon to get their own EDPs.

The second goal is impeded because the EDP shows that nutrient loads and concentrations will increase in the relevant SSSIs as a result of EDP development. How can NE say that the EDP supports the EIP when it is making it harder for the Broads SSSIs to achieve favourable condition by moving these sites further from compliance with their nutrient targets?

7. To what extent has the EDP provided a clear overview of the measures currently being taken or likely to be taken by other public authorities?

• Not very clear

Chapter 5 - Environmental Features: Conservation Status and Negative Effect

8. To what extent do you agree that all environmental features (habitats and species designated under The Broads SAC, Broadland Ramsar, and River Wensum SAC) likely to be negatively affected by nutrient pollution from development have been identified in the EDP?

• Not very clear

There are some specific omissions that limit confidence in the assessment of impacts from nutrient pressure. These include nitrogen pressure on the Wensum, which was not assessed because the catchment has "no nitrogen target" (para 28). There should be more explanation as to why nitrogen has limited effect on the river, especially in the context of Conservation Measures such as fen creation for Desmoulin's whorl snail which is happening in the Yare and Bure Broads and Marshes where N is considered.

We share others' concern that the Ant, Trinity Broads and Upper Thurne sites, and the Waveney valley within the Broadland Ramsar site, are part of one connected wetland system and should be considered in combination.

Natural England assesses every identified feature as deteriorating (para 124), and the chemical component as red or failing wherever it is assessed (paras 314, 348, 384 and 431). It is not clear how this is reconciled against the fact that the EDP, by its own calculations, will increase the concentration of N and P in all SSSI units and therefore cause further deterioration in nutrient status, which will in turn impact the assessed qualifying features.

9. To what extent do you agree with the approach of defining current conservation status of environmental features using habitat structure and function and their future prospects?

• Strongly Disagree

There is a strong disconnect between the assessment of current conservation status for environmental features, which are all rated Red (Table 4) and how this is linked to the environmental impact from new development that will influence the ‘future prospects’ of these features. Given para 126 states that all protected sites will see an increase in P concentrations from the max development capacity of the EDP and that the EDP goes on to show the nutrient loads will not be offset by Conservation Measures, it is hard to see how the ‘expert judgement’ of NE has been linked to the proposed Conservation Measures when a fundamental element of habitat function will be undermined by the EDP.

10. To what extent do you agree with the description of how the negative effect of additional nutrient loading from new development impacts the environmental features of the protected sites?

• Strongly Disagree

Chapter 5 and Annex 5A provide a good description of the potential impacts from nutrient inputs to open water, wetland / fen, wet woodland and river habitat types. Where we strongly disagree is in the complete disconnect between this description and how the rest of the EDP proposes to address the negative effect of nutrient loading from new development.

Discussing the nutrient targets for lake habitats, Para 314 states: “These targets are set to protect all other features that can be negatively impacted by excess nutrients. It therefore follows that where lakes are failing nutrient targets these other features will also be negatively affected by excess nutrients.” Descriptions of the impacts of failures of chemical status due to nutrients for all other habitat types in Annex 5A supports this general statement. Annex 5A goes on to describe failures of nutrient targets as high as 400% while Chapter 2 details the scale of nutrient reductions needed to meet nutrient targets, highlighting the scale of the problem that needs to be addressed prior to considering the impact of new development.

Para 126 states that the modelled “increase in [phosphorus] concentration from [the] maximum amount of development [under the EDP], compared to [the] site target [is]: Bure 5.3%, Yare 5.3%, Wensum 1.3%.” Linking this back to the stated impact of failures of nutrient targets, it is hard to see how any increase to nutrient concentrations above the target could be acceptable in the context of allowing new development, and yet this is what the EDP will facilitate by not fully offsetting the quantified nutrient load inputs that will result from development that uses the EDP. At a minimum, NE should commit to showing a programme of Conservation Measures that quantifies a reduction in nutrient inputs greater than the inputs from development using the EDP.

11. Do you think the approach used to assess the environmental impacts of additional nutrient loading from EDP development on the conservation status of the environmental features is appropriate and proportionate?

