RTPI response to the Defra consultation on a brownfield residential exemption for Biodiversity Net Gain

1. Do you support the proposed regulatory definition of residential brownfield development?

If the government wants to prioritise regulatory certainty, then it makes sense for the definition to align with the Building Safety Levy definition, to reduce confusion and complexity and allow evidence of site development history to be re-used. If this definition is introduced, then there will need to be clear messaging around the definition of “structure” and what counts as fixed surface infrastructure to help applicants and decision makers to apply these rules consistently.

2. Do you agree that the proportion of the land within the planning application boundary should be ≥75% Previously Developed Land (PDL) to qualify?

Yes.

3. To what extent do you agree that the proposed regulatory definition aligns with current interpretations of ‘Previously Developed Land’ under the NPPF glossary for planning decisions?

Strongly agree/Agree/Neither agree nor disagree/Disagree/Strongly disagree/I do not have experience with the current interpretation of PDL/I don’t know/I’m not sure

4. Overall, do you consider the proposed definition and evidential requirements to be proportionate and workable for applicants and local planning authorities?

We broadly agree that the proposed definition and evidential requirements are proportionate and workable. The government should bear in mind, however, that local planning authorities and applicants have been integrating BNG (in its current form) into their workflows and any change to the way BNG applies to development, including exemptions, will have an impact on applicants and on those appraising proposals until all parties get used to the new rules. This may result in slower decision timescales in some instances, or increased workloads for LPA officers, in some situations.

5. What impact do you think the introduction of a mandatory BNG requirement has had on brownfield residential schemes of less than 2.5 hectares?

No impact/negative impact/positive impact/mixed impact/I don’t know/I’m not sure

6. Do you support a targeted area-based exemption for residential brownfield development?

Yes.

7. If you support a targeted area-based exemption for residential brownfield development, which exemption threshold for a residential brownfield development do you support?

We retain some uncertainty as to the most appropriate exemption threshold. On the one hand, expanding the exemption too widely would undermine the purpose of BNG (in providing on-site and off-site nature restoration). Equally, we understand that brownfield sites have viability challenges and the presence of open mosaic habitat (OMH) on sites of this nature can be very expensive to replace.

8. Do you think there is a case for an area-based exemption for residential brownfield development that is greater than 2.5 hectares?

See our response to question 7.

9. Do you foresee any unintended consequences arising from a targeted exemption for brownfield residential development?

A targeted exemption for brownfield residential development, like any exemption introduced for statutory BNG, will reduce demand for off-site units. The BNG off-site market has relied on policy stability and certainty of demand to grow effectively, and the introduction of changes inevitably increases uncertainty and could potentially reduce the supply of off-site units.

10. How easy or difficult do you think it would be for applicants and LPAs to apply this exemption in practice?

How this exemption is applied in practice will depend on the clarity of the wording and minimising uncertainty in relation to definitions. For example, the term ‘structure’ within the definition of “previously developed land”, and the exact nature of a ‘predominantly residential’ site should be clearly defined to reduce ambiguity.

11. Do you think any additional measures are needed to ensure that the exemption is appropriately targeted in relation to potential ecological impacts?

We agree with the government’s proposals that any exemption is focused on genuinely urban sites, and any new exemption will not apply where priority habitats are impacted.

12. If you have any further evidence about the administrative, viability, biodiversity or nature market impacts for this exemption that you have not provided in previous responses, please provide it in the box below. Any evidence submitted will be reviewed by the department but will not be analysed, summarised, or included in the published government response.

No comment.