RTPI response to consultation on improving the implementation of Biodiversity Net Gain for minor, medium and brownfield development

The RTPI champions the power of planning in creating prosperous places and vibrant communities. As learned society, we use our expertise and research to bring evidence and thought leadership to shape planning policies and thinking. As a professional body, we have over 27,000 members across all sectors, and are responsible for setting formal standards for planning practice and education.

Improving exemptions

1. Do you support the following statements (yes/no):

I. No changes should be made to exemptions

II. Some changes should be made (please state which options you support with thresholds were applicable)

III. All minor development should be exempt

We would rather that no changes were made to exemptions than all minor development be made exempt, but there are some exemption proposals within the consultation that we would be in favour of.

We would support the revisions proposed to the exemptions for self and custom build development, as well as new exemptions for parks, public gardens and playing fields development, and development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity, as well as temporary planning permissions.

Exempting all minor development would threaten to seriously undermine the purpose of BNG. If the government are to meet their biodiversity and nature goals, it is imperative that nature and development are not seen as in conflict. Biodiversity Net Gain is a landmark policy for nature recovery, but a lot of work is needed to reverse the continual decline in biodiversity across the country.

Targeted exemptions might be appropriate, but a blanket exemption affecting all minor development would, taken cumulatively, reduce the aggregate uplift in biodiversity quite significantly.

Furthermore, the success of BNG has relied on the growth of a private market in offsite BNG units. As individual transactions for minor development represents 80% of the transactions to date (according to the consultation document) a blanket exemption would damage this still-burgeoning market and undermine investor confidence in financing nature.

2. Do you agree that the self and custom-building exemption should be removed and that it should be replaced with an exemption for a single dwelling house?

Yes. There is evidence that the self- and custom- build exemptions have proved tricky for local authorities to verify, and with the potential for the exemptions to be exploited by developers, a clearer exemption rule for single dwellings is appreciated.

3. Do you agree with the proposal for a 0.1 hectare threshold?

This seems appropriate but we would welcome further information on why this particular threshold was chosen.

4. Do you agree the area de minimis threshold should be extended? Potentially. There have been reports of disproportionately high administrative and legal costs for delivering BNG on small sites, and an extension of the area de minimis threshold might help alleviate these.

a. If yes, which of the following thresholds do you think is most appropriate:

· 50 square metres

· 100 square metres

· 250 square metres

· Other threshold

The RTPI would not wish to endorse an exact figure without having access to more detailed information on BNG application sites.

5. Do you think the BNG requirement should be removed for minor development (for example including up to 9 residential homes). Please provide evidence for your response where possible.

No. As mentioned in our response earlier, this would seriously undermine the purpose of BNG. Given the large numbers of minor applications processed by planning authorities, a blanket exemption for minor development would reduce the overall benefit to biodiversity by a large margin, through less biodiversity gain delivered on- and off-site.

6. If minor development were to be exempted from BNG, do you agree that the de minimis threshold should be extended to cover other types of development outside of the minor development category having little or no impact on biodiversity?

In the instance that all minor development were to be exempted from BNG, then the de minimis threshold should be extended to ensure that small scale development is not disproportionately affected by BNG requirements – but as before, we would be strongly against the potential exemption of all minor development from BNG.

7. Do you agree that parks, gardens and playing fields development, as defined above, should be partially exempt from BNG? Please give evidence where possible.

Yes.

8. Do you agree that development whose sole or primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be exempt from BNG? Please provide evidence where possible, including examples of developments that you think would be exempted.

Yes.

a. If yes, do you think there should be an upper size limit?

No comment.

9. Do you agree that temporary planning permission should be exempt from BNG? Please provide evidence where possible, including examples of developments that you think would be exempted.

Yes, but there are cases where sites are given repeated temporary permissions over a number of years - for example where there is an annual event or where a structure that is deemed temporary in nature (e.g. a mobile home) is granted permission.

In these instances, where a temporary planning permission is renewed, there should be scope for a BNG requirement.

a. If yes, do you agree with the 5-year time limit?

Yes, as long as there is a requirement for renewed temporary permissions.

Streamlining the BNG metric process

10. Do you think the SSM should be used for medium development?

No. Medium development would include sites of up to 49 homes, which would have a substantial impact on biodiversity, especially when all medium sites are taken cumulatively. Using a simplified metric without a qualified ecologist risks undermining BNG outcomes, even if there is clarification over the competent person definition.

11. Do you think the SSM should be able to be used on sites with European protected species present?

No comment.

12. Do you think the SSM should be able to be used on sites with protected sites present?

No.

13. If these changes are taken forward, and the SSM is re-badged as a low impact metric. Do you think there should be any other restrictions on use of the SSM?

See response to question 10.

14. Do you think the trading rules should be removed in the SSM (which contains only medium and low distinctiveness habitats)?

No comment.

a. If no, do you think the trading rules should be amended in the SSM to allow the losses of any medium distinctiveness habitat to be compensated for with any other medium distinctiveness habitat (but not with low distinctiveness habitats)?

No comment.

15. Do you think habitat condition should be fixed at ‘poor’ for baseline habitats, and ‘moderate’ for the target condition of enhanced habitat in the SSM?

No comment.

