On BNG

What is to be done about BNG? Something apparently, because, according to this paywalled Ends Report story, "questions have been raised by Number 10 about whether the flagship policy as it stands is required following the announcement of plans to shake-up development and nature and rules".

In the longer term the proposed Nature Restoration Fund could be a mechanism for providing for BNG, but what does that mean for the period before the long term? 

First things first, any attempts to assess the success (or otherwise...) of BNG after only one year (like this one) misunderstands the time it actually takes to secure planning permission, let alone then get on site and create BNG solutions.

That being said, it is apparent that everybody involved has encountered teething problems and there are many areas that are unnecessarily complex and challenging (and certainly more complex and challenging had BNG been a policy requirement rather than a legal requirement). 

These teething problems emerge, of course, when planning applications do come forward. What is more difficult to get a sense of are the sites that are not coming forward because BNG renders them unviable.

There is talk that the response to this complexity and these challenges will be to exempt more sites from the BNG obligation, which would some observers might view as imprudent.

Firstly, it would be helpful if the 'one or t'other' narrative in relation to nature and development that some promulgate is not allowed to take a greater hold than the 'win win' for nature and development narrative promulgated by others 

The exemption of more sites from BNG plays into the former because it allows those not supportive of development by inclination to claim that the industry is doing all it can to avoid its responsibilities. This would be unfortunate because the development industry seems entirely supportive of the principle that development makes place more nature rich. It would also render sensible conversations about the sensible reform to the Habitats Regulations that is required to make the Nature Restoration Fund a success even more unlikely. 

Further, exempting more sites does not address the fundamental issues with the implementation of BNG. Even if, for example, sites of 20 homes or less are exempted, the issues with bringing forward sites for 21 homes or more remain. If sites of 30 homes or less are exempted, the issues with bringing forward sites for 31 homes or more remain. 

BNG is simply far too complicated. For example, some LPAs are introducing BNG into Section 106 Agreements rather than relying on the separate standard condition, and some are even creating their own conditions. Some LPAs allow post-consent BNG Plans, which runs counter to the proposition as imagined. Disputes over whether a single plot is or isn't a self-build, and so is or isn't exempt, also seem more common than they should be. 

These are the issues that need addressing and the concern with greater exemptions as a 'quick fix' would be that Government attention is diverted from the issues of substance, never drawn back again.

What is to be done then? Well perhaps instead of site size there is way for more lower risk sites to be subject to the lower risk BNG matrix, and for those that are subject to BNG to be allowed to move more readily through the BNG hierarchy towards off-site provision and an off-site contribution in the same way that affordable housing can be dealt with. On-site provision is not always the best option and off-site provision might not deliver the greatest benefits, certainly relative to leveraging the off-site contributions from multiple developments in places and in ways that maximise the benefits.

The long-awaited LNRSs are considered by many to be the missing link in the chain. They could help guide off-site provision and fill the space where advice on how LPAs should consider BNG in plan-making and site selection should be. Linked to this is the proliferation of BNG policies in local plans, some of which are pursuing BNG policies above the 10% requirements, adding further local complexity to the already almost impenetrable national system. Herewith a further case for NDMPs.

BNG can and will be of benefit for nature and development, but, against the backdrop of falling planning permission, a creaking development management process, and not enough ecologists to around (let alone planners), the system really does need to be focus on how it can deliver the most benefits for both.