Net gain
Consultation proposals
December 2018

© Crown copyright 2018
You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium,
under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.3. To view this licence
visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ oremail PSI@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk
This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at
netgainconsultation@defra.gsi.gov.uk
www.gov.uk/defraContents
Foreword.............................................................................................................................. 1
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 4
How to respond .................................................................................................................... 8
What are we trying to achieve?............................................................................................ 9
Securing positive outcomes for the environment .............................................................. 9
Improving the process for developers ............................................................................ 10
Creating better places for local communities.................................................................. 12
Definitions and current practice ......................................................................................... 13
What is net gain? ........................................................................................................... 13
Biodiversity net gain in practice ...................................................................................... 19
Policy proposals and questions ......................................................................................... 23
Approaches to delivering a net gain for biodiversity ....................................................... 23
Scope ............................................................................................................................. 25
Measuring biodiversity.................................................................................................... 29
Delivering biodiversity outcomes .................................................................................... 34
Calculating and collecting the tariff ................................................................................. 37
Delivering net gain in the planning system ..................................................................... 40
Monitoring and evaluation .............................................................................................. 44
Key evidence gaps ............................................................................................................ 46
Glossary............................................................................................................................. 48
Annex A: List of consultation questions ............................................................................. 50

Foreword
Proper stewardship of our natural world is at the heart of responsible government. Clean
air and water, healthy trees, rivers and biodiversity are not just vital for our health - they
are fundamental to the prosperity of future generations and to civilisation as we know it.
Nowhere do the state of the natural world and the actions of government meet moreregularly and more critically than in the planning system. At a time when we want to build
more homes for growing populations 1, and at a time when our natural resources are underpressure 2, it is more important than ever that we create the right frameworks to promotesustainable growth.
This document seeks views on whether we should introduce mandatory requirements tothe planning system in England so that development must deliver biodiversity net gain. We
also set out the proposed next steps for our longer term ambition to embed environmental
net gain. It is my firm belief that strengthening our approach to net gain over time could
bring countless benefits to wildlife and habitats, as well as to communities and developers.
The increased demand for housing offers us an exciting opportunity. Applying a
biodiversity net gain approach to national issues like house building could help deliver the
25 Year Environment Plan’s ambition to be the first generation to leave our naturalenvironment in a better state than we found it.
We are consulting on whether to mandate that new developments must achieve a
biodiversity net gain to be measured using the ‘Defra metric’. This could improve how theplanning system addresses development’s impact on habitats, allowing new housing
without negatively impacting our wildlife. If introduced, the government would need tocarefully evaluate any mandatory biodiversity net gain policy before moving to extend its
scope. This consultation, however, also seeks views and evidence that could help shape
the future development of environmental net gain. The government is supporting this byinitiating a research project to test how biodiversity net gain might be extended in future tocover other aspects of natural capital. By making natural assets such as clean water,
biodiverse habitats and healthy soils more investable alongside investment in built capital,
our prosperity will be secured, and future generations will have access to the same
resources that we enjoy.
If introduced, this approach could provide a more consistent framework for the businesses
that work so hard to provide the homes and infrastructure we need for a modern economy.

1 Government has committed to building 300,000 homes per year on average by the mid-2020s because

insufficient housing is making it harder to rent or buy a safe, secure property and hindering companies trying
to attract a skilled workforce, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-our-broken-housing-market
2 Many of our most important habitats are in poor condition and the diversity and abundance of wildlife is in
decline, http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx,
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/biodiversity-indicators-for-the-uk
1

Used positively the planning system can bring together developers and environmentalists
to conserve key natural and heritage assets, as we have seen on countless occasions. By
working collaboratively with water companies, tourism services, energy providers andwaste experts, I have no doubt that profitable development could transform itself into adriving force of biodiversity enhancement. Reassured by a robust biodiversity net gain
policy, local communities could be more confident in accepting development that delivers
growth, jobs and amenities, while having a positive impact on local wildlife.
Used clumsily, however, planning law can become a tedious, confusing and expensive
hurdle for developers to avoid.
We are seeking views on whether mandating biodiversity net gain would streamline
planning processes and give greater clarity and certainty for developers. Varied
environmental planning conditions across different regions have created confusion andresentment. We are proposing that a single, consistent national approach would reduce
uncertainty for the environment, for the community and for the developer.
We would work closely with local authorities to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility tomeet local priorities whilst maintaining national consistency for developers. And we would
also be seeking advice from the leading local authorities, such as those in Warwickshire,
who have already successfully implemented biodiversity net gain in their local policies.
We are seeking views on the advantages and impacts of such an approach, as well as thepractical challenges of implementing mandatory biodiversity net gain nationally. We arealso seeking evidence on how to bring broader aspects of natural capital into a net gain
approach.
I am confident that developers, environmental NGOs, utility companies, local authorities
and the public will respond to this consultation with constructive and challenging
responses that ensure government does its duty to provide the homes we need, and theenhanced natural environment we deserve.
We will continue to work with the devolved administrations to deliver a sensible nationalframework. This consultation is focused on tackling planning law in England, but theUnited Kingdom has a shared goal to protect our natural heritage.

2

It is my profound hope that we will use the opportunity presented by leaving the EU to
become a world leader in environmental excellence and that we use this opportunity to set
world-leading standards on everything from environmental land management to asustainable construction industry. By using rigorous scientific and financial metrics
alongside strengthened legal principles, we can show that economic growth and a healthy
environment are not only natural partners but the building blocks for true prosperity.
The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

3Summary
The government is committed to improving the environment, benefitting local communities
and delivering sustainable development. The 25 Year Environment Plan sets out the
government’s ambitious goals for environmental improvement, following through on our
promise to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we
inherited it.
This consultation delivers on an action we set out in the 25 Year Environment Plan. In thePlan we set out our ambition to embed an environmental net gain approach in the planningsystem in England, and that we would consult on whether to mandate biodiversity net gain.
Mandating biodiversity net gain could improve the planning system. We want to test andseek further evidence for this assumption through this consultation.
The first part of this consultation sets out the objectives of net gain policy for theenvironment, development and local communities. An effective net gain policy could
enable us to build the houses, commercial premises and local infrastructure we need andat the same time improve our environment by more than compensating for biodiversity loss
where it cannot be avoided or mitigated. A stronger requirement to protect and enhancethe environment through development could increase habitat for wildlife species. Clear andconsistent processes for developers could support housebuilding and other construction,
helping developers to get their planning applications right the first time. Greener
developments with access to local natural spaces will be more pleasant and healthierplaces to live and work, and habitats delivered for wildlife through biodiversity net gain
could deliver wider social and economic benefits.
The second part of the consultation examines the core concepts of biodiversity net gainand environmental net gains. It describes how biodiversity net gain is set out in planningpolicy and where it is currently practised by local planners, developers and infrastructure
providers. We have an ambition that, in addition to biodiversity enhancements,
development will deliver wider environmental benefits in the future. Therefore, as well asdelivering biodiversity net gain in local planning we want, over time, to identify an effective
broader environmental net gain approach delivering resilient and sustainable development,
which can be granted planning permission with greater local acceptance and less cause
for delay. We recognise that developing such an approach is complex and it may be thatthe net gain approach used for biodiversity is not the best way to deliver all wider
environmental improvement objectives. At this stage we are seeking evidence on what
aspects of natural capital should be considered and the options we should consider indeveloping an environmental net gain approach.

4

The third part of the consultation seeks views on whether to mandate biodiversity net gain
for development requiring planning permission 3. We propose a new standardised
approach to biodiversity net gain that is designed to be simpler and clearer for all
stakeholders to use while delivering measurable, verifiable net gains for nature. Net gain
for biodiversity should seek firstly to avoid and mitigate against environmental damage. It
will operate alongside existing planning policy to ensure that current environmental
standards, including the existing protections for habitats such as ancient woodland,
species and designated sites, are maintained and implemented. To achieve biodiversity
net gain and compensate for biodiversity loss, habitats should be created or enhanced,
preferably as part of the same development or nearby. This will maintain habitat
connectivity, avoid the erosion of nature in any single area and benefit communities
affected by development. Where suitable local compensation opportunities are notavailable, however, we are proposing that a tariff could be paid so that biodiversity net gain
can be achieved without delaying development. A tariff could fund habitats for both
strategic and local biodiversity priorities, whilst achieving biodiversity net gain overall.
This part of this consultation also seeks views on how best to implement biodiversity net
gain, including the most appropriate measurement, delivery and monitoring mechanisms toensure it delivers high quality places and reduces uncertainty and unnecessary processes
for local planning authorities and developers. We are also seeking views on how to better
integrate species into a biodiversity net gain approach, where this would benefit theconservation of a species, and how to move from net gain for biodiversity to broader
environmental net gain in future.
Considering the evidence received through the consultation will be key to delivering
biodiversity net gain successfully, and achieving the most for the environment anddevelopments. Submitted views and evidence on wider environmental net gain will help toshape future refinements to planning policy and guidance.
We will engage with stakeholders alongside consultation to test the opportunities andchallenges presented. The evidence received through consultation will be key tounderstanding whether these proposals will deliver the benefits described, and enable us
to deliver an effective policy on biodiversity net gain which enhances the environment,
supports development and benefits local communities.

3 Nationally significant infrastructure or other development not requiring planning permission is not in scope.

House extensions are not in scope of our mandatory proposals.

5

Biodiversity net gain in the planning system: core proposals andobjectives
Our proposal is that biodiversity net gain will be delivered within the existing planning anddevelopment process. This summary is illustrated in the infographic that follows.
When assessing potential development sites, habitat surveys will identify habitats and theircondition as is already done for much development. Surveys help identify opportunities forenhancement as part of green infrastructure as well as possible constraints.
Development design will proceed as normal, but better informed by figures for biodiversity
losses and gains. A standard biodiversity metric will be populated with habitat informationfrom the site assessment and landscape plans. This will help demonstrate at an earlystage that harm has been avoided as far as possible and that new green infrastructure will
be of good environmental quality. The metric could also help to anticipate the costs ofachieving net gain to factor these into land purchase where possible. No existing planning
protection for the environment will be weakened and the principle of avoiding harm first(known as the “mitigation hierarchy”) will continue to ensure that preventing damage tonature will always be prioritised, wherever possible.
If net gain cannot be achieved on site, the metric would provide the right information to
discuss habitat enhancement or creation with local providers or with the local authority
during pre-application negotiations. The tariff rate would offer a guide for the upper limit ofhabitat compensation costs, alongside information from growing habitat creation markets.
When preparing local plans, local authorities are able to identify opportunities for habitat
improvement that would benefit local people and support nature recovery. They would be
able to choose to bring improvement sites forward themselves or work with otherproviders.
When developers and local planning authorities are consulting with the local community
prior to submitting a planning application, it will be possible to use biodiversity net gain
figures and habitat enhancement measures to explain the benefits and costs of adevelopment proposal more transparently.
With clearer expectations, developers will be able to submit planning applications withgreater confidence that proposals can be supported on biodiversity grounds.
For local authorities, transparent figures for biodiversity losses and gains can be quickly
checked and provide confidence that impacts will be positive. Figures will also indicate theenvironmental quality of green infrastructure as part of development design.
As part of the planning permission, developers would sign up to predictable conditions,obligations or a tariff payment to secure biodiversity net gain. The availability of a tariffwould prevent planning permission from being delayed by net gain requirements, and local
authorities will be able to demonstrate that positive impacts to help improve theenvironment for local communities have been secured.
6