• No

The following reasons suggest the approach to assessing impact is neither appropriate nor proportionate:

1. There is no justification for why there has been a change from the established Generic Methodology used for calculating nutrient loading impact from new development for nutrient neutrality. This approach has been endorsed by NE for Habitats Regulations compliance. It is possible to apply this approach on a forecasting basis and indeed, this is what was done for the EDP Prototype that suggested significantly higher nutrient load inputs as a result of a similar quantum of development. This suggests that the approach used in the Draft EDP is not proportionate, or at least it is difficult to tell if it is.
2. The approach used to quantify the nutrient inputs is not reported in any detail. There is reference in Chapter 5 and elsewhere in the EDP to an Environment Agency modelling exercise but nowhere are sufficient details of the modelling methodology published. This makes it difficult to ascertain whether the approach is appropriate.
3. Regardless of whether the approach to quantifying nutrient load inputs and thus impacts on nutrient concentrations is appropriate or proportionate, the aforementioned disconnect between descriptions of impact and prescriptions of measures to address this impact (see previous answer) suggests that the whole approach to considering impacts of nutrient loading on environmental features is neither appropriate nor proportionate.

Chapter 6 - Conservation Measures

12. To what extent do you agree that the proposed programme of conservation measures is appropriate to outweigh the negative effect of development?

• Strongly Disagree

We echo RSK Wilding’s assessment in respect of this question. On the plan's figures, the programme does not offset the pollution it permits, let alone outweigh it. Development adds 938–1,103 kg of phosphorus and 9,306 kg of nitrogen a year. Quantified measures remove about 668 kg and 1,611 kg (Annex 7B, paras 741–751). The remainder, 270–435 kg of phosphorus and 7,695 kg of nitrogen a year, reaches sites that are already failing, permanently.

The quantified benefit is itself fragile. Of the 668 kg, 365.8 kg is phosphorus said to be "retained by restored habitat" in created fen (para 741), for which no method is published (Q22). Without it, 68–73% of the added phosphorus is unaddressed. A further 248.5 kg comes from land in the Wensum credited in full against both the Wensum and the Yare (paras 751 and 837).

No nutrient reduction is quantified for fen management, catch-dyke remediation, deer management, weir removal or river restoration. The draft calls the nutrient benefit of fen creation in the Wensum "likely to be negligible" (paras 831 and 852). No avoidance measures were identified, and every measure but one is compensation, rather than the much more ecologically effective avoidance, and mitigation (para 153).

Deer management is the largest recurring cost, £175,000–£200,000 a year for 20 years, with no quantified nutrient benefit. The 162 hectares of fen management is work on existing SSSI fen in unfavourable condition, already the subject of existing duties and agri-environment provision.

Where nutrients limit a habitat's condition, these measures cannot deliver recovery. The programme should first secure quantified nutrient neutrality, and then improvement on top.

13. Do you have any comments on the conservation measures that were considered by Natural England but not included within the programme of conservation measures, or are there any additional measures that should have been considered?

Riparian buffers: The rationale for not including this measure is at odds both with the practical nature of delivering buffer strips and also other measures that have been included. Buffer strips are unlikely to be particularly high maintenance and certainly are lower maintenance than, e.g., fen habitat creation which is likely to be complex to deliver and require a lot of maintenance in the short- to medium-term but is a Conservation Measure. There is also a strong contradiction between the River Restoration measure (which is included) and includes in its name “restoring functioning riparian habitat” and not including riparian buffers, which are designed to restore functioning riparian habitat.

Sustainable drainage systems: The rationale that SuDS ‘can’t be applied as a blanket measure due to not being applicable to small brownfield sites’ and therefore were discounted seems very shortsighted and likely to result in a large, missed opportunity for the EDP to target nutrient pollution at source. While it references the NPPF SuDS policy, which in turn references National Standards for SuDS, these standards and the NPPF policy do require SuDS designs to deliver nutrient management unless it is evidentially not possible to do so. The National Standards use language like “shall consider” and “may need to be controlled” in respect of managing nutrients. These do not seem like stringent enough tests to be confident that SuDS will be designed to manage nutrients. Consider the counterfactual that, in the absence of an EDP, developments would rely on nutrient mitigation solutions, often involving offsite credit purchases. This creates market driver (reducing offsite credit requirements) to maximise the potential reductions in nutrients that a good SuDS design can achieve. This points to the EDP resulting in more nutrient input from surface water drainage when a development uses the EDP vs if it doesn’t.

