Today’s update includes how you can give your views on aspects of biodiversity net gain (BNG) policy. Read on to find out more.
Biodiversity net gain is leading to positive change
We are now in the second year of mandatory BNG for many types of development going through the planning system. Those of us involved in navigating the policy during its inception phase (developers, local planning authorities, ecologists, and many others) can probably agree that it has been quite a whirlwind year or so.
BNG is a world-leading policy and we are grateful to everyone who is helping to make it work successfully. The government is fully committed to making it effective, and evidence so far suggests that we are already seeing positive change.
More developers are seeking ecological advice earlier in the development planning process (which is speeding things up) and are seeking to avoid impacts on biodiversity when choosing between development sites. Greater biodiversity improvements are being delivered ‘onsite’, which is often the option that is cheapest and has greatest local community benefits and support.
We have also received interest from countries such as the Netherlands, New Zealand and China. They’re looking to learn from BNG to understand how it could be applied in their own countries to help support nature, promote growth and drive sustainable housebuilding.
And BNG is helping to generate green investment. When developers are unable to achieve their full 10% BNG on-site, they are required to go off-site. They then have the option to pay land managers to protect nature on their behalf through the growing ‘off-site market’.
This BNG market is rapidly developing with a growing number of companies and land managers selling biodiversity units to developers across the country (currently 90 habitat bank sites are on the national register, totalling over 2700ha of habitat created or enhanced).
This means BNG is starting to open new, nature-friendly revenue streams for farmers and land managers.
Green groups are using BNG as a tool to finance significant gains for nature, helping to drive recovery in their areas, and lessening burdens on government.
New, innovative, tech start-ups have formed to aid offsite market development, reducing costs for both developers and those selling biodiversity units.
And best practice is emerging in local planning authorities, helping to speed up BNG administration.
BNG for National Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) is coming
We recently introduced two public consultations on aspects of BNG: one on NSIPs, and one for smaller and brownfield development.
Government has confirmed it will be rolling out BNG for our largest infrastructure projects, like power stations and major highways, from May 2026. Their size means they have an opportunity to deliver important biodiversity benefits, which will play a significant part in helping to halt nature’s decline.
Introducing a mandatory approach will bring consistency across planning regimes and create certainty and investor confidence, facilitating further growth in the now thriving private market for biodiversity.
Our proposals for flexibilities to streamline the system for NSIPs will make it simpler and cheaper for infrastructure developers to deliver BNG.
Improving the implementation for small sites
However, there is also emerging evidence that some smaller developers and certain types of development are finding BNG more challenging than anticipated, despite special provisions.
A public consultation offers government an opportunity to recognise these challenges and to work with the sector to look at options to streamline and improve the BNG systems to address them. It focuses on those reforms capable of reducing developer cost and enhancing their experiences as well as sustaining or improving environmental outcomes.
Share your thoughts on aspects of biodiversity net gain
There is still time to respond to the two public consultations seeking views on aspects of BNG policy. The deadline for responding is 24 July at 11.59pm.
Both cover important considerations that are likely to shape the implementation of BNG for several years to come. We are keen to get a wide range of view to inform future direction, so please do respond.
After the consultations close, we will publish a summary of everyone’s feedback before publishing the government’s full responses later this year.
The consultations are as follows:
BNG will apply to our largest infrastructure projects, like power stations and highways, from May 2026.
Many of these projects are already delivering biodiversity gains voluntarily, but this mandatory change will give nature in England a further boost.
This consultation gives industry stakeholders an important opportunity to shape policy design, ensuring BNG is adapted to fit the scale and nature of these projects.
We want to look at options to help smaller developers deliver BNG, whilst ensuring the policy continues to contribute to nature recovery targets.
Since the introduction of mandatory BNG last year, one of the most widely acknowledged challenges is around how it works for minor developments – including smaller residential sites between 1 and 9 dwellings, and on sites of less than one hectare.
The consultation seeks feedback on extending exemptions, simplifying the small sites metric and increasing ease of access to the off-site market. It also looks at how we can address specific challenges for brownfield developments.
£10 million funding to help local planning authorities deliver BNG
Alongside the consultations, we have also announced £10 million funding for local planning authorities to deliver BNG for this financial year.
We want to ensure that local planning authorities have the resources to implement BNG and support developers to meet their requirements. The funding will help them to recruit and expand ecologist teams, invest in green jobs and increase capacity to create their own wildlife-rich habitats for developers who need to go off-site within a planning authority’s area.
6 comments
Comment by l j Cocker posted on
BNG is flawed. Developers can take out ancient (valuable) trees and hedges and replace with saplings. It takes a sapling hawthorne hedge 35 years to attain the biodiversity value of an established hedge they can rip out to build homes we don't need.