7

How to respondConsultation questions are included in “Policy proposals and questions” and at “Annex A”
at the end of this document.
Please respond by 10 February 2019.
Please respond through the online survey (Citizen Space) accessible via Gov.uk
Responses can also be sent by email to netgainconsultation@defra.gsi.gov.uk or by post,
specifying which question(s) you are responding to:
Net Gain Consultation
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
First Floor, Seacole Block
2 Marsham Street
London, SW1P 4DF
This consultation is in line with the government’s Consultation Principles. This can befound at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/consultation-principles-guidance.
Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they
represent and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions
when they respond.
Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal data, may be
published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes these are
primarily the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs), the Freedom ofInformation Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). We haveobligations, mainly under the EIRs, FOIA and DPA, to disclose information to particular
recipients or to the public in certain circumstances.
If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware
that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the Freedom of Information Act andmay therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view ofthis it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you haveprovided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we willtake full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality
can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated
by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.
If you have any comments or complaints about the consultation process, please address
them to:Consultation Coordinator
Area 1C, 1st Floor Nobel House
17 Smith Square,
London, SW1P 3JR.
Or email: consultation.coordinator@defra.gsi.gov.uk

8

What are we trying to achieve?
Securing positive outcomes for the environment
Mandating biodiversity net gain could ensure that new development enhances theenvironment, contributes to our ecological networks and conserves our precious
landscapes. A mandatory approach could be an important early step towards meeting our
25-Year Plan goal for thriving plants and wildlife.
Successful implementation of biodiversity net gain would restore and create high-quality
habitats that can provide a home for a diverse range of species and build resilience toclimate change. We will identify opportunities for biodiversity net gain to contribute to the
Nature Recovery Network and enhance local networks, helping to create ‘more, bigger,
better and more-joined up habitats’ as recommended by Sir John Lawton’s review forgovernment, Making Space for Nature. 4 We will explore how new data, tools andstrategies can help identify potential areas for habitat enhancement and creation that help
meet the needs of local communities and secure multiple positive environmental
outcomes. Creation of floodplain marsh or upstream woodland, for example, can protect
communities from flooding.
At the moment, many of the hidden environmental costs of development (such as
biodiversity loss, carbon emissions, unsustainable water use, and worsening air quality)
are not considered systematically, with no mechanisms to compensate for the harm tonature, communities and future generations. Nor are the benefits of creating greener
developments properly understood. Net gain approaches could help to redress thebalance and provide clear mechanisms and opportunities for developers to leave apositive legacy of environmental enhancement.

4 Lawton, Professor Sir John (2010),

Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s Wildlife Sites andEcological Network,
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402170324/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf.
9Improving the process for developers
It is important that any approach to mandatory biodiversity net gain helps to support
housing delivery and wider development by standardising requirements in the planning
process (see Figure 1 which illustrates the potential process advantages described in thissection). Introducing a transparent and consistent requirement could provide certainty,
allowing developers to factor in obligations up front so that more accurate estimates ofland values can be made at the point of purchase. This certainty will also allow developers
to plan accurately at an early design stage, avoiding the need for additional surveys,
uncertainty over obligations or protracted negotiations with local planning authorities. We
know from the strategic approach taken for specific species such as great crested newts
that streamlining and clarifying requirements at an earlier stage has great potential toreduce the time taken for developers to secure necessary consents, de-risk processes anddeliver high standards.
Developments that better incorporate nature will be more attractive through successfulplace making, potentially invoking less opposition locally5. We expect that opportunities forenvironmental enhancement will make development in the right places easier. In time, awider approach to net gain could have the potential to help assuage many more of themost common environmental objections to development, enabling developers to assurecommunities upfront that their environmental concerns have been addressed.
Several major developers and planning authorities already set specific biodiversity net gain
requirements, recognising the additional benefits delivered from creating greener
developments that make better places to live and are easier to sell. We are taking lessons
and feedback from these sector leaders to inform the development of our proposedmandatory approach. A standardised requirement for biodiversity net gain, applied equallyto all development within scope, could create a level playing-field for developers. In thisconsultation, we are seeking further views and evidence from those in the development
sector on potential costs and benefits of this approach, see “Impact on developers” section
and “Key evidence gaps”. Any policy on mandatory biodiversity net gain will take into
account the responses to this consultation and targeted stakeholder engagement that isundertaken during consultation.
The government will only mandate biodiversity net get if it is satisfied that it will deliver
benefits for development, including greater certainty and process cost savings.

Bramley, G. (2011), ‘Housing: Homes, planning and changing policies’ in National Centre for Social
Research, British Social Attitudes: 28, http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/38952/bsa28_8housing.pdf.
510

Figure 1: Selected benefits of net gain at a development scale

11Creating better places for local communities
Successful implementation of biodiversity net gain would help to drive better delivery of
local plans and place making. It would stimulate improvements in the design quality ofresidential developments. The provision of environmental amenities, such as high-quality
and biodiverse urban woodlands, green spaces and parks, will create better places to live
and work.
Biodiversity net gain, in combination with future Green Infrastructure Standards, has thepotential to ensure that an increasing proportion of new homes have access to natural
spaces and wildlife within walking distance. This brings health and wellbeing benefits,particularly to urban and suburban areas where high-quality and accessible green
infrastructure can be scarce, contributing to poor mental and physical health; access topublic green space is an important factor in connecting people with nature and tacklingobesity6. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that living in greener
environments is associated with reduced mortality 7.
Where it is not possible or appropriate to deliver biodiversity net gain on a development
site, we would propose that opportunities to achieve biodiversity net gain in the wider local
area, including on local sites for nature should be explored, taking into account thepotential community benefits from improved access to nature. This would ensure thatpeople living in areas of high development receive the associated environmental benefits
as much as possible before environmental enhancement further afield is targeted.
Strategic investment of tariff revenue could help to create bigger, better and moreconnected natural spaces for communities to enjoy when suitable local habitat investment
opportunities are not available.
A broader environmental net gain approach which helps to deliver cleaner air and water,increased flood resilience and greater energy efficiency could have the potential, in time,to transform our environment and support healthier lives.

6 Lachowycz, K. and Jones, A. P. (2011), Greenspace and obesity: a systematic review of the evidence,

Obesity Reviews: 12 (5), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00827.x/full

7 Gascon et al. (2016), Residential green spaces and mortality: A systematic review, Environment International:

86, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412015300799

12

Definitions and current practice
What is net gain?
Net gain is an approach to development that aims to leave the natural environment in ameasurably better state than beforehand. This means protecting existing habitats andensuring that lost or degraded environmental features are compensated for by restoring or
creating environmental features that are of greater value to wildlife and people. It does notchange the fact that losses should be avoided where possible, a key part of adhering to acore environmental planning principle called the mitigation hierarchy8. Net gain is not a
new concept. Several countries around the world have already adopted biodiversity net
gain policies 9 and net gain for biodiversity is already supported through national planningpolicy 10.
Many developers and local planning authorities (LPAs) already provide environmental
improvements through well-designed development, but do not measure losses and gains
and so do not make claims of biodiversity or environmental net gain. Some developers aregoing further to measure and ensure that each development enhances biodiversity.
Mandating biodiversity net gain could provide the incentive and consistency in approachfor other developers to deliver gains for the natural environment, improving wildlife habitats
in quality or extent.

Biodiversity net gain
Development that adopts a biodiversity net gain approach seeks to make its impact on theenvironment positive, delivering improvements through habitat creation or enhancement
after avoiding or mitigating harm as far as possible. Based on a standardised approach,biodiversity net gain delivers measurable improvements by comparing habitat losses andgains and steering mitigation and compensation accordingly. New or enhanced habitats
can help deliver local and national biodiversity priorities such as the Nature Recovery
Network and local strategies for nature, including green infrastructure strategies.

8 The mitigation hierarchy is supported in the NPPF and described in “Policy proposals and questions” and in

the glossary.
9 International habitat compensation schemes include the Wetlands Compensatory Mitigation andConservation Banks in the United States and BioBanking in New South Wales, Australia.
10 NPPF paragraph 170 states that planning policies and decisions should minimise impacts on and provide
net gains for biodiversity; paragraph 174 requires plans to pursue opportunities for securing measurable net
gains; paragraph 175 requires planning decisions to encourage biodiversity improvements in and arounddevelopments and paragraph 118 states that the planning system should take opportunities to secure net
environmental gains.
13

True measures of biodiversity, a term meaning the diversity of life, are complex and no
single metric or number can summarise biodiversity’s many qualities, benefits andcharacteristics. Established biodiversity net gain approaches use habitats as a proxy forbiodiversity in a given area; this approach recognises that a mixture of connected highquality habitats will support a wide range of plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms.
Using habitats as a proxy measure, together with appropriate ecological advice, makes it
more practical for LPAs and developers to agree on the biodiversity losses or gains due toa development.
The origin of biodiversity net gain approaches, and lessons from biodiversity
offsetting
Government has previously considered how losses of nature through development can be
stopped and habitats enhanced. Defra ran six ‘biodiversity offsetting pilots’ between 2012
and 2014. The pilots contributed to our understanding of biodiversity measurement andpolicy. Elements of the pilots’ actions are ongoing, including biodiversity net gain policies
implemented in areas such as Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull. The pilots’ evaluation,
however, found that a voluntary approach was not sufficient to deliver net environmental
benefits or a level playing field for developers. We have also listened to concerns thatdelivering genuine environmental benefits cannot be achieved if the easiest or cheapest
option is for development to pay its way out of any obligations, meaning that the mitigation
hierarchy is undermined.

The Defra metric
A metric helps to measure biodiversity losses and gains in a more transparent andverifiable way and provides a common reference point for agreement between a developer
and an LPA. In 2012 Defra and Natural England developed a biodiversity metric to support
the biodiversity offsetting pilots. The project looked at how the creation of new habitat
could be used to compensate for developments with a negative overall impact on
biodiversity. The metric enables practitioners to calculate the losses and gains byassessing habitat:•

Distinctiveness: whether the habitat is of high, medium or low value to wildlife.

•

Condition: whether the habitat is a good example of its type.

•

Extent: the area, in hectares or kilometres (depending on habitat types), that the
habitat occupies.