14. To what extent do you agree that the EDP clearly sets out the role of back-up conservation measures and the circumstances in which they will be implemented?

• Disagree

15. To what extent do you agree with the proposed back up conservation measures?

• Strongly Disagree

The back up measures seem unlikely to provide a backstop for failure of primary measures because:

• They are the same measures as the primary programme. If a type of measure fails for systemic reasons, such as background and additional nutrient enrichment limiting fen recovery, doing more of it may not help. No alternative approach is suggested.
• There is no indication of how much back-up delivery the 5% contingency, about £2.1m, could buy and what it would be targeted on.
• Because the Overall Improvement Test is qualitative and monitoring is not well defined for different Conservation Measures, it is not at all clear what will trigger the deployment of Conservation Measures.
• The levy already falls about £10.1m short of the maximum potential costs of delivering primary measures (based on cost brackets in Table 9). Unless the contingency funding sits outside that shortfall, the funding for back-up measures is doubtful.

16. To what extent do you agree that 100 years is the appropriate period to secure and maintain conservation measures?

• Agree

The current ‘in perpetuity period’ for nutrient neutrality schemes is 80-125 years and nutrient mitigation schemes are being legally secured for periods of time within this range. For the purposes of legally securing mitigation schemes, it is necessary to have a duration for the legal agreement. It therefore makes sense to align to the existing defined in perpetuity period range for nutrient mitigation schemes.

17. To what extent do you agree that Natural England has adequately considered the value for money offered by the conservation measures that have been selected?

• Strongly Disagree

Value for money is based on the costs of delivering conservation measures, not on whether those measures address the key impact resulting from the EDP. This means that developers will be paying a levy to address an environmental impact, but funds from the levy will be used to deliver some measures which will have their chance of success limited by the fact that habitat function is already impacted by excess nutrient inputs and the EDP shows it will make this situation worse (refer to Q10 response). It is hard to see how this represents value for money.

The Appropriate Prioritisation Regulations require NE to have regard to value for money in drafting an EDP. However, nowhere in this EDP is there any consideration of whether NE sanctioned methodologies that can be used to quantify nutrient reductions could be used to show that, as part of the chosen suite of Conservation Measures, full nutrient load offsetting could be delivered within the total sum collected by the NRL.

We can show that, especially when using efficient approaches such as Enhanced Drainage Ditch Management, it is possible to quantify a set of options that can more than mitigate for the EDP nutrient load estimates. We can show that these solutions offer value for money, which begs the question of why the EDP relies so heavily on compensation measures. It is therefore clear that NE have not considered value for money and, indeed, may be in breach of the Appropriate Prioritisation Regulations.

18. To what extent do you agree with the proposed approach to sequencing of conservation measures?

• Strongly Disagree

A key problem with the sequencing of the Conservation Measures is that they will result in additional nutrient inputs to the protected sites within all catchments without mitigation. Contrast this with the current nutrient neutrality system, which requires developments to show how they will achieve no net input of nutrients to a protected site before they can get planning. It is hard to see how this is delivering an “Overall Improvement” to the system.

Using the EDP’s own cost ranges, Phase 1 holds roughly £16–27m of measures. That includes the full 100-year deer cost, so not all of it falls in Phase 1. The levy from the first 5,000 homes provides only about £10.3m for delivery and maintenance (5,000 × £2,675 × 77% for delivery of measures). The EDP leans on “alternative funding avenues” without naming them.

Given the potential for the sequencing of measures delivery, combined with the programme of measures being shown to increase nutrient inputs, we echo RSK Wilding’s requests:

1. EDPs are paused and urgently reviewed to take account of the approach’s failure to acknowledge irreversible tipping-point risks for rare and irreplaceable habitats;

in the meantime:

2. no tranche of homes is released until reductions covering its load are in place;
3. levy commitments are released in tranches tied to delivered schemes with quantified mitigation delivery;
4. new commitments pause automatically if delivery falls behind; and
5. the sequencing table states, for each measure, its delivery date, the date its effect is expected, and the confidence in that date.

19. To what extent do you agree with the proposed approach for the delivery (including procurement) of conservation measures?

