32 SOLUTIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN & NUTRIENT NEUTRALITY IN NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS How diffi cult are you cu rrently fi nding it to achieve 10% BNG?


INTRODUCTION


n order to quantify the biodiversity impact of developments, the overnment introduced tools to determine a proy biodiversity value which has been developed by atural England. There are separate tools depending on the sie of the development – the statutory biodiversity metric, or the simplifi ed mall ites etric , which applies to developments of nine homes or less. sing these calculators – which consider factors such as the habitat quality and area – developers can calculate the biodiversity value of a site and thus the biodiversity units required, without the need to engage with eternal environmental consultants. ollowing this, developers must then produce a biodiversity gain plan, which outlines how they intend to deliver their required biodiversity net gain, allowing the local planning authority to assess whether measures meet the B obective. The scheme has been described as world-leading and was referenced at the ovember  nited ations Biodiversity onference .


THE BNG HIERARCHY


efra and atural England have specifi ed that housebuilders and developers should consider onsite biodiversity measures as the priority, among a hierarchy of measures. This can encompass a range of measures, including setting emission reduction targets, creating newenhancing eisting habitats, minimising the discharge of pollutants, nature conservation, and compensating for the loss of one type of biodiversity by providing another.


nder the B hierarchy that developers must obey, the other options are specialist offsite B solutions, and fi nally – should neither of the fi rst two options be viable – purchasing so-called biodiversity credits to enable a scheme to comply. espite the fact that the purchasing of credits is designed to be used only as a last resort, only  of respondents to our research are currently not purchasing credits at all, and delivering their B requirements eclusively through either onsite or offsite solutions.


here developers are unable to meet their  B requirement onsite, offsite solutions can either be applying the same measures as above but on land outside of the development site, or by purchasing offsite biodiversity units on the private market. These solutions can also include measures such as sourcing materials such as timber from sustainable companies. ffsite measures are arguably more suitable for sites in urban areas where green space is lacking and onsite solutions are


WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK


therefore not so viable. ailing both of these, the third and fi nal measure is to buy statutory biodiversity credits from the government, the revenue from which will be used by the government to invest in habitat creation. The price of these credits is based on the cost of creating, maintaining and monitoring different habitat types, with a mark-up to prevent statutory credit prices undercutting the off-site market, as efra eplains it. hile credits may seem perhaps the easiest option in terms of time and administration, they are intentionally priced at a higher rate than the market price for the equivalent biodiversity unit.


evelopers are permitted to combine the three measures to meet their  required B, but must apply them in order according to the hierarchy. To help meet their target, advised housebuilders plan early for including B, and collaborate with stakeholders who can help achieve it, such as ecologists, wildlife groups, landowners, environmentalists and local governments. ollaboration is key to bridging knowledge gaps and helping housebuilders not only in the short term, but also in making longer term plans for ongoing B on sites.


NUTRIENT NEUTRALITY


t applies to areas where nearby surface water has been impacted by high levels of contaminants – mostly phosphate and nitrate, which are present in treated wastewater and harmful when above a certain threshold. n the affected areas, developers must demonstrate how the anticipated amount of nutrients will be either removed or offset in order to achieve nutrient neutrality. This can be achieved by creating buffer ones along watercourses, or by creating new wetlands where the nutrients are stripped from the water.


imilarly to  B, the introduction of nutrient neutrality has not been without its critics, with some – including the ome Builders ederation B claiming the scheme has blocked more than , homes from being built in areas covered by it. The onservative government attempted to scrap the scheme altogether, but this was blocked by a abour-led rebellion. abour has since proposed planning changes that will take a broader look at the area in which a development is proposed and take a more pragmatic approach. t will also allow proects to begin without a concrete plan in place regarding nutrient neutrality, instead allowing for it to be agreed upon during development, and has promised m to seven of the worst nutrient polluted areas of England to help alleviate the problem.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68