The information needed to populate the metric should be included in ecologicalassessments before development 11 and for the habitats proposed after development. The
11 An extended Phase 1 survey is the initial ‘walk over’ by a professional ecologist, mapping key habitats andfeatures and checking whether protected species may be present. This is usually sufficient best practice toensure planning policy and legal biodiversity requirements are assessed as early as possible in thedevelopment process. It is used to inform the need for further more detailed surveys, including for protected
species.
14

metric translates some of this information into biodiversity units. To achieve net gain, adevelopment must have a higher biodiversity unit score after development than before
development.
This original Defra metric has been adopted and adapted by a range of planning
authorities and developers to help to calculate biodiversity losses and gains. Natural
England are updating the Defra metric in collaboration with the Environment Agency and awide range of external stakeholders (see the box below, “Defra Metric 2.0” for details).
No metric will be able to take every detail and characteristic of biodiversity into account ordeliver guarantees that all wildlife species will benefit; for this reason, individual wildlife
species are not directly accounted for in the core biodiversity metric.
The value of habitats to legally protected species is measured in other ways, largely
through appropriate qualitative assessment, though more objective approaches are
emerging such as those being developed for great crested newts. It is anticipated that thequality and robustness of such tools will improve as they evolve.
Defra Metric 2.0
The Defra metric 2.0 will be a freely available update to the current Defra biodiversity
metric that Natural England will be testing with stakeholders alongside this consultation 12.
Designed to address some of the known shortcomings with the original metric, the updated
version will incorporate a number of new features, and a downloadable tool will simplify thecalculation process by automating the metric calculations. It will allow for on-site
biodiversity net gain calculations as well as calculations to determine the contribution ofcompensatory habitat off site.
Defra metric 2.0 will continue to be habitat focussed and retain the same core approach to
calculating biodiversity unit value as the original metric. It will now, however, flexibly
incorporate green infrastructure features (such as green roofs and street trees) and rivers
into the metric and allow for greater sensitivity of habitat condition and distinctivenessscoring. It will also include measures to take better account of spatial factors, including an
updated ecological connectivity component.
Defra metric 2.0 will provide consistency in habitat classification across local authority
boundaries. Users will be able to copy and paste GIS 13 data, where available, directly into
the tool. We will consider whether, in the longer term, we might want to bring the metricinto a web-based portal to make its use even simpler for users and planning authorities.

12 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6020204538888192

13 Geographic Information Systems allow sites and habitats to be mapped digitally, providing greater accuracy

and a more transparent means of showing where important habitats are on a site. They can also help to greatly
speed up the process of surveying on large or complex sites.
15

Environmental net gain
At this stage, government is only considering mandatory implementation of net gain forbiodiversity, but our longer term commitment is to embed wider environmental net gain
principles in development. Our approach would be determined following evaluation of the
impacts and lessons learned from the implementation of any biodiversity net gain policy,
making sure that the government’s overall approach supports the environment,
development and the planning system.
Biodiversity net gain would increase the quality and amount of habitat for wildlife that isdelivered through development, but we want to go further and explore how we can develop
approaches which also take account of benefits from, and impacts on, natural capital (seeFigure 2). A development that enhances biodiversity and these wider aspects could beconsidered to be delivering environmental net gains.
Figure 2 – The potential for environmental net gain in development. The distinctions madein this table are not clear cut in theoretical or academic terms, but are helpful to illustrate
the potential scope for environmental net gains in development. Examples of what might bemeasured in practice are likely to vary for marine development, and for non-development
application of net gain (neither of which are within the scope of this consultation).

Examples of what might bemeasured in practiceEnvironmental Natural capitalstocks: natural
assets,includingbiodiversity
assets such as
terrestrial andaquatic habitatsor species
diversity which
underpin theassets’ capacity
to deliver
ecosystem
services.

Biodiversity:
habitats and thewildlife species
they support.
Ecosystem
services: thecapacity ofhabitats, and thewildlife they
support, toprovide wider
ecosystem andcultural services.

Wildlife habitats (as measured
by the Defra biodiversity metric)
Protected species’ habitats /populations
Water quality regulation
Air quality regulation
Places for recreation
Carbon storage andsequestration
Flood water regulation
Wildlife for enjoyment andappreciation

Natural capital pressures: direct
and indirect pressures on national
and international natural capitalstocks.

Energy efficiency
Water efficiency
Transport efficiency
Waste and recycling efficiency
Construction materials andprocesses
Light and noise pollution
Recreation impacts on protected
sites
16

Net gain for biodiversity must remain the core requirement of natural capital andenvironmental net gain approaches – the social, environmental and economic value ofnatural capital is underpinned by biodiversity and these assets cannot be enhanced unlessthey are made resilient as part of functioning and healthy ecological networks. Simply put,the loss of biodiversity places all of the benefits we receive from nature at greater risk ofdecline or even collapse. This consultation therefore focusses on whether the government
should introduce mandatory biodiversity net gain. However, we would also value
responses that help us to gather evidence as to how wider environmental impacts could bemeasured and addressed in any future environmental net gain approach (also see“Ambitions for wider environmental net gain” section).
Development can affect natural capital in two broad ways:••

Direct loss or gain of natural capital: By changing the areas of various habitats wealso change the benefits that this natural capital can provide for people. For
example, an increase in woodland could provide benefits such as carbon capture,
recreation or flood risk reduction.
Indirect impacts on natural capital: By changing the pressures placed on natural
capital by new development we also affect wider natural capital stocks. For
example, a new home that is water efficient might exert a smaller pressure on rivers
and other water bodies and might contribute to reducing the impact of droughts.

Both of these types of impacts should be addressed in environmental net gain
approaches, but progress towards such a wide ambition needs to be made at a rate that,whilst being ambitious, minimises risks to the environment and does not inhibit the timely
and cost-effective delivery of much-needed development.
The assessment of natural capital net gain, which encompasses biodiversity net gain andthe enhancement of assets which deliver ecosystem services, can be complex and is an
evolving science. We will continue to engage with stakeholders to address key policyquestions including:
•

•

•

•
•

Whether, or where, trade-offs between individual benefits from natural capital,
excluding biodiversity, should be permissible (i.e. could we trade between flood risk
reduction and air quality improvement?),
whether natural capital net gain is best achieved through explicit measurement at
the development level, or by more effectively taking natural capital into account inspatial planning,whether certain assets or benefits should be prioritised over others depending on
the location (e.g. to give a higher weighting to natural flood risk mitigation measures
upstream of flood risk zones),
whether ‘assets’ or ‘benefits from assets’ should be considered in a metric (i.e. is awoodland more valuable because more people use it?), andhow total net gains could be achieved across diverse measures of natural capital
benefits (i.e. could we add units of reduced flood risk to units of air quality to
calculate a net gain overall?).

17

Once we have a clear understanding of these complexities, we will be able to consider
options for using net gain to address the remaining considerable hidden costs forcommunities, society and future generations that are not often accounted for, orcompensated, currently. Robust assessment of natural capital net gain will require thedevelopment and improvement of data, tools and metrics. We recognise the significant
social benefits that might come from explicitly targeting such improvements and arecontributing to the progression of these tools and approaches. As part of this work, Defra
and Natural England are developing (with academia, industry and planning authorities) a
new tool called an ‘eco-metric’ which aims to measure the ability of habitats to deliver
ecosystem services. The eco-metric is currently being tested to see how well it measureschange in benefits from natural capital, and what proportion of these benefits would bedelivered through the biodiversity net gain approach at its core. If successful, it will provide
a freely available tool for assessing both biodiversity and broader natural capital net gains.
It is still uncertain how net gains against some of the “Natural capital pressures” (seeFigure 2) aspects might be defined. For example, a net gain in water efficiency mightmean an improvement on the current average water efficiency of homes, or it might mean
exceeding standards or targets for new development. What this might mean for various
types of commercial or industrial development is not yet clear.
Many of these components of net gains for “Natural capital pressures” are already targetedthrough planning policy, building regulations and government strategies. For example, theBuildings Mission sets out to halve energy usage in new buildings by 2030 14. Through the
Clean Growth Strategy, government will be working with industry to increase the amount of
UK timber used in construction, locking in carbon, and encourage more businesses tosupport cost-effective emissions reductions, such as planting trees or making other land
use changes.
In deciding how to achieve environmental net gain, it will be necessary to weigh theconsiderable environmental costs to society of inaction against considerations around thepracticalities and any costs or delays to development. Exploring what net gain means forthese measures, and how these measures might be adapted for voluntary application
outside the scope of this consultation, will require further work and engagement withexpert stakeholders and across government.

14 The Industrial Strategy sets out Grand Challenges to put the UK at the forefront of the industries of the

future, with missions to tackle these challenges. It is crucial that developments should be planned to reduce
emissions, helping to mitigate climate change, alongside incorporating net gain of biodiversity, in line with the
Climate Change Act 2008.
18

Biodiversity net gain in practiceNet gain in planning policy
Legislation requires public bodies to have regard to conserving biodiversity 15, andbiodiversity net gain is an established part of planning policy. The National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) has recently been revised to make clear that planning should ‘identify
and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity’16 and LPAs
and developers already take biodiversity into account in planning discussions anddecisions. Biodiversity is often assessed with the support of professional ecologists who
provide advice throughout the planning and development process to LPAs and developers.
The quality and sensitivity of habitats and species are considered when deciding if land issuitable for development, and developers avoid purchasing the least suitable sites or risk
refusal of planning permission. Developers design the layout and landscaping ofdevelopment to avoid significant harm and provide new habitats, as part of green
infrastructure and to provide biodiversity enhancements sought by local plans. Green
infrastructure can include trees, hedgerows, meadows, ponds or green roofs and green
walls. Where harm cannot be avoided then mitigation or, if necessary, compensatory
measures for specific biodiversity impacts are negotiated and secured through planning
conditions and legal obligations.
This system works well to avoid the most severe impacts on biodiversity and protect thebest sites for wildlife, but less well to manage the gradual erosion of lower value habitats.
Cumulatively, even ‘insignificant’ losses of habitat at a development scale add up tosignificant rates of biodiversity loss overall. The approach also leaves much to be agreed
in relatively subjective and discretionary ways – while this offers some flexibility, it can also
result in uncertainty and costs for both developers and LPAs. Current practice enables
some enhancement but without reliable measurement there is no way of understanding
how much this benefits the environment and people.
In practice, a variety of approaches are employed by the 353 local authorities in England
which developers must navigate and adapt to. For example, some LPAs have adopted
existing metrics to achieve biodiversity net gain, whereas others rely on local plans
identifying habitat features or sites for conservation. Both developers and LPAs rely on
professional advice and ecological data which can vary in quality, presentation and cost.
Consequently, it can prove challenging to reach an agreed position around a qualitativetechnical ecological report; ultimately, both developers and people who have objected toan application must rely on informed but subjective reporting and conclusions.

15 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
16 Paragraph 174, NPPF

19

Some LPAs have adopted mandatory biodiversity net gain policies (see box below). This
helps to ensure that a consistent approach is applied to development and that biodiversity
gain can be achieved at a development and local plan level. However, there is little
consistency in policies or approaches nationally or even between adjacent LPAs.
Mandatory net gain for biodiversity across England would reduce inconsistency, provide
greater certainty for developers and provide a more efficient means for LPAs to implement
national planning policy whilst addressing local environmental priorities.
In Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull a system has been implemented to ensure thatdevelopment leads to no net loss of biodiversity, facilitated by Warwickshire County
Council.
Biodiversity impact assessments are required for all developments, providing evidence of
the application of the mitigation hierarchy, subsequent on site compensation, and any
residual biodiversity loss triggering biodiversity offsetting. This requirement is set out in
LPA policy, and within the county wide Green Infrastructure Strategy. The county has
comprehensive online mapping of ecological information, which enables both planningapplicants and LPA strategic planners to determine the potential ecological value of a
proposed development site. This information is also used to identify ecologically rich or
deficient areas and the ecological linkages present or needed to join them together at asite, regional or national scale.
Biodiversity impact assessments involve an ecological survey to assess the biodiversity
value. The biodiversity impact is calculated using the Warwickshire version of the Defra
metric. The metric is also used to quantify the amount of offset necessary to compensate
for any residual biodiversity loss and the mapping ensures that compensation puts “theright habitat in the right place.”
Greater Manchester has expressed an ambition to be a carbon neutral, climate resilientcity-region with a thriving natural environment and circular, zero-waste economy. The
Greater Manchester Combined Authority will produce a Natural Capital Investment Plan by
the end of this year which will promote investment and delivery of opportunities that protect
and enhance Greater Manchester’s natural capital to support a healthy population andeconomy.
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework is a spatial strategy for Greater Manchester. It
is a new plan for jobs, homes and the environment. The framework will reflect thestrategic priorities in national planning policy across Greater Manchester and provide thecontext for local plans, including a measurable net gain in biodiversity value through newdevelopment. Greater Manchester is developing guidance for delivering biodiversity net
gain at a city-region level; this is the first step towards embedding wider net gain forpeople, places and nature.