• Disagree

There is a general lack of detail on specifically how NE will support the delivery of the Conservation Measures.

There should be a commitment to:

1. Focus first on the delivery of measures that show a quantified reduction in nutrient inputs, with a preference for those measures that will deliver additional environmental benefits.
2. Have initial procurement based on buying kgs of nutrient mitigation from solutions using established methods or new methods, such as specific approaches to river restoration, where nutrient mitigation benefits can be quantified using modelling.
3. Have a competitive bidding process for suppliers to supply schemes with quantified reductions in nutrient inputs.
4. Establish a market-based system for pricing procurement of kgs of nutrient offsets, with annual price reviews aimed at tailoring the cost of the levy to the actual cost of delivery.
5. Aim to use a market-based pricing system to support downward price pressure that may then enable any surplus levy contributions to fund other actions that do not directly reduce nutrient inputs but have wider benefits to environmental features.
6. Make the procurement system transparent so all participants in the EDP can see that it is seeking to establish the marginal price of measure delivery.

Chapter 7 - Overall Improvement Test

20. To what extent do you agree with the methodology for assessing the Overall Improvement Test?

• Strongly Disagree

The method seems to entirely ignore significant evidence of impact from additional nutrient pollution which is described in other parts of the EDP.

Para 192 states that the OIT “does not require the wider [nutrient] pollution burden…to be assessed” because the assessment is of the negative effect of nutrient pollution from development the EDP would allow. This seems to wilfully ignore the fundamental problem driving the EDP; namely that new development will contribute nutrient pollution to ecosystems that are already failing, in part, due to nutrient pollution. If new development is considered in a scenario in which there is no background nutrient problem, there would be no need for an EDP. The corollary of this is that the EDP, if not showing a reduction in nutrient inputs to at least neutrality, is resulting in an impact. Thus, ignoring nutrient loading and concentration change in the OIT seems entirely at odds with delivering an Overall Improvement.

Para 193 goes on to frame the OIT as relating to the effects of Conservation Measures on the conservation status of environmental features, rather than considering a ‘proxy for an effect’ such as nutrient pollution. This sets up the ability to establish a purely qualitative approach to scoring the impact of Conservation Measures which allows NE to pass the OIT even when on their own evidence, the EDP will result in a deterioration of water quality and nutrient status in the very waterbodies the EDP is supposed to support. It is important to refer back to descriptions of negative impact that establish nutrient status as fundamental to ecosystem function, which directly counters nutrients being a ‘proxy’ for an effect. The OIT should, at its core, require neutrality in nutrient inputs, shown through quantification, to achieve parity with existing levels of environmental protection.

21. Would you suggest any improvements that can we made to strengthen the methodology for assessing the Overall Improvement Test?

Make the test quantitative and have it show, at a minimum, that the EDP will result in at least the same quantum of nutrients estimated to be input from the ‘maximum amount of development’ being reduced by Conservation Measures.

Given the nature of the OIT, an ‘Overall Improvement’ should first be shown by a net reduction in nutrient inputs to protected sites. Then other positive effects on environmental features would show further improvement beyond the core impact the EDP should be targeting.

The OIT should also include a test of whether the delivery model is sound and thus show that levy contributions will be spent on Conservation Measures.

Reporting should commit to showing that quantitative tests in the OIT have been met.

22. To what extent does the EDP clearly set out the evidence that underpins Natural England’s assessment of the Overall Improvement Test?

• Not clear at all

There is a complete disconnect between the evidence of impacts that are relatively well described in Chapter 5 and the assessment of this evidence in relation to the OIT. By our count, there are 50 paragraphs in Chapter 5, Annex 5A and Annex 5B that reference how nutrients drive or impair structure and function of habitats and degrade ecological processes, species interactions, and oxygen and light availability. There are seven specific references to nutrient-driven ‘tipping points’ in river and open water ecosystem structure and function. How this evidence was considered in the Modified Delphi process is completely unclear and should be published with urgency so it can be scrutinised.

It is clear that in a purely subjective ‘expert judgement’ process, the EDP went from recognising these tipping points to ascribing “low negative effects” to, for example, the 1.3% increase above the Wensum P target that will result from the EDP. Can NE be sure this increase will not tip the river over into ecological collapse?

