February 2025
BNG has always been controversial because it resembles a “pay to pollute” approach, but there is a clear answer to those concerns. No development should be consented as a result of BNG that wouldn’t have been consented anyway. It is not a way to circumvent the planning process. It is an additional requirement for developers to more than make good on environmental damage, either by improving nature on-site, or by procuring nature improvements elsewhere.
This sets a really important principle: not only should developers be responsible for avoiding, mitigating and compensating for the damage they cause to nature, they should also play a part in our national ambition to halt and reverse the decline of wildlife.
Is the reality living up to that principle? The answer appears to be not yet, but there are enough positives to prove the concept. Now the Government needs to double down and make it fly.
So far, only 1,000 hectares of off-site habitat gains have been recorded, much less than the 5,428 hectares Defra expected each year. Despite assertions it would apply to all new development bar a few exemptions, many developments have slipped through the system. Studies suggest over 80% of applications weren't even assessed for BNG. At the same time, more developments than expected are delivering low-level BNG on site, where Local Authorities’ ability to monitor delivery and long-term maintenance of gains is almost non-existent and no reporting by developers is required.
These limitations mean that BNG has yet to fulfil its potential to help deliver the Environmental Improvement Plan. Of course, the lion’s share of BNG will be compensating for habitat losses from development. This helps to stem biodiversity losses, but it won’t make a material difference to recovery. So how should the Government improve BNG, so that it can live up to its potential to help make development greener?
First, the overall ambition should be increased. The mandatory 10% gain was only ever expected to break even. Local Authorities’ flexibility to set a higher level of gain at a local level was hampered by guidance from the previous government setting tough conditions for boosting the ambition. For some sites, much higher levels of gain should be possible without breaking the bank.
Second, the loopholes that let so many planning applications circumvent BNG should be closed. The current situation falls far short of the Government’s repeated promise during the passage of the Environment Act that most planning applications will undertake BNG. At the same time, promises of BNG for major infrastructure projects and for the marine environment have yet to materialise. With so much important renewable energy infrastructure in the pipeline, a robust net gain system is an urgent necessity.
Third, perhaps the most urgent problem to solve for BNG is the lack of ecological planning capability at the local level. This affects the whole lifecycle of the system from initial assessments of a biodiversity baseline (which appear to be much lower than expected), through project delivery (where supposed gains may never transpire), through the 30 year maintenance requirement for significant gains. At the moment, Local Authorities simply have no hope of properly applying and policing the system, which is a serious problem for people’s trust that it really will benefit nature.
As BNG arrives at this significant 1-year milestone, we hope the new Government will mark the occasion with new ambition for this important policy and that BNG will grow into a genuine force for nature recovery.
Richard Benwell is CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link. Follow @wclnews
The opinions expressed in this blog are the authors' and not necessarily those of the wider Link membership.
Latest Blog Posts