20

Net gain approaches in industry
There is growing momentum within the development and construction industry to
implement biodiversity net gain:
•

•

•

•

Housing developers have committed to achieving biodiversity net gain, for example
Barratt Homes, Berkeley Group, and Redrow Homes have all adopted biodiversity
net gain approaches (see the box below about the Berkeley Group’s approach);
Infrastructure programmes are adopting a biodiversity net gain approach, including
Crossrail, the East-West Rail Alliance and the Greater West Programme (note thatnationally significant infrastructure projects are outside the scope of thisconsultation);
Utilities and land managers, such as National Grid, Thames Water and Yorkshire
Water are increasingly working towards biodiversity enhancement targets andcommitments, and some are exploring means of also achieving gains in benefits
from natural capital; andProfessional and industry bodies 17 have supported the adoption of biodiversity net
gain approaches through the provision of good practice principles18 and guidance
based on established international best practice 19. Biodiversity net gain is alreadyrecognised in sustainable building standards (from BREEAM) which incorporates
the Defra metric, and work is underway to incorporate biodiversity net gain into BRE
Global’s CEEQUAL quality assurance scheme for infrastructure. Work is underway
to develop a British Standard for biodiversity net gain 20.

Berkeley Group – creating net biodiversity gain within all new developments
The Berkeley Group made a commitment in 2016 that all new developments from May
2017 will create a net biodiversity gain within the development site. Berkeley’s commitment
has been informed by the learning and experience they gained in delivering a number ofhigh quality, biodiversity rich developments. For example, at their ‘Kidbrooke Village’development Berkeley partnered with the London Wildlife Trust and consulted the Royal
Borough of Greenwich’s Biodiversity Action Plan to provide green space that engaged the
local community and increased biodiversity. This work also led to increased engagementwith the local community and 20 hectares of new parkland within the development, which
will deliver 4,800 new homes. Berkeley Group have adapted a version of the Defra
biodiversity metric to forecast biodiversity losses and gains.

Construction Industry Research and Information Association, Chartered Institute of Ecological andEnvironmental Management, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment supported by Balfour
Beatty.
18 Biodiversity Net Gain: Good practice principles for development 2016.
19 As set-out by the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), http://bbop.forest-trends.org/
20 Work to develop the new British Standard is being led by the British Standards Institute working with Natural
England, Defra and a wide range of industry, NGO and land management bodies. The new standard will likely
be in two parts: design and pre-construction and construction/post-construction and is anticipated to beavailable in 2019/2020.
17

21

Our view (that we want to test and seek evidence for via this consultation) is that theincreasing but patchy use of net gain, using voluntary approaches to fully deliver on theobjective of national policy, means that the market for developable land is uneven;developers that do not plan to include any habitats in or around their development canoutbid those who want to deliver more. This means that the costs of habitat mitigation areborne by the developer instead of being factored into the land price at the outset to reflect
the biodiversity value of the land.
Outside of local or voluntary biodiversity net gain schemes, not all development isdelivering measurable improvements for biodiversity and local people, and appears to be
cumulatively failing to properly address the decline in England’s biodiversity. Our view isthat there is an opportunity for mandatory biodiversity net gain to mainstream the best ofthese existing approaches. There have been a number of calls for government action tostrengthen policy on the application of biodiversity net gain and through this consultation
document we explore how best to put a mandatory approach into practice.

Photo: London Wildlife Trust

22

Policy proposals and questions
Approaches to delivering a net gain for biodiversity
We propose that net gain for biodiversity should:
•
•
•

•

Complement and reinforce national planning policy.
Support the mitigation hierarchy (see Figure 3), which avoids, minimises,
remediates and as a last resort compensates for adverse impacts on biodiversity.
Secure measurable benefits for biodiversity, so that we contribute to national andinternational environmental priorities and provide benefits for the local communities
where development takes place.
Not weaken the strong protections for designated wildlife habitats or irreplaceable
habitats set out in national planning policy. This means that where projects result indamage to irreplaceable habitats, or designated features of internationally or
nationally protected sites, these should be appropriately mitigated or compensatedfor, even if net gain in other (non-protected or ‘replaceable’) habitats is achieved.

Figure 3: The mitigation hierarchy

Avoid
Where
possible,
habitatdamageshould be
avoided.

Minimise

Remediate

Compensate

Wherepossible,
habitatdamage andloss should be
minimised.

Where
possible, any
damaged orlost habitat
should berestored.

As a lastresort,damaged orlost habitat
should becompensatedfor.

Net gain for biodiversity could be delivered by:•••

Applying sensitive design that avoids the loss of high-quality habitats, minimises theimpact of a development on site, enhances habitats in poor condition and delivers
desirable places to live by creating new habitats on site.
Using off-site local and strategic compensatory habitat creation and enhancement
only where net gain cannot be reasonably achieved on site, for example on land
provided by habitat banks, land-owners or brokers as part of a flexible market which
supports identified biodiversity priorities and contributes to local and accessible
nature.
Where opportunities for on-site and locally-sourced compensation are not available,
achieving gains through payment of a tariff. A tariff would be designed to incentivise
habitat protection and strategic compensation (in line with the mitigation hierarchy),23

raise revenue to invest in strategically important habitats that benefit local
communities, support nature recovery and reliably achieve net gain overall at anational scale.
Teignbridge District Council, RSPB, EAD Ecology, Hallbaron Ltd
This example shows how a cash payment can be used to invest in habitat improvement
when opportunities are not available at the planning application stage.
A 9.5 hectare site on the edge of Teignmouth coastal market town in Devon was granted
planning permission for up to 255 dwellings. The Defra biodiversity metric was used to
calculate losses of biodiversity on site and the levels of biodiversity compensation thatwould be built into the scheme design. This was insufficient to achieve a biodiversity net
gain outcome and so the shortfall of biodiversity units was translated into a cash sum paidby the developer via a Section 106 agreement to the planning authority to be used todeliver biodiversity enhancements elsewhere in the county. These monies were used topurchase nearby land to create grassland and hedgerow habitats to achieve an overallbiodiversity net gain outcome.
Net gain for biodiversity should be simple and certain to understand and implement. Our
proposed approach would achieve this by:
•
•

•
•

Working with national planning policy, including updated detailed guidance, which
could be underpinned by a clear duty in legislation.
Using the Defra biodiversity metric (see section “The Defra metric”) so that theapproach to measuring biodiversity and any residual tariff obligation is transparent
and consistent.
Developing monitoring and quality assurance processes that provide confidence inthe conservation and development outcomes secured.
Providing a workable approach that can be adapted and updated to include
components of environmental net gain such as natural resource use efficiency,
water quality, flood risk management and air quality.

24

ScopeWhat development should be in scope of a net gain policy?
Currently, planning policy in the National Planning Policy Framework is a material
consideration for all development decisions controlled at an LPA level, primarily under the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 21. If net gain for biodiversity was mandated, it should
adopt the same approach as current biodiversity net gain policy22 by covering all new
developments that results in loss or degradation of habitat, including buildings such as
housing, offices, shops, business space and local infrastructure. Developments that would
result in negligible loss or degradation of habitat, for instance material change of use of oralterations to buildings and house extensions, would fall out of scope. We are seeking
evidence on whether this scope would be appropriate.
We are considering what, if any, appropriate exemptions to a possible future mandatory
biodiversity net gain policy might be made to developments by size, sector or site location.
Broad exemptions could undermine the environmental objectives of the policy, but somemight have little impact, or be proportionate where development would otherwise becompromised. We consider that permitted development 23 and house extensions meetthese criteria, and we are seeking evidence in this consultation as to whether somesmall 24 and brownfield sites (in particular, those listed on brownfield land registers) should
also be appropriately exempted from possible future mandatory biodiversity net gain
requirements. Any types of development that are exempted from mandatory requirements
would still be subject to environmental planning policies.
Unlike in the current system, increased availability of compensation sites and the provisionof the residual cash tariff could provide a mechanism for all appropriate sites to be able tomeet biodiversity requirements. We are therefore also considering whether a simplified
process for assessing biodiversity net gain could be available to amplify these process
benefits for some sites, as an alternative to providing a full exemption. This simplified
process could take the form of:••

A simple walkover survey and habitat plan for the proposed development prepared by
an appropriately qualified person.
The use of a simplified version of the Defra metric with condition values pre-populated,
resulting in marginally lower or higher levels of net gain on individual sites but close to
the target overall.

21 Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
22 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF.

23 Permitted developments include small house extensions and driveways, small extensions to other buildings,

most infrastructure improvement works and many changes of use of land. They do not require planningapplications to proceed.
24 Planning applications are not considered to be major development where: the development is for less than
10 homes; the development is for homes on a site less than 0.5 hectares if the number of homes is
unknown; the development is for other buildings with floor space less than 1,000 square metres and on a site
under 1 hectare (see the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England)
Order 2015).
25

•The ability to purchase the, likely low, number of necessary biodiversity units locally or
through payment of the tariff upon receipt of planning permission.

In the 25 Year Environment Plan we outlined our commitment to embed an environmental
net gain approach in infrastructure. While marine planning and licensing policy andnationally significant infrastructure projects are not in scope of this consultation, weare considering how to best support and mainstream the net gain approaches that many
infrastructure and marine projects are already taking. For marine planning and licensing,
we will evaluate the actions that projects are already taking to address their environmental
impacts and consider how best to implement net gain in the marine context.
1. Should biodiversity net gain be mandated for all housing, commercial andother development within the scope of the Town and County Planning Act?
2. What other actions could government take to support the delivery of
biodiversity net gain?
3. Should there be any specific exemptions to any mandatory biodiversity net
gain requirement (planning policies on net gain would still apply) for thefollowing types of development? And why?
a.
House extensionsb.
Small sitesc.
All brownfield sitesd.
Some brownfield sites (e.g. those listed on brownfield, or other, land
registers)
4. Are there any other sites that should be granted exemptions, and why? For
example, commercial and industrial sites.
5. As an alternative to an exemption, should any sites instead be subject to asimplified biodiversity assessment process?

Biodiversity features in scope of net gain policy
Planning policy and legislation already protect our network of internationally and nationallydesignated sites (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas, Ramsar
sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest) which cover our most important wildlife
habitats; government has no intention of weakening or changing these existing legal andpolicy protections. Net gain will not weaken existing planning policy protection for
irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland.
Some high-value habitats outside the protected sites series are identified by local
partnerships as ‘Local Sites’. Local Sites (sometimes known as Sites of Interest for Nature
Conservation or Local Wildlife Sites, although they can also be identified for theirgeological interest) are given additional protection as is made clear in national planningpolicy 25. Net gain will not weaken existing planning policy protection for Local Sites, but
can currently be used as an approach to deliver more robust mitigation and compensation
when development does occur within or near to Local Sites.