Annex 7B shows that the proposed Conservation Measures will result in additional nutrient inputs to the Broads’ already nutrient-stressed ecosystems. How this evidence has been considered in the context of the OIT is completely unclear. For example, Table 15 notes negative effects to Desmoulin’s Whorl Snail are “indirect through supporting habitat rather than direct toxicity.” Then, the OIT for this feature is passed by habitat creation and restoration measures that are targeted to “directly benefit the snail.” If the negative effect is derived from indirect habitat deterioration due to nutrients and these effects are being made worse by the EDP, how can direct changes to habitat result in an improvement? There are similar inconsistencies throughout the OIT assessment which can only be reconciled by adopting a quantitative approach to the test.

Chapter 8 - Nature Restoration Levy

23. To what extent do you agree that the allocation between (i) administration, (ii) delivery of conservation measure and (iii) long-term maintenance, (iv) management and (v) monitoring costs have been clearly set out?

• Not very clear

The only detail on allocation of costs is provided in Figure 6 - a pie chart showing the percentage of the NRL costs that will be allocated to different component costs. These are specified in four general brackets with limited detail on how this allocation was arrived at.

It is concerning that at the maximum potential cost for delivering Conservation Measures (derived from the cost brackets in Table 9), there is a £10.1m shortfall in the costs allocated to measure delivery and maintenance (based on full EDP uptake and levy receipts of £42.2m) and yet there is no discussion on how this risk of overspend will be managed. Will costs have to be reallocated from the monitoring budget, making the EDP even less robust?

We echo RSK Wilding’s statements on long-term funding considerations, which rest on a 2.05% discount rate over 100 years (paras 229–231). Given the recent inflationary shocks there should be far more testing of whether this represents a reliable discount rate and who covers a shortfall if returns disappoint.

Natural England should publish the cost model, with explicit costs (not just expected percentages), by measure and by year, with its uptake, inflation and return assumptions, and with sensitivity tests for lower uptake, higher costs and failure of measures.

24. Based upon the cost alone how likely are you to use or supply services to the EDP compared to other available mechanisms, for example, local private providers, local planning authority schemes, bespoke mitigation etc?

• Neutral / Neither likely nor unlikely

There is so little detail in the EDP about how it will actually procure services to deliver Conservation Measures that as a nature markets provider, we cannot say with any certainty that we would or wouldn’t supply services to the EDP.

25. To what extent do you agree that the proposed EDP will accelerate decision making and delivery timescales compared with alternative nutrient mitigation approaches?

• Disagree

Taken on a narrow assessment of the ability to disapply the need for site-specific nutrient neutrality assessments, the EDP will accelerate planning decisions. However, it is so poorly drafted and incoherent that it is likely to be mired in appeal and reviews that will ultimately slow down decision making compared with the current system that has reached a business-as-usual point within the Norfolk Broads catchment.

26. Do you agree with the approach taken to aggregating the costs of conservation measures at plan level and then apportioning these evenly across all development?

• Neither Agree nor Disagree

Greenshank has previously advocated for a levy-based approach to nutrient neutrality. We advocated for an approach that would aggregate costs for delivering nutrient neutrality (or improvement) across all developments at a flat rate of the levy, to minimise complexity. However, we also accounted for the differences in nutrient impacts that come from whether a new development will connect to a wastewater treatment works (WwTWs) that has a permit controlling N and P concentrations in its discharge. New development connecting to non-permit limited WwTWs has a disproportionately large impact on nutrient loading to protected sites and normally these development sites are in rural areas. The Prototype EDP accounted for this in its levy schedule, essentially charging more for developments that connect to non-permit limited works - a levy based on impact. This is problematic, however, because it excessively penalised development in more rural areas which should be helped rather than hindered.

Our recommendation for setting a levy was to:

1. Base the procurement of conservation measures on procuring sufficient mitigation to offset the quantified impact from new development.
2. Require that all providers of mitigation provide, e.g., 5% of the total offset being sold free of charge, noting that the market-based procurement approach detailed in our Q19 response allows for costs of procuring mitigation to vary, which can be reflected in the levy cost, and thus allow for mitigation providers to adapt pricing to facilitate the 5% contribution.
3. That this 5% is pooled for offsetting developments that have a higher impact due only to their location and which WwTW they connect to.
4. That a single, aggregated levy price is used for all development, using the 5% pooling mechanism to allow for sufficient offsets to be procured to show no impact from nutrients.

