YRPS Insight: Edition Eight - Flipbook - Page 29
BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN:
WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT?
Biodiversity Net Gain has been a hot topic of conversation recently, but
what does it mean for developers? Tom Hutchinson explains...
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is soon to become a mandatory
requirement on all developments, to bring measurable net
gains in biodiversity to the forefront of plan making and
decision taking. Delivery of BNG will be facilitated through
the forthcoming Environmental Bill (‘the Bill’) which seeks to
reinforce the aims of the 25 Year Environmental Plan, namely,
the overarching ambition to leave our environment in a
better state than we found it. Whilst both the Bill and the 25
Year Environmental Plan clearly have much broader scopes,
the prescriptive nature of BNG has made it a hot topic of
discussion recently and could have wide-ranging impacts on
the development industry.
The concept of BNG is nothing radically new; striving
to achieve net gains across all aspects of sustainable
development already underpins national planning policy and
guidance. Specifically, in terms of habitats and biodiversity,
the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages
plans to identify and pursue opportunities for securing
net gains in biodiversity and site-specific opportunities
to incorporate measurable net gains in biodiversity in and
around new developments. However, in practice this often
comes as an afterthought to development, with the focus
generally being on mitigation rather than enhancement.
The Bill stipulates that all developments that require planning
permission must deliver an improvement in biodiversity,
measured using ‘The Biodiversity Metric 2.0’ tool and when
compared with the pre-development biodiversity value. The
biodiversity metric seeks to place values on biodiversity in
the form of weighted biodiversity units, which have been
calculated based on their distinctiveness, condition and
quantity. Natural England aims to publish the final version
of the metric in December 2020 and this will provide a
standardised approach to measuring and accounting for
biodiversity losses and gains. Whilst there are clearly benefits
of having a standardised approach, given the complexity
of the issue there will inevitably be certain scenarios that
have been overlooked and where the impact of the policy
becomes disproportionate; something we have seen recently
with the standardised approach to calculating housing need.
The government recognises that BNG on-site may not always
be appropriate and, therefore, two other mechanisms are
offered to ensure delivery. In addition to on-site provision,
which is of course seen as sequentially preferable, off-site
improvements and the option to purchase biodiversity
credits are available. The Bill requires habitat improvements
to be maintained for 30 years, which does raise questions
over future management and responsibility. Delivering offsite improvement requires a registered donor site (on the
biodiversity gains site register), but this does not necessarily
28
need to be near the application site or owned by the applicant.
In this regard there may be opportunities for landowners
with sites of limited agricultural value and lacking any
development potential to capitalise by offering up land to
a developer as a ‘donor site’. The final option is to purchase
biodiversity credits which will be sold and distributed by the
Secretary of State. This is an interesting concept, but with
the value of each credit being standardised it could quickly
become insurmountable for certain developments in lower
value areas.
Before development can commence, a Biodiversity Net Gain
Plan will be required to be agreed between the applicant
and the local planning authority, which must demonstrate
that the development complies with the biodiversity
objective, which is met if the biodiversity value exceeds the
pre-development biodiversity of an existing habitat by the
relevant percentage. The Biodiversity Net Gain Plan must
contain information on steps taken to minimise biodiversity
loss, steps taken to minimise the impact on the habitat
or other habitats. At present, the Bill seeks to achieve a
relevant percentage of 10%, meaning a 10% improvement
in biodiversity is required, although this can be amended by
the Secretary of State as they see fit. It is likely that this
percentage may change over time and become more specific
to certain site criteria.
While a standardised system will force developers and
applicants to make a conscious effort to help secure
improvements to biodiversity, unique site characteristics
may constrain the delivery of this in practice. For instance, on
marginal sites (e.g. affordable housing schemes or brownfield
development sites) the obligation to deliver a net gain could
cause viability issues. Where there is potential to comfortably
deliver net gains, developers may be reluctant to deliver over
and above what is expected for fear of being bound into
an onerous agreement (Biodiversity Net Gain Condition).
In other words, the 10% may act as a celling rather than a
minimum requirement and therefore it will be interesting to
see how applicants will be incentivised to deliver more where
it is viable and reasonable to do so.
Clearly the scope of BNG has potential to significantly
improve the biodiversity within developments or at the very
least help facilitate improvements in the local environment.
Clarity will come with time and it might take a while to be
widely accepted and tested in practice, but fundamentally
putting environmental considerations at the forefront of
planning can only be seen as a positive step if implemented
correctly.
Tom Hutchinson | tom.hutchinson@youngsrps.com