25 Paragraphs 171 and 174, NPPF.

26

The metric takes relative levels of habitat importance into account when assessing thevalue of habitats for biodiversity. We consider that this allows a local authority to apply ahigh weighting for areas that are designated local sites, and therefore no further
modifications are required. We welcome views on whether the metric should consider local
designations in any other ways.
6. Do you agree that the Defra metric should allow for adjustments to reflect
important local features such as local sites? Should the Defra metric consider
local designations in a different way?

How are species treated within a net gain policy?
The approaches to net gain outlined in this consultation, including the Defra biodiversity
metric, are based on habitat assessments and do not account for development impacts on
individual species. We are exploring approaches that allow net gain to deliver for individual
species impacted by development and will look to bring these into scope over time.
The district level licensing approach for great crested newts developed by Natural Englandoffers one possible model for taking this forward. District level licensing for great crested
newts involves building up a picture of great crested newt abundance, distribution andhabitat condition at district level and assessing the impacts on great crested newt from allplanned development in the district over the whole local plan period. Zones are mappedthat reflect the level of impact anticipated and developers pay a proportionate tariff fornewt habitat creation. This approach is currently being rolled out to 150 local authority
areas by 2020 and will be managed adaptively, changing in response to monitoredoutcomes. We recognise that a successful national rollout must be based on robust
monitoring and a clear view of how local measures add up to deliver national andinternational conservation priorities. We recognise that current approaches to district level
licensing are not perfect, and will be improving and adapting the approach as it matures toimprove the certainty of conservation outcomes.
Implementing district level licensing alongside biodiversity net gain approaches would
allow off-site habitat compensation approaches to be brought together for maximum
benefit for great crested newts and wider biodiversity interests, whilst allowing developers
to benefit from streamlined regulation. These benefits would be most firmly secured if local
authorities were obliged to ensure a district level licensing scheme for great crested newts
was available.
We would like to explore introducing further strategic approaches for additional species
alongside biodiversity net gain over time. We recognise that the approach will not beappropriate for some protected species and will need to collate evidence to determine
which, if any, protected species other than great crested newts would benefit inconservation terms and how such approaches would best be implemented without
weakening their protection. We will consider how this can be made the most cost-effective
for LPAs, maximising the advantage of integration with biodiversity net gain and continuing
to streamline the process for developers.

27

7. Should local authorities be required to adopt a robust district level licensing
approach for great crested newts, where relevant, by 2020?
8. For what species is it plausible to use district level or strategic approaches toimprove conservation outcomes and streamline planning processes? Pleaseprovide evidence.

Ambitions for wider environmental net gain
Some aspects of development’s environmental impact, in addition to biodiversity, arerelatively easily measured and may already be measured as part of standard development
processes. Water and air quality standards for instance could provide a useful means toimproving the impacts that development has on the health of our national and global
natural capital stocks. Many of these impacts are managed through building standards.
Building standards, and similar types of regulation, may remain the best approach, but weare interested in exploring if it might be beneficial to incentivise performance against andbeyond these standards through a wider environmental net gain approach. This might
further streamline environmental requirements for developers, and thereby simplify
processes for developers and LPAs by presenting progress against wider environmental
requirements or targets in one place.
There are a wide variety of natural capital impacts that could be considered within broad
environmental net gain (see Figure 2 in the “Environmental net gain” section) in the longterm, some more suitable than others:•••

For water, we might limit projected water use to a recommended number of litres
per day.
For air quality, development could be required to be ‘air quality neutral’ and not tocontribute to potential exceedance of international air pollution limits or national
pollutant objectives, in line with our Clean Air Strategy.
For flood risk, we might require development to achieve greenfield run-off rates forsurface water with sustainable drainage systems and for properties to meet a given
flood resilience standard.

The right approaches for measuring and incentivising these standards is less clear thanthose for biodiversity net gain at present so they are not in scope of the current proposal
for a mandatory approach.
9. Are there wider elements of environmental net gain that could be better
incentivised? If so, please specify which, and any benefits that suchincentives could provide.

28

Measuring biodiversity
A biodiversity metricIn the “What is net gain?” section we recognise that biodiversity is complex and that no
single approach can fully guarantee net gains for biodiversity. There are, however, simple
and robust ways to measure the habitats that support biodiversity, and there areconsiderable benefits to mandating net gain through a single metric. Consistency meansthat all users of a metric, including local planning authorities, developers, ecologists,
NGOs, communities and consultees, can become familiar with the workings of a metricand can focus on the quality of the inputs and outcomes more than the means ofrecording. It also means that less time should be taken processing applications, freeing up
ecologists’ and developers’ time for more constructive input into scheme and habitat
design. More fundamentally, it means that clear and certain obligations can be set, without
having to account for varying interpretations through different metrics.
Our view is that an effective biodiversity net gain policy requires an approach tomeasurement that is:•••transparent and robust – an approach that is open to scrutiny by LPAs, local
communities and consultees, and robust enough to give developers confidence thatthe measured gains will be sufficient to meet expectations.
workable and practical – an approach that is proportionate to the scale of thepotential impact and that can be implemented and scrutinised in a timely manner.
consistent – we want to avoid the costs to LPAs and developers of processing
assessments, and channel this expertise into the design of developments andhabitats. Having a consistent metric should help to keep the focus of assessmenton the outcomes and ecological advice, rather than the means of measurement.

We propose that, for biodiversity net gain, the Defra biodiversity metric would provide asuitable base metric upon which to set possible mandatory requirements. Over time, we
can explore opportunities to develop the metric to make its assessment more sophisticatedwithout significantly increasing the time or resources taken to use it (for example, byconnecting it to potential future internet-based habitat mapping or biological records). Thisshould help to address some existing limitations of the metric with regards to considerationof individual species and wider environmental value.
Natural England are already working to update the original version of the Defra metric toincorporate the best of the adaptations and amendments made by schemes andorganisations over the past six years. Focussing government and industry resources onto
one metric will mean that future updates should further improve the environmental anddevelopment outcomes and will have a much greater evidence base for possible
alterations.

29

10. Is the Defra biodiversity metric an appropriate practical tool for measuringchanges to biodiversity as a result of development?
11. What improvements, if any, could we most usefully make to the Defra metric?

How much ‘gain’
Losing and recreating habitat inevitably involves some risks; for example, thatcompensation habitats won’t reach their target state, or will take longer than expected to
do so. The Defra metric accounts for some of these factors. It includes a factor for thedifficulty of achieving the target habitat and for the time taken for habitats to beestablished. Therefore, we are confident that the Defra metric, and therefore the number of
biodiversity units that must be created, is sufficient to mitigate and compensate for harmcaused by the development. Nevertheless, to account for remaining uncertainties andrisks, and to provide an overall gain for nature, we are including an extra margin.
Our initial view is that a 10% gain in biodiversity units would be a suitable level of net gain
to require in order to provide a high degree of certainty that overall gains will be achieved,balanced against the need to ensure any costs to developers are proportionate. In
practice, this means that if a site is worth 50 biodiversity units before development, the site(and any offset sites and tariff payments) should be worth 55 units at the scheme’s
conclusion. The proposed 10% would be a mandatory national requirement, but should not
be viewed as a cap on the aspirations of developers that want to voluntarily go further or
do so in the course of designing proposals to meet other local planning policies.
12. Would a mandatory 10% increase in biodiversity units be the right level ofgain to be required?

Mitigation hierarchy
The mitigation hierarchy is a central and valued principle of environmental planning. It
broadly states that development should:••••

Avoid impacts,
Minimise impacts,
Remediate/restore habitats affected by impacts , andAs a last resort, compensate for any residual harm through habitat creation or
restoration.

This hierarchy is reflected in national planning policy, and local planning documents. The
introduction of biodiversity net gain would not weaken, undermine or replace the mitigation
hierarchy, and the process of achieving net gain is entirely compatible with the proper
application of the hierarchy. Industry guidance and principles stress the importance of the
mitigation hierarchy in applying net gain approaches.
In circumstances where, due to proper application of the first stage of the hierarchy,
development will result in minor losses of habitats which are not of particular value towildlife, it is clear that compensating for these losses at a site level might not always
30

provide the best outcomes for wildlife. In some cases, it might be advantageous inconservation and development terms to allow for a greater proportion of residual impacts
than usual to be dealt with through off-site compensation or tariff contributions. This would
allow pooling of the investment to secure greater strategic environmental gains. It is
recognised that any such allowance could, however, present a risk of readily granting
permission to degrade the site of the development, and so clear guidance on appropriate
circumstances would need to be introduced. These might refer to the size of the site, its
ecological or other importance in the local context, and the distinctiveness of theconstituent habitats.
Such allowances would not in any way compromise the operation of the mitigation
hierarchy on sites which are not within the clearly defined circumstances.
13. In clearly defined circumstances, should developers be allowed to pay
through the tariff mechanism without fully exhausting on-site and local
compensation opportunities?

Spatial preference
In an approach that considers both on-site and off-site environmental improvements, there
needs to be careful consideration of where we want habitats to be delivered. To someextent, this issue is resolved by the application of the mitigation hierarchy, as avoidance,
minimisation and remediation of impacts will be restricted to the site and its immediatesurrounds.
Where compensatory habitat creation or enhancement is required to achieve net gains,
this can be delivered within the site, nearby to the site or nationally to address national
conservation priorities. Evidence from stakeholders suggests that local delivery ispreferable because it prevents any one local area from losing significant amounts ofhabitats and provides benefits for the communities which are affected by development in
the first instance. It is desirable to prevent local ‘pockets’ of habitat loss because it could
reduce connectivity between local habitats, and could compromise local residents’ accessto nature. The Defra metric already includes a simple multiplier to incentivise the deliveryof compensation measures in local or strategic locations.
We propose that a spatial hierarchy underlines the design, updating and operation of theentire net gain approach. This would mean that, where possible, biodiversity units should
be delivered on site. Those that cannot viably be delivered on site should be delivered
locally, according to a local plan or strategy. Where suitable compensatory habitats are notavailable locally, then investment in national conservation priorities may take place througha tariff. This principle could be communicated through guidance and be incentivised
through the operation of the Defra metric and the pricing of the tariff (see “Tariff rate”
section) so that distant habitat creation is generally more expensive than delivering
habitats on site or locally.
14. Would this be an appropriate approach to directing the location of new
habitat?
31

Assessment of habitat type and condition
A standardised approach to biodiversity net gain should result in less investment inreporting and negotiation between LPAs and developers, and more investment in creating
nature-friendly development and new habitats for wildlife.
Currently, the ecological reports that explain a development’s impacts can sometimes beinaccessible to the public, the developer and even to the LPA officer. The technical detail
within them is important, but there is rarely a simple explanation of what habitat is being
lost and what is being gained. At present, developers will most often use their own inhouse ecologists or contract ecological consultants to undertake ecological assessment ofpotential development sites. For smaller sites, the ecological assessment might beundertaken by non-specialist staff.
The greater transparency and consistency of a completed biodiversity metric would(because it states exactly what habitats are lost and gained) reduce uncertainty fordevelopers when designing schemes, and for communities and planning officers whenassessing a potential development. In order to most effectively meet the housing and otherdevelopment needs of local communities we are considering how else net gain can
improve the planning process for all involved and ensure that the assessment of habitats is
accurate and cost effective.
In the future, there could be the potential for meeting survey requirements for certain
habitats or types of developments through the use of area-wide surveying and improved
satellite or remote sensing habitat mapping; these methods would need development andevaluation before they were widely implemented to ensure that such approaches arerobust and would not result in misidentification or loss of distinctive habitats.
15. How could biodiversity assessments be made more robust without adding toburdens for developers or planning authorities?