Chapter 9 - Monitoring and Reporting

27. To what extent do you agree with the proposed monitoring themes as set out in chapter 9 of the EDP?

• Neither Agree nor Disagree

The themes themselves cover the key areas that would need to be monitored to show effectiveness, but we cannot agree nor disagree with these themes because there is no detail provided as to exactly what will be monitored for each conservation measure and what, therefore, would constitute failure of the EDP.

Given that the EDP provides the list of Conservation Measures that will be funded by the NRL and the potential quantity of delivery (in terms of area or length), NE should provide a much more comprehensive account of how each measure will be monitored. As a nature market provider, we have to develop detailed monitoring programmes for our nutrient mitigation schemes that show how we will use monitoring to maintain performance. All that the EDP states, e.g. in paras 260-264, is that monitoring to achieve an overall goal of showing performance will be carried out. This does not engender confidence in measures being monitored effectively as NE should be able to provide at least recommendations for monitoring programmes required for each measure, even if the monitoring is carried out by third-party providers of Conservation Measures.

The lack of detail on monitoring contributes to the overall low confidence we have in the EDP delivering an Overall Improvement to Habitats Sites in the Broads. We request that NE, in the process of reorienting the EDP to actually address quantified impacts from nutrient pollution by procuring quantified nutrient offsets, engage with nature markets providers to understand how robust monitoring approaches for Conservation Measures can be enshrined within the EDP.

28. To what extent does the EDP clearly set out how the reporting requirements will be met?

• Not clear at all

General

29. Do you have any additional comments from the chapters above?

1. The consultation does not meet the Consultation Principles it says it follows

2. A template for future plans

3. The standard Natural England applies to itself

4. Conclusion

30. Public Sector Equality Duty

We would like to hear about any potential impacts of any of the above proposals on businesses, or of any differential impact on persons with a relevant protected characteristic as defined by the Equality Act 2010 compared to persons without that protected characteristic, together with any appropriate mitigation measures, which may assist in deciding final policy approaches in due course. Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?

As a nature markets provider, the Norfolk EDP has made us pause all future nutrient mitigation schemes in Norfolk. The levy rate is difficult to compete with and combined with the preference developers will have for using a scheme delivered by NE that is unlikely to be scrutinised by LPAs, it seems likely that the EDP will capture close to the suggested 80% of the housing demand that would constitute the ‘maximum amount of development’ under the EDP. This will leave 20% of the remaining market for nature market providers, which is unlikely to be sufficient for us to warrant continued activity in the Norfolk Broads catchment. The follow-on impact from this is that a smaller number of nutrient credit scheme providers will be active and this will reduce competition, which in turn will increase nutrient credit prices for those 20% of developments that cannot access the EDP. This will in turn make these developments less likely to be viable.

Many landowners are seeking to diversify from agriculture due to the uncertainties associated with farming. Existing nutrient credit markets provide a diversification opportunity where landowners are able to make a commercial decision on the viability of a mitigation scheme based on an appraisal of the nutrient credit market. With a fixed total budget for mitigation schemes but no specific examples of land identified to deliver these schemes or the nature of long-term obligations, and wide cost estimates, it seems likely that landowners will be trying to decide on whether to deliver Conservation Measures based on insufficient information. This in turn may reduce uptake and make the use of CPO powers more likely.

Taken together, it seems likely that the commercial implications of the EDP are likely to cause a negative differential impact to the majority of key stakeholders who are most likely to interact directly with the plan.

These impacts could be mitigated by following recommendations made in previous answers but that are summarised as:

1. Pause and urgently review the EDP programme to address the significant risk it poses to unintended environmental and economic harm, not just in the Norfolk Broads but also in all areas subject to future EDPs.
2. Make the OIT quantitative with a focus on delivering an Overall Improvement in terms of reduced nutrient loading.
3. Have a market-based procurement process to secure nutrient offsets in kgs per year of reduced nutrient load input to the relevant protected sites.
4. Publish and properly consult on a cost-model used to specify the levy cost so all stakeholders can be confident that the NRL is going to collect sufficient receipts to deliver its programme.