It’s exciting to think that biodiversity net gain (BNG) has been mandatory for major developments for nine months now, and smaller developments for seven.
With its system of incentives to encourage reduced impact on habitats, its tool to calculate biodiversity value, and the emerging private market for biodiversity units, BNG is genuinely a world-leading policy.
We are all eager to see improvements to biodiversity, but this is a marathon not a sprint.
BNG applies as a ‘post permission requirement’ to ensure that site designs are finalised before the biodiversity units needed are calculated. That means we are only recently beginning to see increasing numbers of developments come through with the biodiversity gain condition applied.
I wanted to share my reflections on the progress we’ve seen, as well as the areas we’re keeping an eye on as the policy is bedded in.
Local authorities have been doing their part
Through the Planning Advisory Service, we have been working closely with local planning authorities. We’ve been impressed by their willingness to learn about and engage with BNG.
Planning authorities are scrutinising planning applications to ensure the 10% BNG requirement is being correctly applied, and entering into legal agreements with off-site habitat bank operators in their area. Some are even using their own land to boost the local market for biodiversity units.
To support local planning authorities with applications, the Planning Advisory Service have provided resources including FAQs, webinars and case studies.
The off-site biodiversity market is growing
Natural England’s BNG register records places providing off-site biodiversity units, for when a developer cannot deliver biodiversity gains on the same site as the development.
We have seen a slow but steady number of off-site habitats being added to the register. There are currently 19 gain sites on the register, totalling over 500 hectares of habitat. We anticipate this will increase as the off-site market develops.
We are also making progress with the designation of responsible bodies, with 17 now designated at the time of writing, including 9 councils.
Responsible bodies are local authorities, charities or public groups who can enter into legal agreements with landowners and take responsibility for the integrity of off-site BNG units.
These designations will help to increase the number of gain sites available for off-site BNG going forward.
We’ve improved user tools and guidance
In July, we made improvements to the BNG metric tool and user guide, in response to user feedback.
Our changes do not impact the calculation of biodiversity value, but they should improve the user experience.
We have also recently updated our guidance on:
We will continue to refine our GOV.UK guidance as necessary.
Exemptions to biodiversity net gain are working as expected
Some developments are exempt from BNG.
We have heard some concerns about the number of applications receiving planning permission that are exempt from BNG. We are collecting more data on the details, but early indications are that the system is working as intended.
Developments that have low or no biodiversity impact, such as those on tarmac or household extensions, do not need to deliver a gain. This exemption ensures that BNG is applied proportionately, and encourages developers to avoid impacting biodiversity in the first place.
Because householder applications (exempt from BNG) make up the majority of planning applications, we would always expect a lower number of applications for developments that do deliver a net gain.
These applications will be the ones that are impacting biodiversity and where, as a result of BNG, we will see actual biodiversity improvements.
Looking ahead
We will continue to work closely with stakeholders across the country to develop the policy. We’re also starting to see the emergence of exciting technology to support stakeholders with BNG compliance.
It’s not often you get to be a part of the start of lasting change – so, thank you to all whom have been involved in this process, and for being a part of the journey!
15 comments
Comment by Angus Walker posted on
Great reflections, it has been quite a journey and is beginning to have a real impact on restoring nature.
Delighted to have been involved and looking forward to getting more involved!
Comment by henry kenner posted on
Still looking to see where DEFRA/Natural England develops the policy to include bird nesting chambers within the BNG calculation; currently they are excluded, but given certain bird species experience the vast majority of their breeding in man-made nest chambers this anomaly needs to be corrected; easily done if appropriate anti-abuse drafting is applied.
Comment by jessicaeverett posted on
Hi Henry,
The BNG team said you’re right, species features (like swift bricks, and bat and bird boxes) are not currently included in the statutory biodiversity metric.
This is because biodiversity net gain is designed to address habitat loss from development. Natural or semi-natural habitats typically support thousands of species, but species features only support one or a few species. So, allowing habitat loss in exchange for species features wouldn’t be a good outcome for nature.
Evidence also suggests that natural habitats for foraging and other purposes are more important to wildlife than nesting sites.
Thanks,
Jess (The Blog Team)
Comment by Ian Hambleton posted on
Still a big fan of the Legislation. BNG is simple and logical (brings improvements in Nature closer to home)
Of course there will be some teething problems as it kicks in but very excited to lead the world in this area. I predict it will rollout internationally in time.
Comment by Sean Tofts posted on
This is an interesting perspective Ian. Could you elaborate on your thoughts? I haven't seen any evidence that the current proposals bring nature closer to home or that it indeed offers any betterment from what was already in place in some circumstances.
Comment by Ian Hambleton posted on
Hi Sean, sure thing here's my perspective.
