Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Legislation is Coming…

A Leading Ecologist Looks at How Developers, Local Planning Authorities and Landowners Can Prepare for Success

In January 2024, Biodiversity Net Gain requirements will be legally mandated in every planning authority in England as part of the Environment Act 2021. The scheme aims to reverse biodiversity loss by putting back more than is lost through development.

When applying for planning permission, developers will need to use DEFRA metrics to quantify what biodiversity will be lost onsite, and how they will replace this and create an additional 10 per cent gain in biodiverse habitat. They will also need to show their plans for managing these habitats for 30 years. The delivery can be onsite at the development, or offsite, or a mixture of both.

Naturally, there’s a great deal of stress and uncertainty about this impending legislation among developers, local authorities and landowners. Many may not yet understand the full implications. This uncertainty could, in the worst cases, cause costly delays to project delivery. 

An industry insider’s view

In this post, we talk to Biofarm non-executive director and professional ecologist Dominic Woodfield. A respected name in the ecological sector since 1994, he has a vast knowledge of environmental legislation. During the interview, he describes the challenges of the new rules and viable ways forward to ensure developments can continue while meeting new biodiversity obligations.

Dominic, starting with developers, can we talk about obligations concerning the new legislation and the challenges it may pose?  

Firstly, developers will have to decide if they can deliver net gain onsite. As an example, if they have a large area of land, but only part is allocated for housing, it could be possible. But often this onsite delivery won’t be possible – there simply won’t be room without affecting efficient housing deliverability or viability. This will start driving the market for offsite delivery. 

As to the potential challenges, I have to say there is a head-in-the-sand attitude from some in the development sector. Here’s a hypothetical example of where that could cause problems. A developer purchases a site allocated for development in the local plan and they think getting planning down the line should be a formality. However, when they do a baseline biodiversity net gain calculation, it turns out the site has a higher biodiversity value than anticipated. They simply won’t be able to deliver onsite.

Many may think, ‘We’ll just find a way to “move some pieces around the board” to deliver onsite.’ But you have to be very careful. For instance, a developer may employ an eco-consultant to assess a site and deliver a biodiversity metric, but if you are not bang on with your assessment, you can find yourself with objections and delays. This can spiral out of control and also see you painted as the bad guy.

The bottom line is this: if the metric is used robustly and strictly in the spirit intended, developers may find they don’t have the onsite land they need.

Can you talk about the challenges for local planning authorities (LPAs)?

Although they are one of the main regulators of this legislation, they can be bitten by the requirements too. They may earmark and allocate sites for development, but if they want it to happen in a timely fashion, they will often need offsite BNG delivery. For instance, they may need to help developers find land to meet the biodiversity net gain rules. Some local authorities are thinking about using their own land holdings, but many will be hard-pressed to find enough of that.

Also, even if they do have land available, there are further hurdles to cross. Government guidance is clear that LPAs cannot direct buyers towards their land in preference over other suppliers to the market unless there are clear ecological justifications for doing so. Land used for other purposes, such as recreation may not be suitable for net gain.

So, if they want development to happen in a timely and expedient way, they may need to look to other – offsite – options.

Presumably, they can go ahead and find offsite solutions themselves?

In theory. But many are massively under-resourced. Some don’t have an ecologist and, even when they do, the workload is challenging. The ecologist may be expected to peruse thousands of planning applications, check workings and help developers find solutions. It’s a large volume of work. And it is potentially a massive problem on the horizon that could cause a huge amount of delay.

Where do landowners fit into the picture?

For them, biodiversity net gain is a huge opportunity. For instance, marginal land delivering marginal profits may be better transferred into a natural capital system like BNG credits. 

Can we talk about the pros and cons of the onsite/offsite element?

From a developer’s perspective, onsite is generally preferable in terms of control – the developer owns its delivery of the BNG process. But it does generate a management burden. If the developer is working on a site with habitats that score highly in terms of biodiversity, this could be costly and logistically tricky.

