Before and after ‘day zero’

It is fair to say there was a lot of hype prior to the introduction of BNG; would it be the last piece on the planning mule to make it finally Buckaroo? Or would BNG do as it was intended, and lead to a paradigm shift in the way that the planning system and the natural environment interface?

From my experience, it certainly has not been the former. In part because we planners are a resilient bunch; we find ways to adapt and embrace innovations and changes to the planning system. But could it also be because BNG has not yet been deployed to its full potential? A recent report by the Green Finance Institute identifies that only 0.5% of planning applications submitted after 12 February 2024 have been subject to BNG.

Some commentators have also identified loopholes and called on the government to close these. For example, issues have been cited in relation to BNG not applying to retrospective applications.

Some of the niggles

As a practitioner, there are a number of areas that I think require some further thought:

1. Development under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) is not caught by BNG. However, I have had applications that fall foul of the GPDO regime by virtue of their scale (e.g. the height of an agricultural building being over three metres in certain circumstances). Surely, the exemptions should be reviewed to avoid arbitrary thresholds triggering the need for BNG.
2. Another issue is where the red line of a site location plan can push a site outside of the de minims exemption threshold by virtue of needing to show the access linked to the public highway (even though development may not be carried out in said area). This also requires review and refinement to support the delivery of small-scale development.
3. The Small Sites Metric (SSM) tool was introduced to support small developments from 2 April 2024, when it became mandatory for these schemes to deliver BNG. The SSM has been advertised as a tool that can be used by ‘a competent person’. However, the SSM is not that simple for non-ecologists to make use of. In turn, this has implications for the scope and cost of BNG work required to support small development applications. All at a time when small and medium sized housebuilders are struggling. 
   
   

What does the future hold?

Personally, I would like to see BNG deployed in a more strategic manner. Currently, it feels that dealing with BNG in a site-specific way is inefficient and opaque. My hypothesis has been that, in knowing BNG was looming, developers looked for the least risky and most straightforward way of dealing with it, which is to provide BNG on-site. This approach would also be consistent with the hierarchy of on-site, followed by off-site and credits as a last resort. However, is this the best way of delivering BNG?

I would advocate for a review of the hierarchy to put on-site provision on an equal footing with off-site. My logic for this is as follows:

1. Providing BNG on-site is not the most effective use of developable land. Why not provide it where it can benefit from being delivered at scale?
2. Tensions can arise when providing BNG on-site. For example, an area that is good for flora and fauna is not compatible with being trodden on by dogs and children. Off-site provision would go some way to avoiding this tension between enhancing biodiversity whilst also delivering new areas of public open space on-site.
3. The off-site market has got off to a slow start – this may partly be down to the lack of supporting guidance to make this an easy journey for developers and a lack of expertise in local planning authorities (LPAs) on how to embrace it. It could also be because the less risky path has been the one most trodden. Amending the mitigation hierarchy would provide greater flexibility for developers and LPAs.
   
   

Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS)

Looking even further forward, a world of strategic planning is looming on the horizon. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Angela Rayner’s 30 July letter talks to strategic planning being ‘important in planning for local growth and Local Nature Recovery Strategies.’

There is also the letter from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Steve Reed and Angela Rayner which makes clear the intention of previously somewhat disparate government departments to work jointly on tackling the biodiversity crisis. LNRS surely provide a vehicle for this joint working and strategic approach to come to fruition. LNRS also provide a sensible option for nature enhancement to be delivered at scale. Ultimately, LNRS could be used to provide more of a tariff-based approach that can feed into a scaled-up version of BNG which developers can pay into. This would make the whole system more transparent and simpler while, most importantly, delivering a meaningful benefit for nature.

Conclusion

Things have moved in the right direction but there are still issues to address. My preference continues to be a move towards considering nature and habitats as an essential piece of infrastructure that needs to be planned for holistically (in the same way we consider housing, schools, rail, etc.). In this regard, the move back towards more strategic planning is a good one. 

Further information

Contact Andrew Watson