Let's first compare with pre BNG where there was no mitigation for reduction in biodiversity caused by property development. Now with BNG and the spatial risk multiplier, a part of the legislation that incentivises developers to deliver units more local to the development site, mitigation is much more likely to be closer. Otherwise developers will likely pay 1x33 or 2x the cost for BNG units.
Comment by Sean Tofts posted on
Hi Ian,
Thank you for clarifying. I tend to see the system as more fair, though far from perfect for large sites and entirely unreasonable for minor developments.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/seantofts_briefing-paper-building-habitats-and-homes-activity-7269160643574800384-e8x1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android
I have produced a briefing paper highlighting some of the key issues but just to highlight here the evidence base for BNG is very out of date and the monitoring of various issues have not been monitored effectively. Since the economic viability was assessed we have had an increase in build costs of 40%, a global pandemic and the mini budget of Liz Truss.
Happy to discuss more and I really want to see BNG be the success it needs to be.
Comment by Chris Manning posted on
Very early days, a garage conversion locally required 1x Biodiversity Assessment and 2x Ecological Assessments! That’s a huge expense and it delivers and reportedly delivers >850% net gain which is clearly a very flaws outcome.
In time these bizarre results will be filtered out as the system evolves. BNG promises a secure financial future for re-wilding sites, but might not be as successfully for all habitats, again that can be fixed.
Comment by Sean Tofts posted on
Thank you for sharing these reflections on Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). It’s encouraging to see progress being highlighted, particularly around local authority engagement and the development of the off-site biodiversity market.
However, from discussions with various stakeholders, there appears to be a contrast between DEFRA’s optimistic perspective and the challenges being reported on the ground. Many in the development and planning sectors feel that consultations to date have not been as effective as hoped. Some have perceived the process as more of a box-ticking exercise, with significant feedback on implementation and policy design yet to be meaningfully addressed.
I am currently finalising a report that delves into these issues in depth, outlining the key challenges and offering practical, evidence-based solutions to improve BNG’s formation and delivery. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to share this with DEFRA, Natural England, and ministers later this month. I believe it could contribute valuable insights to help ensure BNG achieves its goals for both biodiversity and sustainable development.
Thank you again for your continued efforts and for fostering this important conversation.
Comment by jessicaeverett posted on
Hi Sean,
Thank you for this. I'll send you an email with some email addresses for you to send the report to - the team would welcome seeing it.
Thanks,
Jess (The Blog Team)
Comment by Sean Tofts posted on
Hi Chris feel free to reach out to me on LinkedIn. I don't think we can consider over 10 years in the making early days. There are significant teething issues which need addressing and I would be more than happy to include your thoughts in my report.
Comment by Chris H posted on
Just to echo Sean Tofts comments.
We are a commercial developer, working up planning on the next phase of development on serviced plots on an already established business park. Unfortunately, BNG has totally killed the scheme. There is no further land available in our ownership or land to house the required credits offsite but within our LA area, resulting in a double charge to house the credits on a field somewhere 150 miles away. The calculations are such that, as it stands, to house the required uplift on site, we could only develop 20% of the plot!
This policy hasn't been thought through to it's conclusion in practice and whilst we obviously need to give more weighting to habitat loss on future developments - I have no doubt that the 'one size fits all' framework as it stands will stall a significant proportion of development schemes from 2025 onwards - they will simply not stack up. BNG may go some way to explaining why the number of planning permissions across the country are down approx. 10% on last year?
There is already significant pressure on the end user in terms of increased rents/cap vals due to the huge spike in construction costs over the last 5 years. More consideration needs to the be given to the nature and location of the development.
The incoming governments strapline "get Britain building again" may need a re-think.
Comment by jessicaeverett posted on
Hello Chris,
Thanks very much for your comment. You may have seen the recent news about the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The idea is that it will reform the rules that are blocking economic growth and slowing down new homes and infrastructure, while helping to reverse nature’s decline.
The bill will require developers to pay into a nature restoration fund that will pay for large-scale environmental improvements to nature, water and air quality. This approach will restore nature, habitats and species across entire communities.
You can read more here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-reform-working-paper-development-and-nature-recovery/planning-reform-working-paper-development-and-nature-recovery
Wishing you a merry Christmas.
Jess
(The Blog Team)
Comment by Chris H posted on
Thanks Jess, from the article you linked:
"27. These proposals are not expected to have any substantive impact on the implementation of mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), which is a widely applicable planning obligation in England."
So the 'Nature Restoration Fund' is in addition to BNG requirements?
Comment by bethcarnell posted on
Hi Chris,
Thank you for your question. I have just shared it with the team and they have confirmed The Nature Restoration Fund is intended to be in addition to BNG requirements.
The BNG is intended to primarily be delivered on the development sites themselves (noting that credits can be purchased when this is not possible), whereas the Nature Restoration Fund is to enable positive environmental interventions at a landscape or catchment scale - i.e. outside of development sites.
I hope that answers your question.
Best wishes,
Beth (The Blog team)