From an ecological perspective, offsite is generally better. The types of habitats and species generated onsite tend to be very heavily weighted towards what I call commensal species – ones that thrive in proximity to human activity. Working offsite – and preferably linking up several biodiversity sites into larger sites – means a greater diversity of species can thrive.

But, as mentioned earlier, the onsite/offsite debate will often be moot. There simply isn’t enough onsite land for BNG delivery and developers will be driven towards offsite solutions.

It’s pretty clear from what you say that delivering offsite is going to feature heavily. But presumably this creates difficulties in terms of finding land, meeting strict criteria and ongoing management?

Yes, and – spoiler alert – I am going to talk about our services now. But that’s because partners like Biofarm are inevitably going to be a part of the solution.

In our case, we act as an end-to-end provider because that’s the key to solving this thorny challenge for clients. We take all the logistical and regulatory headaches away and provide a complete, one-stop-shop solution. So, we take an independent review of a client’s requirements and provide offsite delivery through joining this up with a landbank of signed-up landowners. (We have an inventory of BNG units ready to go.) We also handle the whole regulatory process and ongoing 30 year management.

For LPAs, we provide BNG baseline assessments, deal with developers and planning consultants on their behalf, and provide an end-to-end service for the delivery and management of the habitats. We provide all our advisory services to LPAs free of charge and offer our resources at their disposal.

In fact, for both groups, we strive to be very competitive by swallowing as much of the upfront, pre-contract costs as possible.

Finally, we are providing market-leading returns to landowners for their land – without their having to sell or lose control of their asset.

What do you think Biofarm brings to the table that makes you particularly attractive to developers, LPAs and landowners?

Experience and authority. We have a huge depth of talent in the team and, speaking for myself, I have over 30 years of experience as an ecological consultant, including in the delivery of offsite net gain. I know all the habitats clients are likely to encounter and the foibles of the metrics used. That experience can be brought to bear in terms of looking at the issue, what the delivery mechanism should be, and how it should be delivered for the best outcomes.

I need to talk about robustness and honesty here, too. At Biofarm, we are interested in genuine delivery rather than helping people ‘find a way through’. If you manage to pull the wool over the authorities’ eyes and get dodgy calculations through, ultimately it may come back to bite you in five to six years when what you promised to deliver doesn’t. The PR kickback can be huge. We’re not interested in gaming the system, but in trying to make it work in the best way for all stakeholders. 

Many readers will know about the deadline in November 2023. How urgent is it to start preparing for the legislation?

I have done some top-level calculations to look at local plans, the number of houses required and offsite land available. When you strike out existing constraints – for instance, land already delivering high biodiversity – you have a real issue in terms of land availability. There is a problem coming that could cause a crisis in some areas and districts for many, many months after the legislation kicks in.

My advice is to start acting quickly. You don’t want to be at the end of the queue because others have got ahead of you.

We’ve talked quite a bit about the challenges of the scheme. Can we end by reminding readers why BNG matters for our environment.

We are in a biodiversity crisis. I have seen immense changes in my lifetime – species that used to be common are now scarce. But this can change. We looked at a potential BNG site recently, an old farm, in a county that is greatly impoverished, ecologically speaking. The site was left to go for 30-40 years. As we arrived, we were hit with a wall of birdsong absent in the surrounding farmland. The land was a hotspot for scarce birds, some in ridiculous numbers – nightingales, willow warblers, barn owls.

Offsite BNG schemes will often reflect the ‘benign neglect’ we saw. If these projects are undertaken properly and honestly, it will represent a positive step change – and I want to help to make sure that happens.

Biofarm can start helping developers and LPAs deliver Biodiversity Net Gain offsite right now. It has an inventory of competitively priced Biodiversity Habitat Units immediately available for purchase and can source specific habitat unit requirements with a short lead-time. To find out more, get in touch.