Comment by Susan Hall posted on
Build all these houses on green fields then no one has a garden no lawn no hedges no flowers fruit and veg planted just concrete gardens its appalling. But let’s blame farmers and animals. We are taken for absolute fools but what do you know if you haven’t been to university.
Comment by James posted on
The application of the strategic significance multiplier has been altered in the latest update.
This update removes any application of SS at the baseline when an LNRS is published.
LNRS are designed to map existing valuable areas for nature and identifying locations for future habitat creation and restoration.
What was the point of having mapped existing valuable areas if SS multiplier is not going to be applied to baseline to discourage development in these areas.
Currently if no LNRS is in place, development of these areas are usually protected but when published they won't be.
Comment by bethcarnell posted on
Hi James,
Thank you for getting in touch.
I have spoken to the team and they have confirmed there has been no alteration to how strategic significance assessment is applied in the latest update to the user guide. Only the text has been amended for clarity.
The application of the strategic significance multiplier for habitats in the metric is different dependent on whether an LNRS has been published for the area where a development or gain site is situated.
The strategic significance multiplier is to incentivise the delivery of mapped measures in a published LNRS which are those identified as priority actions to contribute towards local nature recovery.
Whether an LNRS has been published or not, does not alter the protection afforded to statutory and non-statutory designated sites, through local policies and national legislation.
I hope this helps.
Best wishes,
Beth
(The Blog Team)
Comment by James posted on
In that case, I recommend a change to the definition of for Strategic Significance. The current definition is: "Strategic significance is the local significance of the habitat based on its location and habitat type.".
However, this definition is no longer fitting. The definition should be changed to something along the lines of "areas where priority actions have been identified which contribute towards local nature recovery".
To draw attention to the point raised above, statutory and non-statutory designated sites are losing protection. These sites as well as the many habitat networks LPAs have already identified will no longer be offered the same protection through the BNG metric.
For example, in a hypothetical scenario, a developer wants to develop in an area identified as a LWS / habitat network (it doesn't matter which). If the LWS / habitat network has an area habitat unit (AHU) value of 20.00 AHU in the baseline. Assuming the LPA has identified this area as high SS (which many will have, and if not then an ecologist can set it as medium SS), there is an uplift in the baseline of 15%. Therefore, the baseline value of the site becomes 23.00 AHU. In order to deliver a 10% net gain, the developer must achieve 25.30 AHU.
However, if an LNRS is in place, no SS is applied to the site, the baseline value remains at 20.00 units and in order to deliver a 10% net gain, the developer must achieve 22.00 AHU. This is 3.30 units less than when an LNRS was not in place.
Under an LNRS an ecologically valuable site has less value, and therefore less protection than if there was no LNRS in place. Therefore, whether an LNRS has been published does alter the protection of sites identified for their ecological value.
Note that it is recognised that local policies and national legislation is in place to protect these sites. However, the issue being raised is the difference in hoe these sites are valued under the BNG system in relation to Strategic Significance. As demonstrated above, when an LNRS is published, it is more likely than not going to devalue these ecologically valuable sites.
What was the point of getting the relevant authorities to map existing valuable areas for nature in the LNRS if that has no bearing on BNG? The retention of these existing habitats doesn't matter, you just have to create the habitat in some other place.
The SS multiplier should apply to baseline habitats mapped as areas of existing value for nature. Should these existing areas be lost there is a greater penalty (due to the multiplier). However, if they are enhanced, then that may be an issue, but as with some LPAs currently without a LNRS the solution is simple, allow the habitat to be recorded as low in the baseline and high post-development. This rewards the delivery of mapped measures, as well as penalising the loss of habitats of existing value (which may encourage developers to not develop the area in the first place, or to offset in areas where it would be more beneficial (such as a area identified as SS)).
Comment by Ayla Thompson posted on
Could anyone shed any light on what numbers need to be filled in under section 7 in the Biodiversity Gain Plan?
In the BGP there are 2 sections where the applicant needs to fill in the metric results:
6. On-site Habitat Enhancements; with subsections:
6.3 Total pre-development biodiversity value
6.4 Total post-development biodiversity value
6.5 Total net change in biodiversity units
7. Off-site Habitat Enhancements; with subsections:
7.4 Total pre-development biodiversity value
7.5 Total post-development biodiversity value
7.6 Total net change in biodiversity units
To me this reads as section 7 needs to reflect those numbers from the Habitat Bank only, not combined with the on-site numbers.
This does mean there is no section that looks are the overall BNG of the scheme after purchasing the right number of units. This is causing issues and delays in approving the Biodiversity Gain Plans and there no one to ask this question!