32Baseline
Understanding whether net gain is achieved through development at a national scale will
require better habitats data at a national scale. Defra is currently exploring how national
metrics and mapping might help to support the establishment of a baseline, and to chart
progress against it. This is discussed further in the later “Quality assurance” section.
On a development scale, the baseline for voluntary biodiversity net gain is generally taken
to be the point at which a planning application is submitted; the incentive to intentionallydegrade habitat prior to assessment is low under voluntary schemes because there is an
expectation that the developer intends to leave a positive legacy.
If net gain were made mandatory, there could be a stronger incentive for some developers
and landowners to degrade their land in advance of seeking permission to develop it.
There are reported cases of suspected pre-consent habitat degradation under the current
planning system, although it is not known whether this is a regular occurrence. These
include cases of vegetation clearance and the disturbance of protected species.
Landowners may be incentivised to degrade their land to reduce environmental obligations
long in advance of its sale for development.
In a mandatory net gain policy this risk could be mitigated by:••

Clear guidance for developers and planning authorities on the relevant assessment
baseline including how to take account of recent or even historic habitat states
where there is evidence of deliberate habitat degradation. Consideration should begiven to how to avoid the risks of penalising landowners making legitimate land usechange decisions before deciding to sell their land for development.
The use of existing land cover data to provide approximate fixed baselines ofhabitat type. For example, providing spatial data that would tell an LPA whether asite was wooded, grassland or bare ground in 2017 and broad habitat categories
from existing aerial imagery of urban areas. Setting a fixed temporal baseline will
also help government to monitor trends in habitat cover over the longer term, and toassess whether net gain is being delivered. The habitat data would need to berobust and readily accessible to LPAs and the Planning Inspectorate.

16. Should a baseline map of broad habitats be developed?
17. Should this be applied, as a minimum baseline, to:a.
net gain calculations for all development?
b.
net gain calculations in cases of suspected intentional habitat
degradation?
18. What other measures might reduce the risk of incentivising intentional habitat
degradation?
19. How can the risks of penalising landowners making legitimate land usechange decisions before deciding to sell their land for development be
mitigated?

33

Delivering biodiversity outcomesHow should biodiversity priorities be identified?
It is likely that mandatory biodiversity net gain would provide the greatest benefit where it
improves, extends or connects existing wildlife habitat and contributes to wider ecologicalnetworks, helping to meet the 25 Year Environment Plan ambition to deliver Professor Sir
John Lawton’s vision for more, bigger, better, and more joined-up wildlife habitat 26. Insome local areas, where biodiversity net gain is applied on a voluntary basis, local‘opportunity maps’ are used to identify areas where habitat restoration and creation would
be of greatest benefit. There is an existing requirement under paragraph 174 of the NPPF
to map components of local wildlife-rich habitats and ecological networks, identifying
designated sites, connecting habitat corridors and stepping stones, and areas identified bypartnerships for habitat restoration or creation.
We propose that the delivery of compensation habitats be aligned with national and local
scale strategic habitat objectives, and that government explores how local habitat
opportunity mapping might be coordinated and supported through a national habitat
mapping framework. In line with government’s 25 Year Environment Plan ambitions, these
spatial strategies could prioritise wildlife conservation, but also take account of natural
capital opportunities and demand for benefits from nature. These maps could also form a
useful planning tool for LPAs and developers in identifying the most suitable areas fordevelopment (as they do where such maps are already in place locally), and help to aligndevelopment sector improvements with other types of environmental investment.
20. The provision of compensatory habitats would need to be guided by habitat
opportunity maps. At what scale should these maps be developed?
a.
Locally (e.g. local authority or National Character Area)b.
Nationally (i.e. England) as a national framework to be refined,
updated and amended locally
21. What other measures should be considered to identify biodiversity andnatural capital priorities?

Provision of compensatory habitats
Where net gain for biodiversity cannot be delivered on site, it is possible to create orenhance other sites to achieve biodiversity net gain. An adequate supply of high-quality
local compensatory habitat sites would be needed to ensure that developments canproceed without difficulty or delay. Delivering biodiversity outcomes through habitat
creation or enhancement is not easy or certain; so it would be essential that providers
have the knowledge and expertise to ensure that compensatory habitats are delivered in

26 Lawton, Professor Sir John (2010), Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s Wildlife Sites andEcological Network,
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402170324/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf.

34

the timeframes, and to the quality standards, agreed so that environmental outcomes
would be secured.
It would need to be clear that compensatory habitat would be additional to efforts thatwould have been undertaken without the development’s contributions; there should be no‘double counting’ of improvements, for example, such as a created biodiversity unit being
claimed twice by two different developments. There could, however, be circumstances inwhich biodiversity units generated through other planning requirements could be counted
towards biodiversity net gain. Industry guidance and principles that have been developed
for net gain set out a range of principles for compensation habitat, including additionality
and recommendations against ‘trading down’ in habitat distinctiveness terms.
There are a number of different ways in which a developer could source the required
biodiversity units – including on another site the developer owns, directly from alandowner, via a land broker or from a habitat bank.
Habitat creation could be secured or delivered in advance of development through the useof habitat banks. Habitat banks provide a market-based environmental solution toaddress loss of biodiversity or ecosystem services. Habitat banking can provide aneffective and efficient way to combine many small developer contributions towards larger
scale green infrastructure, provide a simple process for developers and a commercial
opportunity for landowners and brokers in conservation activity.
Mandating net gain for biodiversity may stimulate the establishment and growth of local
habitat creation markets which will trade biodiversity units. If mandatory biodiversity net
gain is introduced, we propose that the level of the tariff is set above the cost of local
biodiversity units. The intention of this would be to ensure that the market forcompensation habitat creation is able to meet anticipated demand and delivers value formoney but is not undercut by the tariff (see “Tariff rate” section). We propose that thismarket could also allow developers who have delivered biodiversity units beyond what is
mandatory at a site, to accrue these surplus biodiversity units as credits and / or trade
them with other developers.
We also want to consider which mechanisms could assure the delivery of quality
compensation sites, both within developments and off site. We are interested in whether asystem of accreditation for compensation habitat providers would support this, and how
such a scheme could provide certainty without delaying habitat creation anddevelopment’s access to compensation sites.
22. Would mandating net gain through the planning system be enough tostimulate the growth of a market for biodiversity units?
23. What further measures would help to ensure that the market provides:a.
Sufficient biodiversity units for development?
b.
Cost-effective biodiversity units?

35

Legacy
Biodiversity net gain should make sure that development delivers improvements inbiodiversity; developed sites are rarely reverted to nature and the aim should be that any
compensation or mitigation for habitat loss should last for the duration of a development or
be established on a permanent basis. Currently, industry principles and common practiceof biodiversity net gain suggest that compensatory habitat should be actively managed for
25-30 years. After this period, habitat could in theory be changed to an alternative landuse. We are therefore seeking to identify what mechanisms would enable the practicaldelivery of biodiversity net gain whilst also securing lasting environmental benefits.
In the unlikely scenario that a created or enhanced compensation site was selected for
new development, the target condition of the habitat would be used as the baseline for the
new development. Records of compensation sites (which could simply be a completed
metric) would need to be held by the LPA, local records centre or a national delivery bodyto facilitate this approach. For example, Green Space Information for Greater London(GiGL) provides a central repository of data to support Transport for London to deliverbiodiversity net gain.
There would be some risk of compensation habitat loss to wider land use change
decisions, such as reversion to arable or pasture land. There may be potential throughnew agricultural schemes to prevent this. Other risks, such as clearance by the landownerfor various purposes or damage during necessary infrastructure maintenance are also
being considered. One model to secure the long-term stewardship of habitats is to transfer
the land to a trust with an endowment to fund maintenance, as has been done for somepublic open spaces with the Milton Keynes Parks Trust and the Land Trust.
In line with our commitment in the 25 Year Environment Plan, we are assessing thepotential role of conservation covenants to enable landowners to create a legally-binding
obligation with respect to their land that delivers lasting conservation benefits for future
generations. This would provide long-term assurance that compensatory habitat will bemaintained to the standard required. Covenants would apply to compensatory habitats andnot to development sites generally. Working with landowners, conservation groups andother stakeholders we will review and take forward the Law Commission’s proposals for a
statutory scheme of conservation covenants in England.
24. Should there be a minimum duration for the maintenance of created orenhanced habitats?
25. If so, what should the minimum duration be?
a.
Less than 25 yearsb.
25 to 30 yearsc.
Longer than 25-30 yearsd.
Permanent
26. Would conservation covenants be useful for securing long term benefits frombiodiversity net gain or reducing process and legal costs?
27. What safeguards might be needed in the implementation of conservation
covenants?
36

Calculating and collecting the tariff
Tariff rate
If mandatory net gain is introduced, we propose that, where a development was unable tomitigate biodiversity loss on site or purchase the required biodiversity units locally, thedeveloper would be required to pay a cash tariff on their shortfall against net gain
obligations. The price for a tariff on biodiversity units would need to reflect the costs ofcreating and managing compensation habitat in a suitable location, strongly incentivise theprotection of existing habitats and encourage suitable local compensatory habitat creation
when necessary.
We propose that the biodiversity net gain tariff price should cover the costs of:••replacing and maintaining lost habitats, taking account of variation in land prices
across the country; anddelivery and monitoring costs of the compensation scheme.

The tariff price should also provide an incentive to:••retain habitat on site and to limit local habitat losses; andseek net gain through use of local habitat creation schemes (whilst also
encouraging cost-efficiency in local habitat creation or enhancement schemes).

Setting a high tariff rate could strengthen the incentive for local habitat compensation andgenerate the greatest community support for development, enabling local habitat markets
to establish and be competitive while avoiding the risk of a tariff being a too easy route topermission to degrade the site of a development. The tariff rate could also be used to cap
the price of the most inefficient habitat creation schemes.
We estimate that a tariff on biodiversity units, which meets the principles listed above,might be set between £9,000 and £15,000 per biodiversity unit. This range is based on theapplication of the existing Defra biodiversity metric, and would be adjusted in line withplanned metric updates to avoid unjustified increases or decreases in costs. The tariff
range is based upon existing costings for habitat creation and estimates for administrative
costs. We will review this range in light of evidence from consultation responses andfurther engagement with stakeholders. Any final tariff rate would be a fixed price, setaccording to the development’s location.

37

Tariff example: An illustrative development
A developer is building on a one hectare arable site. Around 0.1 hectare of the site will belandscaped grass and shrub planting, meeting local greenspace requirements. The rest
will be developed with buildings, roads and hard landscaping. It is agreed that theremaining habitat loss cannot be avoided, minimised or remediated. There are no suitable
habitat compensation sites available in the local area at the time of the planningapplication. The residual net gain requirements are therefore subject to tariff payment.
Biodiversity units before development = 2
Biodiversity units after development = 0.42
Biodiversity unit target to achieve net gain = 2.2*
Biodiversity units to be compensated via the tariff = 1.78
Tariff payment (at an illustrative £12,000 per unit rate) = £21,360*Note: the risk adjustment factors in the Defra metric would likely require a developer toplan to achieve much more than 2.2 units, which is then adjusted to 2.2 units after
accounting for time lags and difficulty of achieving the target state
28. Does this proposed range for tariff costs fit with the principles set out in thissection?
29. Would this proposed range for tariff costs provide opportunities for costeffective habitat banks and compensation providers to compete?
30. Do you agree with the proposed principles for setting the tariff rate, as set out
in this section? Please suggest any other factors that should be taken in toaccount.

