Agenda item

From January 2024 Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is becoming mandatory for new major developments across the country. This report sets out a briefing on BNG to explain:

·       what it is,

·       how it will be dealt within the planning regime,

·       how it is measured,

·       monitoring and enforcement; and,

·       next steps.

The Lead Member for Planning and Public Realm, Cllr. Cem Kemahli, introduced the report and raised the following points:

1.  This was a mandatory requirement, but it was a good condition to introduce, as it supported the Borough’s environment becoming as diverse as possible.

2.  There were several large sites in the borough that were lacking in terms of biodiversity, and this legislation would make it easier for planning officers to deliver improvements and hold developers to account.

The Chair invited the Committee to ask questions of the Lead Member and the officers, Jonathan Wade, Head of Spatial Planning, and Alice Laughton, Ecology Service Manager. The Committee:

1.    Asked whether training of officers on biodiversity net gain (BNG) had started. The officers responded that there had been internal training for all planning officers and a couple of workshops had taken place. They were aware of the introduction of the legislation. There were a few things that needed to be put in place but there was still time. For example, they needed a monitoring system which was compatible with the current planning system and would be going out for procurement for this shortly. The plan was to hire someone, potentially in a job share arrangement with Westminster City Council, who would sit in the ecology team to work on this. The Government was still to provide the date for when the legislation would apply from. Officers had flagged which major developments they were expecting in the next few months, which the legislation would apply to. Planning officers were working on a new standard condition to use. The presumption was that BNG would be delivered on site, but it could be offset elsewhere, as biodiversity units could be purchased.

2.   Queried whether garden squares could be an option to deliver BNG. Officers explained that they could be, as long as they delivered valuable BNG. There was a calculator which could be used to calculate BNG. The borough-wide habitat survey which was conducted last year, included where there were opportunities to add BNG in the borough and there were very limited opportunities. If a developer was to offset BNG, there was a distance multiplier which meant that units were worth less the further away from the site that the BNG was provided. It would be possible for developers to approach landowners within the borough or deliver it on their own land that was not part of the development. There would be a private market of brokers for these BNG units. A legal agreement would be formed between the developer and landowner, whereby the developer would pay the landowner an agreed sum to do the work and maintain it for 30 years. There would be a national register for offset delivery and the monitoring work would be costed for by the developer and completed by an independent body.

3.   Questioned whether the Council had to set their own BNG goals for the borough. In response, officers shared that there was a biodiversity action plan for the next four years, which included specific targets. Eight applications so far had submitted BNG plans, despite them not being required yet. The Council could try to steer developers towards certain targets; however, developers were able to choose as long as they met conditions and met the 10% requirement. There was also a BNG requirement for water bodies if a development was close to a river or canal.

4.   Queried how often monitoring would take place and how it would be enforced. The officers explained that a report would have to be submitted every five years to the Department of Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on BNG delivery. They were yet to have information on the required monitoring periods. It would come under planning enforcement. However, site visits would have to be carried out by an ecologist, with the monitoring cost met by the developer. As this was still emerging legislation, officers were working through the detail and practicalities of it. A response would be provided in writing once known.

Action by: Head of Spatial Planning and Ecology Service Manager

5.   Enquired what was in place to prevent developers from buying BNG units. It was to be used as a last option and developers had to prove that they had exhausted all other options. The Biodiversity Gain Plan is secured by condition, which will mean that the development could not commence until the Biodiversity Gain Plan has been agreed with the Council and enforcement action would be taken if they commenced development prior to this.

6.    Asked about which developments the legislation would apply to. Officers explained that initially it would apply to major developments and then to smaller developments from April 2024. It would not apply to individual households and self builds. The site condition from 30 January 2020 could be considered as the baseline for BNG calculations if habitat degradation had taken place on site since that date.

7.   Queried how the Council could make the process as simple as possible, especially for smaller developers. In response, officers explained that current applications already had to complete ecology assessments, so it would involve using that information and putting it into a different form. There would be some extra work to complete the BNG calculation, but an ecology consultant would include that as part of their package of work.

8.   Enquired as to what counted as BNG. The officers shared that on the ground habitats counted, but not habitat enhancements such as bird or bat boxes, or bug hotels. There were three types of habitat which counted (areas, linear habitats (e.g. hedgerows), and waterbodies). The Committee asked officers to encourage swift boxes where appropriate. The officers confirmed that they did suggest them in planning applications where appropriate and they were planning to produce guidance later in the year, and would include suggestions in that. The Committee requested to see this once produced.

Action by: Head of Spatial Planning and Ecology Service Manager

9.   Asked whether officers were confident that the introduction of the legislation would not create further delays for planning applications. It was explained by officers that it became a condition after an application was granted and there was an eight-week response period for officers. They did not anticipate significant delays and in due course, would train planning officers to be able to assess plans.

10.   Queried whether there was an opportunity to use the Thames in BNG projects and work with other boroughs which border the Thames. Officers said they would look into this and provide a response.

Action by: Head of Spatial Planning and Ecology Service Manager

Actions to be completed, with any information requested by the Committee to be sent to the Governance Officer for circulation:

1.  The Head of Spatial Planning and Ecology Service Manager to provide a written response regarding the plan for monitoring BNG sites.

2.  The Head of Spatial Planning and Ecology Service Manager to share their guidance on BNG once produced.

3.  The Head of Spatial Planning and Ecology Service Manager to provide a written response regarding whether the Thames could be utilised for BNG projects.