16. Are there any other changes to the SSM or metric process for minor and medium development that should be considered to overcome challenges or streamline the process?

No comment.

17. Do you think some habitats of the same broad type with the same value should be amalgamated in the SSM?

No comment.

18. Do you think the habitats in the SSM should be reviewed, to ensure they are easily identified by non-ecologists?

No comment.

19. Do you think there should be a watercourse module in the SSM, or should all developments within the riparian zone of watercourse habitats use the main metric tool?

No comment.

20. Do you think providing additional guidance on the identification and management of habitats in the small site metric would be helpful?

Yes.

21. Do you think more clarity is required within the definition of a competent person undertaking a BNG assessment using the SSM, and reviewing the completed SSM?

Yes.

a. If yes, do you have any suggestions as to how competency could be defined for the SSM?

No comment.

22. Should a different watercourse condition survey be employed for minor development using the watercourse metric?

No comment.

23. Should a different watercourse condition survey be employed for minor development using the watercourse metric when there is no impact?

No comment.

24. Do you think that minor developments should be able to agree with the relevant planning authority that they do not need to complete the watercourse module of the metric when there is no impact?

No comment.

25. What specific features or improvements would you like to see in a digital version of the metric tools?

No comment.

26. Do you think we should allow biodiverse features to be counted within vegetated gardens being created as part of a development?

No comment.

a. If yes, do you have any suggestions of how we should account for biodiverse features in vegetated gardens being created as part of a development?

No comment.

Increasing flexibility to go off-site for minor development

27. Do you agree the biodiversity gain hierarchy should be updated for minor development?

We are in favour of easing the burden on developers delivering minor sites, where the burden on them is considered to be disproportionate to the impact on biodiversity. However, we feel very strongly that an underlying principle of BNG – improvements in biodiversity occur in the same area that development does – should be maintained and upheld as far as possible.

A relaxation or amendment of the hierarchy for minor development should be coupled with a commitment to ensure that off-site gains are, where possible, idealised in the same local authority as the development site. This could be achieved through strengthening planning policy and monitoring the location of off-site gain sites.

Furthermore, we would like to see proper integration of BNG with local environmental and nature plans such as Local Nature Recovery Strategies. This way, those local residents impacted by development can also reap the benefits of BNG.

28. Would relaxing the biodiversity gain hierarchy for minor development support small developers to deliver BNG more easily?

Yes, there is evidence to show that smaller SME developers struggle to deliver on-site BNG and the purchase of fractional BNG units through the market has become a more realistic option as the market has developed and scaled.

29. Do you think placing off-site habitat enhancements with the same preference as onsite habitat enhancements for minor development would deliver better outcomes for nature? Please provide evidence to support your answer where possible.

Potentially, although it depends on the integration between BNG and nature recovery strategies at a local, regional, and national scale. A joined-up spatial approach would allow BNG to contribute to nature priorities at different scales and deliver better outcomes.

30. Should the Spatial Risk Multiplier be disapplied for minor development purchasing off-site units?

We would not be in favour of disapplying the spatial risk multiplier for minor development. As mentioned earlier in our response, one of the core tenets of BNG has been that improvements in nature should benefit those who are affected by development. This principle underpins the hierarchy. Improvements in biodiversity, wherever they occur, are beneficial for nature, but access to nature is not equitable across the country.

We acknowledge that some reform to the implementation of BNG on small sites could help smaller developers, but this should not lead to the wholesale undermining of BNG’s original intended purpose.

31. Should the Spatial Risk Multiplier assessment methodology be amended, so that it is based on Local Nature Recovery Strategy and National Character areas rather than Local Planning Authority and National Character areas?

No comment.

Brownfield developments with Open Mosaic Habitat

32. Should we review the metric habitat definition, condition assessment criteria and guidance to assist with the correct identification and classification of OMH?

Yes.

33. Should we allow alternative habitat delivery for the loss of Open Mosaic Habitat?

Potentially. There is evidence that the presence of Open Mosaic Habitat on brownfield land is proving to be a financial stumbling block for developers.

34. Do you have any suggestions as to the habitat mosaic which may provide the same ecological benefits as OMH or the key considerations we should be incorporating?

No comment.

35. Do you have any further suggestions of how we could improve the viability of brownfield sites with Open Mosaic Habitat present, in relation to their BNG requirement? There are multiple factors that impact the viability of brownfield sites, including but not limited to land assembly, remediation, financing issues, and infrastructure viability. The presence of Open Mosaic Habitat (OMH) on brownfield sites presents further financial issues for developers due to its ecological significance and the cost of replacing it.

Taking a broader approach to this problem, there are several ways that the financial viability of brownfield sites can be alleviated.

The RTPI is in favour of allowing local authorities to act as master-planners and -developers, which would enable them to assemble parcels of land, parcel it up into sites, and help SME housebuilders financially access sites that otherwise might be unavailable.

Furthermore, the government should explore how funding packages can support developers in delivering sites on brownfield land. New funding streams for unlocking housebuilding have been announced in the recent Spending Review, including the newly announced Social and Affordable Homes Programme and National Housing Bank. Funding could be targeted towards brownfield sites that have been identified as having difficult BNG requirements owing to the presence of OMH.