How a tariff could be collected and spent
We want to understand what mechanisms for collecting and spending the residual cash
tariff would be straightforward for developers, deliver the best outcomes for theenvironment and local communities, and would not place additional burdens on LPAs.
Currently biodiversity is considered as part of a dialogue between LPAs and developers.
At the end of this process there are existing mechanisms within the planning system 27 thatcan be used to levy developer contributions towards environmental enhancement whererequired. This would provide a mechanism to enforce and collect the tariff, with theadvantage that it uses existing familiar LPA powers. We are considering how any model

27 Planning obligations are secured by legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990 (as amended) to fund infrastructure and affordable housing, these either take the form of negotiatedagreements with obligations on both the developer and the local authority or unilateral undertakings, which
can follow standard templates with minimal drafting required.
38

might affect the relationship between net gain and wider environmental and social
demands on developer contributions and whether alternative models for collection might
be preferable.
If a tariff is collected, decisions will have to be made about how it would then be invested.
Habitat creation and enhancement would need to be carried out and monitored to ensure
net gain was achieved, and it is preferable for these actions to be planned or completed
prior to the loss of habitats that was is compensating for. Local decision-making about
where and how the tariff could be spent might ensure investment is closely tied to local
nature recovery and could deliver benefits for local people most affected by adevelopment. On the other hand, there could be an important advantage to spending thetariff nationally in that it could create a fund to effectively deliver our national biodiversity
enhancement priorities at the best value and with the greatest synergy with other 25 Year
Environment Plan policies.
We are also considering the possibility of a model which blends a local and national
approach – for example through a percentage split of tariff spend towards local andnational priorities or clear national guidance on how local delivery can best contribute tonational environmental outcomes. Such a blended model might aim to spend tariff revenue
according to national nature strategies, but with a secondary objective of matching
revenue investment to revenue sources where possible, thereby ensuring that thecommunities experiencing the greatest development rates would benefit the most from theresulting investment in nature.
31. How should the tariff revenue be collected?
a.
Locally (e.g. through a local authority)b.
Nationally (e.g. through Natural England or another national body)c.
Other, please specify
32. How should the tariff revenue be spent?
a.
Locally (e.g. through a local authority)b.
Nationally (e.g. through Natural England or another national body)c.
Through a blended model, allowing spending at both levelsd.
Other, please specify
33. If tariff revenue was collected and spent nationally, should spending prioritiseareas which have contributed the most through biodiversity net gain tariff
payments?

39

Delivering net gain in the planning system
Impact on Local Authorities
Successful net gain policy would work effectively with planning policy, strengthening theapproach to biodiversity net gain outlined in the NPPF. The policy approach outlined in thisconsultation should clarify how LPAs assess biodiversity impacts and the mechanisms
available to achieve biodiversity gains. We recognise the pressure that many LPAs areunder to balance their various policy, legal and funding requirements. We have taken this
into consideration in designing this policy, and believe that this policy would represent a
step towards more consistent, transparent and accessible reporting of environmental
impacts by developers. Specifically, we think that the policy would lead to:••••Clearer reporting of ecological impacts.
Developers undertaking more mitigation and compensation planning in advance ofsubmitting applications.
Developers submitting fewer inappropriate applications (i.e. those that would show
a clear net loss for biodiversity).
The potential for LPAs to offer (paid-for) habitat compensation brokering andadvice.

These outcomes should provide long term benefits for LPAs. We recognise, however, thatany changes to approaches in the planning system would create challenges in the shortterm. To manage this we propose that:
•

•

•

•

Implementation of mandatory biodiversity net gain requirements would take place
after a notice period of at least a year from the passage of any new legislation toallow developers, LPAs and ecologists to factor the requirement into planning
processes, and to become familiar with the policy, metric and guidance. A notice
period would also enable LPAs to consider the need to create green infrastructureor habitat opportunity maps where these are not in place, to ensure wildlife andpeople benefit from compensation habitat delivery.
Joint work with industry bodies such as CIEEM, IEMA and CIWEM could beundertaken so that training opportunities would be available that would be fullycompatible with government policy, and that advice services were in place, forexample through Natural England and Environment Agency area teams.
The introduction of a mandatory policy would be accompanied by clear guidance,
drafted in conjunction with LPAs, to ensure that any concerns are addressed.
Industry guidance, which will shortly be available for reference, can provide areference point.
We engage in greater depth and breadth with LPAs throughout and after the
consultation period to establish further risk and opportunities in this policy area 28.

If you, or your organisation, are willing to be a part of this engagement, please contact
netgainconsultation@defra.gsi.gov.uk
28

40

The way in which the net gain tariff scheme is delivered would also be likely to impact theactivities of LPAs. We would be particularly interested in views from LPAs on how theoperation of a tariff could be optimised in light of any effects it might have on the existingdeveloper contributions framework.
34. What further measures will help to prevent burdens on local authorities
increasing?
35. How could the proposals be refined to manage any negative impacts on thescale and delivery of other developer contributions (e.g. through Section 106
or Community Infrastructure Levy payments)?
36. Would you, as a planning authority stakeholder, prefer any net gain tariff
revenue to be paid through:a.
local authority administration?
b.
a nationally managed funding scheme (which could then reinvest in
local habitat schemes best aligned with national strategic
environmental priorities)?

Impact on developers
This consultation sets out our proposals for establishing a more consistent and predictablebiodiversity net gain process for developers. This should help to reduce risk anduncertainty from the process of acquiring planning permissions, and it creates the potential
for bringing existing requirements and mechanisms into a single transparent metric-based
approach.
We recognise, however, that the proposed approach has potential costs for developers
and so welcome views on how it could be improved from a development perspective,
including to keep costs to a minimum. We would also welcome views on whether any
existing environmental planning requirements beyond biodiversity, could be usefully within
scope of a future, broader environmental net gain approach.
The limited available evidence from LPAs and industry suggests that that a wide range ofdevelopment types can successfully achieve biodiversity net gain; we recognise, however,that development and construction is a broad sector and that our engagement to date isunlikely to have reached those delivering development of all types. We have therefore
included the impacts of biodiversity net gain on commercial, industrial, public sector andlocal infrastructure development within the “Key evidence gaps” section at the end of thisconsultation document, and would welcome all relevant evidence on this subject fromconsultees. Understanding the distribution of possible impacts is key to designing anddelivering the policy successfully and achieving the most for the environment anddevelopments.

4137. How could the proposed net gain process be improved for developers?
38. What other steps, considerations or processes in environmental planning
could be integrated within a net gain approach?
39. Would any particular types of development (e.g. commercial, industrial, public
sector, local infrastructure) be disproportionately affected by a mandatory
biodiversity net gain requirement?

Implementation of mandatory biodiversity net gain
If biodiversity net gain is implemented on a mandatory basis we will need to ensure thatthe transition to mandatory biodiversity net gain minimises both operational impacts todevelopers and LPAs, and manages any environmental risks from allowing development
through before the requirement is imposed.
LPAs have different levels of access to professional ecological advice, whether that be inhouse, through partnership with other public bodies or by engaging private sector
consultants. Professional ecologists will be familiar with the inputs to the biodiversity metric
but may need to increase their capability to use the tool effectively, with the support ofprofessional bodies. Local authority planners would also need to become familiar with theprinciples of the metric to assess planning applications. We will engage with LPAs on how
to ensure that planning departments are able to apply the policy effectively.
We propose that to reduce risks and allow industry to prepare for the new requirements,
staggered points could be created at which requirements come into effect. The time could
be used by industry and LPAs to attend training and become familiar with the working of
the metric. It could be used by government to develop accreditation schemes or for pilotingof biodiversity net gain with a tariff. We propose that a notice period of at least one year
after the introduction of new guidance would be required to prepare for this transition.
In order to support the smooth introduction of a mandatory biodiversity net gain policy,
Defra would work to support the delivery of guidance to minimise burdens on developers,
consultees and local planning authorities, and to maximise public understanding of the
new approach.
40. Do you agree that the proposal for staggered transitional arrangements would
help to ensure smooth implementation of biodiversity net gain policy?

42

Right of appeal
We recognise that, whilst a metric should facilitate agreement, developers and LPAs mightsometimes disagree on the assessment of existing habitats or compensation proposals. If
there was any disagreement about any aspect of the submitted metric this could be
discussed during optional pre-application discussions or during the determination ofplanning applications. A standardised net gain metric would aim to simplify biodiversity
discussions as they would be less subjective and qualitative than at present. If agreement
were not met then the planning system would continue to offer the right of appeal against
refusal or non-determination of an application.
We would be interested in views, particularly from developers and LPAs, on whether
existing planning procedures would be sufficient under a mandatory biodiversity net gain
requirement or whether reliance on them would cause any issues. There may be
advantages to introducing an additional assurance process, for example to verify aproposed metric calculation.
41. Would the existing dispute resolution process provide the best way to
overcome any disagreement over whether net gain is achieved?
42. Would an additional arbitration or approval process be necessary? If so,please specify why.

43

Monitoring and evaluation
Quality assurance
A transparent net gain policy would enable local people and organisations to see whatenvironmental outcomes are required and hold developers, LPAs and land managers toaccount. To provide confidence that biodiversity net gain is achieved, we intend to
introduce monitoring of the quality of delivery on the ground and measures to help ensurethat outcomes are achieved. We intend to engage further with stakeholders in due course
but this could include quality assurance measures such as:
•
•

•

•

Supporting the use of biodiversity net gain best practice principles29 andstandards that industry and professional bodies are developing.
Exploring the potential, and benefits of, accreditation in delivering net gain policy.
In an earlier section (“Assessment of habitat type and condition”) we discuss theadvantages of a simplified and more standardised habitat assessment process.
There is currently no requirement for those who complete habitat surveys to be
professionally qualified, and we could explore, working with professional bodies
such as CIEEM and IEMA 30 who provide membership and chartered schemes for
ecologists, the future potential for accreditation. This could help to increase
confidence in the assessment process and avoid the risk of habitats being undervalued; it should not increase delay, survey or reporting costs for industry. An
accreditation scheme for those providing habitat enhancement and compensation
could also be considered, in view of the challenges outlined in the section“Provision of compensatory habitats”.
In the future, there could be the potential for meeting survey requirements forcertain habitats or types of developments through the use of area-wide surveying
and improved satellite or remote sensing habitat mapping; these methods would
need development and evaluation before they were widely implemented toensure that such approaches are robust and would not result in misidentification
or loss of distinctive habitats.
Establishing whether additional means for insurance or recourse are needed incase post-development habitat is cleared, degraded or ineffectively managed or if
the same habitat compensation is used to offset several developments.

This could also include monitoring the delivery of net gain by:•

Ensuring that data about habitat losses and gains could be easily collected andaccessed at local and national scales. Consistent use of the Defra metric would
ensure that data on anticipated biodiversity losses and gains is available in astandardised format, and we will consider how we could streamline collection ofdata from local authorities with a digital process and data standards for open
access by stakeholders.

