Nutrient neutrality laws axed

[BlueRabbitYellow]

Can anyone help me to understand why this is, or isn't, significant? I'm struggling to wade through all the politics and spin to understand the facts of the issue.

The government have axed EU laws requiring housebuilders to show that their development won't have a negative impact on the UK river systems. This has led to a massive increase in share prices for these companies. Presumably it will also impact the rivers and wildlife negatively? Or will it? We need new homes but how onerous was it for developments to reach the standard required by the old law?

Michael Gove was weaseling around on this topic on yesterday's news. Made my blood boil.

Why are we new-building close to rivers anyway? Hello? Flooding risk, anyone?

It's a way to build a lot more on greenfield sites & town edges. I spend a lot of time on rivers (paddling): the UK is supposed to have majority of world's chalk rivers which should run especially clear. Especially in East Anglia. How many do you see that are murky AF ? From pollutants (over nutrition) and unidentifiable run off. Maybe they just brought the rules into line for what farmers are allowed to do, I suppose.

Yes, seeing a lurking Michael Gove on the TV news reports on this yesterday was uncomfortable. There should be warnings before he's on screen.

I get that slurry run off from farming and the atrocious state of our sewage infrastructure is a major pollutant for our rivers, but why was the neutrality law brought in if it wasn't necessary? It must have some relevance and importance? What am I missing here? This is the government that scrapped the Code for Sustainable Homes which could have had all new builds built to carbon zero by 2016 and therefore be warmer and cheaper to run. I imagine this too was scrapped due to lobbying?