By February 2024, nearly all developments in England will be required to not only replace the biodiversity they have lost through development, but deliver at least 10% back on top.
While the concept of no net loss to biodiversity has been part of the national planning policy framework since 2012, protecting the ecology already in situ on site is far more straightforward than actively ensuring that a site is left with more biodiversity than when a developer started. Particularly in an already challenging market.
Speaking at EG’s ESG Summit, Faye Dasi-Sutton, ESG and sustainability manager at developer Far East Consortium, was open about the additional pressure that biodiversity net gain will put on developers.
“We have to accept there will be additional costs,” she said. “That we are going to have to do assessments and ensure there is time and financial resource included within planning documents to make sure BNG targets are hit and delivered on site.”
But Alexa Culver, general counsel at nature recovery organisation Environment Bank, added that help is on hand. “We are here to work with developers and help them to balance and understand what their costs of delivering on-site biodiversity net gains are and to work with them on off-site BNG,” she said. “We have two genius RTPI planners available to help lead developers through the planning process and we can help with off-site biodiversity gains when needed. We are really determined to find a way of making it predictable, possible and affordable for developers to leave nature in a better state than they found it.”
With the introduction of the legislation imminent, Culver and Dasi-Sutton delved into the key challenges around BNG delivery and answered thorny questions around whether now is the right time to be putting additional cost and time pressure on struggling developers.
On-off relationship
One of the biggest questions around hitting BNG targets concerns delivering on-site versus off-site. Developers do have the option to meet planning requirements off-site through Environment Bank’s national network of Habitat Banks. However, buying or investing in additional land to deliver BNG is not a black-and-white process, said Culver. And going off-site could see an uplift on the 10% gain requirement.
“The real nuance in the legislation, and what developers need to get used to, hinges on the Defra metric,” she explained. “One of the first steps in developing a high-integrity offsetting system that doesn’t fall into scandal and disgrace is that you have a universally applicable metric to measure the losses that have occurred and the gains you are putting back.”
Culver said this metric would, for example, recognise that if you take away a 15-year-old tree, there is a chance the one you put back won’t thrive. Equally, if you are getting rid of a meadow and you put a new one somewhere else, there is a risk it won’t flourish.
The metric also recognises that it might not be possible to pick the right habitat types to put biodiversity back within your development boundary. “In that instance you can pick your gains for nature somewhere else, and that way we are raising the baseline of nature across the country, even if it’s not all quite going right into the development boundary,” she added.
But therein lies the nuance. “If you are delivering your gains for nature further away than the development boundary, then there is a recognition that you need to deliver a bit more to make up for the fact you are doing it away from where the losses occurred,” Culver said. “There is nuance and art in all of this that will really inform your strategic approach to what you need to do to comply with the Environment Act.”
From a developer perspective, Dasi-Sutton said Hong Kong-headquartered FEC – which is well known for delivering ecologically positive developments, including its 630-flat Consort Place scheme on the Isle of Dogs, E14, and a joint venture with Manchester City Council to deliver 15,000 homes over the next 20 years – looks at all development with biodiversity at its heart. “Biodiversity underpins human life, from the air we breathe to the food we eat and the water we drink,” she said. “We have to aim to act responsibly.”
But that doesn’t mean it’s easy. “We have to be aware there are some challenges within development at the moment, so one of the key things we need to focus on is how we make BNG stack up,” said Dasi-Sutton. “We are seeing increasing land costs, increasing build costs, requirements for more affordable housing. Then we also have to keep service charges low, deliver placemaking and high-quality build, drive towards net zero, and now we are also adding BNG into the mix.”
Change of mindset
The first step towards smoothing the path to hitting BNG targets is education, she said. “We are going to need to upskill our teams and educate communities. The latter because they are used to seeing nice, neat lawns and landscaping. We are moving away from that now, so we need to educate people to embrace the slightly messier, but incredibly valuable, spaces that allow biodiversity to thrive. That is going to be a huge mindset shift within communities, but also among teams on developments.”
For Dasi-Sutton and FEC, the ultimate goal outweighs the challenges to be overcome to get there. “Fundamentally, this is the right thing to be doing,” she said. “We cannot continue to ignore nature’s place within our ecosystem and the way we operate. It’s really encouraging that it is part of the planning process, so it needs to be thought about upfront.”
However, she added, there are likely to be developers that get caught out. “I do think there are going to be developers that have bought land that hasn’t come through the planning process yet, and they’re not necessarily going to have considered this as an additional cost because they bought it two, three, four years ago. There are going to be some challenges there.”
Poor timing?
With so many challenges and some potential, costly pitfalls looming for developers at such a difficult time, questions were raised during Culver and Dasi-Sutton’s discussion on whether now is the time to be piling on the pressure – not just on developers but on already stretched local authority planning departments that will now have another condition for planning consent to consider on all applications. “What should take precedence – plants or jobs?” came one question from the audience.
“I’m going to say plants,” said Culver, not missing a beat. “Because once everything is under water, what is that space going to be used for then? I don’t want to sound too catastrophic, but we must have liveable space before we can work and do jobs on it.”
“I’m going to sit firmly on the fence here,” said Dasi-Sutton. “In my mind, both are a priority. There needs to be a balance. I think these new requirements will lead to a new variety of jobs being available as we will need new areas of expertise and a new skill set. People need a livelihood. People also need somewhere to live and, for that, biodiversity needs to thrive.”
To send feedback, e-mail emily.wright@eg.co.uk or tweet @EmilyW_9 or @EGPropertyNews