29 https://www.cieem.net/biodiversity-net-gain-principles-and-guidance-for-uk-construction-and-developments

30 The Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management and the Institute of Environmental

Management and Assessment.

44

•

Assessing post-construction development and compensation sites, potentiallythrough random sampling, to ensure they are making progress to deliver theamount, type and condition of habitat expected.

43. Are there any issues or measures, other than those outlined, that we shouldtake into account when considering how to monitor biodiversity net gain?
44. Should local authorities be required to provide information about habitat
losses and gains?
45. What technological or other innovative mechanisms could facilitate thedelivery and monitoring of biodiversity net gain?

Evaluation
The success of a net gain policy should, in part, be measured by whether new
developments in our communities make more thoughtful use of habitats and embracesustainability in their design. If successful, we should see new and improved spaces fornature appearing in our landscapes, and more abundant and diverse wildlife using them.
Any net gain approach we propose will, however, not be perfect and we would need toreview the approach to ensure that it is delivering for the environment and fordevelopment. These reviews would be restricted in scope, but should be able to refine,
update and adapt the approach (including responses to scientific and technologicalchanges) and potentially alter tariff rates (to reflect changes in land prices which mightchange costs of habitat creation). Any such changes to the approach should be supported
by evidence of changes both in habitat distribution and behaviour in designing habitats aspart of development. Reviews should not be used to arbitrarily strengthen or weaken
requirements. We propose that such updates should be accompanied by engagement withkey environmental, LPA and industry stakeholders to help government to ensure that theright opportunities for improvement and streamlining are identified.
Any final net gain policy will be delivered as part of the wider delivery of the 25 Year
Environment Plan, and there is a clear opportunity to link the evaluation of achievement of
net gain at a national level with national metrics being developed by Defra for theEnvironment Plan. The use of a single biodiversity metric for biodiversity net gain should
allow for easy collection and sampling of data, and we will explore what level of datacollection at a national level would be adequate to provide insights into environmental
outcomes.

45

Key evidence gaps
Benefits and costs of mandatory biodiversity net gain
We would welcome further evidence that addresses the following identified evidence gaps.
Please submit evidence, or related enquiries, to netgainconsultation@defra.gsi.gov.uk.
Evidence gap

What we would like from you

Transition and ongoing delivery costs tocentral (e.g. Defra, Natural England) andlocal government (e.g. LPAs).

Evidence of how much a biodiversity net
gain approach costs to implement. We areaware of evidence from the biodiversity
offsetting pilots, but these costs included
development of the approach and spatial
strategies which are now better
understood.
Evidence of whether a biodiversity net gain
requirement would affect wider developer
contributions.
If so, how significant would this effect be?
Will a mandatory biodiversity net gain
requirement affect some types ofdevelopment disproportionately?
What types of habitat are typically lost
through development?
Is development typically achieving no net
loss of biodiversity, and is performance
improving?
Are there any further costs or benefits not
identified in this document or theaccompanying Impact Assessment?
Please provide evidence of these costs or
benefits.
To what extent do these development
types already achieve net gains, or no net
loss of biodiversity, and is performance
improving?
What is the typical habitat type andcondition on these sites and how does thisdiffer from other types of development (i.e.
residential)?
Is there typically a greater net negative
impact on habitats through development ofthese types, resulting in greater costs fornet gain?
Will biodiversity net gain negatively or
positively affect the quality of green spacefor recreation and enjoyment within new
developments?

Interactions with other contributions suchas Section 106 and Community
Infrastructure Levy.
Distributional impacts of net gain on
viability.
Recent trends in habitat loss and gain due
to development, likely habitat under threat
due to future development, and expected
habitat delivery though net gain.
Further detail on costs to small and large
developers and developments, including
familiarisation costs and impact of tariff.
The impact of biodiversity net gain deliveryfor• commercial development;• public sector development;• industrial development; and• local infrastructure development

Net gain interactions with on-site deliveryof housing and other green infrastructure(e.g. parks, recreation)46

Evidence gap

What we would like from you

Whether net gain approaches, whereadopted, help to speed up and/or unlock
development in previously borderline sites.

Can you provide examples of where net
gain has helped to expedite, or hasdelayed, planning processes?
Can you provide examples of where a net
gain approach has unlocked developmentthat would otherwise be unacceptable (e.g.
by mitigating or compensating forotherwise unacceptable impacts, or byachieving local support), or prevented
development that might otherwise haveproceeded?

47

Glossary
BBOP:
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme
Biodiversity unit:
A unit which represents a combined measure of habitat distinctiveness, area andcondition.
BRE Global:
Building Research Establishment Global
BREEAM:
Buildings Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
CIEEM:
Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management
CIRIA:
Construction Industry Research and Information Association
Ecosystem services:
The services provided by natural capital, such as pollination and biomass which lead tobenefits to society.
Environmental net gain:
In short, this means improving all aspects of environmental quality through a scheme or
project.
Achieving environmental net gain means achieving biodiversity net gain first, and goingfurther to achieve increases in the capacity of affected natural capital to deliver ecosystemservices and make a scheme’s wider impacts on natural capital positive.
IEMA:
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.
LPA:
A local planning authority is responsible for deciding whether a development, which could
be anything from an extension on a house to a new shopping centre, should go ahead.
This includes borough, district and county councils, unitary authorities, national park
authorities and development corporations where relevant.

48

Mitigation hierarchy:
The principle that environmental harm resulting from a development should be avoided(through locating development where there will be less harmful impacts), adequately
mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for.
Natural capital:
The elements of nature that directly or indirectly produce value to people, including
ecosystems, species, freshwater, land, minerals, the air and oceans, as well as naturalprocesses and functions
Nature Recovery Network:
An expanding and increasingly connected network of wildlife-rich habitat. It will be
designed to stimulate the recovery of wildlife and will support the delivery of othereconomic and social benefits, such as water quality improvement or flood attenuation.
Net gain for biodiversity:
Delivering more or better habitats for biodiversity and demonstrating this measurable gain
through use of the Defra biodiversity metric.
NPPF or National Planning Policy Framework:
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out government's planning policies forEngland and how these are expected to be applied.
Offsetting:
The creation or enhancement of wildlife habitat to compensate for loss or degradationelsewhere.
RSPB:
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

49

Annex A: List of consultation questions
1. Should biodiversity net gain be mandated for all housing, commercial and otherdevelopment within the scope of the Town and County Planning Act?
2. What other actions could government take to support the delivery of biodiversity net
gain?
3. Should there be any specific exemptions to any mandatory biodiversity net gain
requirement (planning policies on net gain would still apply) for the following typesof development? And why?
a. House extensions
b. Small sitesc. All brownfield sites
d. Some brownfield sites (e.g. those listed on brownfield, or other, land
registers)
4. Are there any other sites that should be granted exemptions, and why? For
example, commercial and industrial sites.
5. As an alternative to an exemption, should any sites instead be subject to asimplified biodiversity assessment process?
6. Do you agree that the Defra metric should allow for adjustments to reflect important
local features such as local sites? Should the Defra metric consider local
designations in a different way?
7. Should local authorities be required to adopt a robust district level licensing
approach for great crested newts, where relevant, by 2020?
8. For what species is it plausible to use district level or strategic approaches toimprove conservation outcomes and streamline planning processes? Pleaseprovide evidence.
9. Are there wider elements of environmental net gain that could be better
incentivised? If so, please specify which, and any benefits that such incentives
could provide.
10. Is the Defra biodiversity metric an appropriate practical tool for measuring changes
to biodiversity as a result of development?
11. What improvements, if any, could we most usefully make to the Defra metric?
12. Would a mandatory 10% increase in biodiversity units be the right level of gain to berequired?
13. In clearly defined circumstances, should developers be allowed to pay through thetariff mechanism without fully exhausting on-site and local compensation
opportunities?
14. Would this be an appropriate approach to directing the location of new habitat?
15. How could biodiversity assessments be made more robust without adding toburdens for developers or planning authorities?
16. Should a baseline map of broad habitats be developed?
17. Should this be applied, as a minimum baseline, to:a. net gain calculations for all development?
b. net gain calculations in cases of suspected intentional habitat degradation?

50

18. What other measures might reduce the risk of incentivising intentional habitat
degradation?
19. How can the risks of penalising landowners making legitimate land use change
decisions before deciding to sell their land for development be mitigated?
20. The provision of compensatory habitats will need to be guided by habitat
opportunity maps. At what scale should these maps be developed?
a. Locally (e.g. local authority or National Character Area)b. Nationally (i.e. England) as a national framework to be refined, updated andamended locally
21. What other measures should be considered to identify biodiversity and natural
capital priorities?
22. Would mandating net gain through the planning system be enough to stimulate thegrowth of a market for biodiversity units?
23. What further measures would help to ensure that the market provides:a. Sufficient biodiversity units for development?
b. Cost-effective biodiversity units?
24. Should there be a minimum duration for the maintenance of created or enhanced
habitats?
25. If so, what should the minimum duration be?
a. Less than 25 years
b. 25 to 30 years
c. Longer than 25-30 years
d. Permanent
26. Would conservation covenants be useful for securing long term benefits frombiodiversity net gain or reducing process and legal costs?
27. What safeguards might be needed in the implementation of conservation
covenants?
28. Does this proposed range for tariff costs fit with the principles set out in thissection?
29. Would this proposed range for tariff costs provide opportunities for cost-effective
habitat banks and compensation providers to compete?
30. Do you agree with the proposed principles for setting the tariff rate, as set out in thissection? Please suggest any other factors that should be taken in to account.
31. How should the tariff revenue be collected?
a. Locally (e.g. through a local authority)
b. Nationally (e.g. through Natural England or another national body)c. Other, please specify
32. How should the tariff revenue be spent?
a. Locally (e.g. through a local authority)
b. Nationally (e.g. through Natural England or another national body)c. Through a blended model, allowing spending at both levels
d. Other, please specify
33. If tariff revenue is collected and spent nationally, should spending prioritise areas
which have contributed the most through biodiversity net gain tariff payments?
34. What further measures will help to prevent burdens on local authorities increasing?
51

35. How could the proposals be refined to manage any negative impacts on the scaleand delivery of other developer contributions (e.g. through Section 106 or
Community Infrastructure Levy payments)?
36. Would you, as a planning authority stakeholder, prefer any net gain tariff revenue tobe paid through:a. local authority administration?
b. a nationally managed funding scheme (which could then reinvest in local
habitat schemes best aligned with national strategic environmental
priorities)?
37. How could the proposed net gain process be improved for developers?
38. What other steps, considerations or processes in environmental planning could be
integrated within a net gain approach?
39. Would any particular types of development (e.g. commercial, industrial, public
sector, local infrastructure) be disproportionately affected by a mandatory
biodiversity net gain requirement?
40. Do you agree that the proposal for staggered transitional arrangements would help
to ensure smooth implementation of biodiversity net gain policy?
41. Would the existing dispute resolution process provide the best way to overcome
any disagreement over whether net gain is achieved?
42. Would an additional arbitration or approval process be necessary? If so, please
specify why.
43. Are there any issues or measures, other than those outlined, that we should take
into account when considering how to monitor biodiversity net gain?
44. Should local authorities be required to provide information about habitat losses andgains?
45. What technological or other innovative mechanisms could facilitate the delivery andmonitoring of biodiversity net gain?

52