biodiversity metric Archives

The Environment Bill and planning for wildlife

The Bill seeks to modernise UK environmental legislation in order to both implement the 25 Year Environment Plan and promote sustainability nationally. The Bill had reached its second reading prior to dissolution of parliament.

The bill will fundamentally change approaches in planning for wildlife in the UK.
It introduces compulsory and measurable “biodiversity net gain” for wildlife.
We discuss the implications for local authorities and planning.

Positive gains for wildlife?

The Environment Bill will make mandatory public authorities’ duty to positively enhance, as well as simply conserve biodiversity.

Most significantly and for the first time, the bill legislates for compulsory and measurable “biodiversity net gain” for wildlife.

All local authorities will need to strategically assess how they are planning for wildlife as well as to produce a five-yearly report on the outcomes of their actions.

However this 244 page Bill is not the simplest of draftings. The act will enact multiple amendments to other acts (many of which are already amended) so it makes for challenging cross-referencing.

By illustration, an insertion into S90 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 adds “Schedule 7A Biodiversity Gain in England” Part 1 Condition Of Planning Permission Relating To Biodiversity Gain”, making submission of a “biodiversity gain plan” compulsory for all(?) applications.

Measuring biodiversity gains

The intention is to make biodiversity net gain measurable by hard wiring DEFRA’s “Biodiversity Metric 2.0” into the Bill.

Unfortunately the Biodiversity Metric is presently still under consultation until February [LINK] and in a “beta” version i.e. not fully tested. Its’ heavy dependency on habitat and habitat condition as a surrogate measure of biodiversity is also not without controversy.

If the method of measurement of biodiversity net gain is not fully transparent and scientifically defensible, its’ use could significantly undermine the public’s ability to understand and interact in the planning process as well as the freedom of local authorities to interpret local priorities.

This would be unwelcome at a point where trust in planning authorities and developers is at a low ebb and the need for greater decentralisation seems key.

Implications for local authorities and clients ?

The bill’s approach contrasts markedly with the 1994 NERC Act with its’ S41 identification of habitats and species of principal importance, and where the “duty to have regard” gave greater flexibility for Local Authorities on priorities within the local plan and plan policies.

The Local Government Association has broadly welcomed the principles on biodiversity net gain through the planning process [LINK]., However they also held concerns about the “implementation of these proposals and the new burdens for councils”. They make the point that to be successful, already pressed planning departments will need support with the right skills and resources .

The government has committed to fully fund “all new burdens on local authorities arising from the Bill in order to make our ambition a reality”.

Whilst the bill will not be implemented for some time, clients may wish to discuss with us how they plan in advance for its’ biodiversity net gain requirements.

Hopefully resolution of the issues will become clearer during its passage through both houses.

We will be writing more about this issue shortly and will keep you updated

The Environment Bill and planning for wildlife

Positive gains for wildlife?

Measuring biodiversity gains

Implications for local authorities and clients ?

Further reading