Credit - Lianne de Mello
Development should help nature to recover - add your voice today!
The UK Government wants to speed up development and has suggested changing some of the rules for developers.
New plans have been released to “improve the implementation of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) for minor, medium and brownfield development”.
One idea considers removing the current requirement for development on small sites to give back to nature and make up for unavoidable loss – a process called biodiversity net gain (BNG).
BNG is about making sure developers avoid harm to important wildlife habitats, make up for unavoidable losses and go further and restore nature. Done well, it protects wildlife and supports nature recovery. The vast majority of all development is on these small sites.
We are completely against removing this requirement. We don't want it to be easier for developers to build over nature and forget about it.
A new consutation has been launched by Defra. The industry is already responding. We need you to add your views too - using our form you can send a response straight to the consultation team.
This change is not a minor technical adjustment. At the moment BNG is a requirement for most developments with few exemptions. This is a major shift in the regulations that would significantly undermine protections for nature. It comes at a time when protecting wildlife and the environment is more urgent than ever, and BNG is just beginning to demonstrate it can help nature recover.
The consultation is seeking views on changes to the existing exemptions as well as the introduction of new exemptions, with mostly Yes or No answers. We have already set out the key questions and responses for you. Adding your views in the box (relating to Question 12) will help you to give a more personal response - which we know Defra wants to see.
Why should you be worried??
A huge proportion of development proposals are on small sites. These changes could reduce the chances for development to support nature’s recovery which is supposed to be the foundation of the Biodiversity Net Gain process.
What do we mean by small sites? These sites, or minor developments, can include low-density housing on the edge of towns and villages, high density housing within urban areas and smaller scale office blocks or industrial units. This mostly relates to areas that are about the size of a football pitch. These sites can include under-used spaces that have been taken over by wildlife, or those that provide vital access to nature or space to play. It is the sort of development which fills in gaps; gaps which offer local people and nature some respite from the hustle and bustle of urban life.
These changes undermine the very foundations of the BNG process: protecting wildlife and supporting nature’s recovery.
What's The Wildlife Trusts' stance on the proposed changes?
- No to an increase in the number of housing and infrastructure developments being exempt from BNG, which some of the proposals will facilitate.
- Yes, to see improvements made to some of the exemptions which will rectify existing loopholes that are being used to avoid the BNG requirement.
- Yes, to support the introduction of a new exemption for development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity.
- Nature is not a barrier to economic growth - it is its foundation and essential to long-term prosperity.
- Weakening BNG sends the wrong signal to investors about the value of nature, undermines business/developer confidence, and increases policy risk.
- Yes, to a level playing field. Clear and consistent rules that embed nature protection across all sectors, is essential for sustainable growth.
Is it all bad?
This consultation isn't all bad news. There is an exemption for wildlife projects - like the creation of ponds and wetlands - which already naturally provide benefits to wildlife, from BNG. This will make nature recovery projects less complex. However, we cannot ignore the clear problems with the plans.
Why are The Wildlife Trusts objecting to the small sites exemption?
Size does not always show how important an area is for wildlife. Even small building projects can cause big problems for nearby natural areas or break up the connections between different wildlife habitats.
Small losses add up over time. When many small areas are damaged or destroyed, together they create an even bigger problem than each one alone.
The main message is that even small developments can have big environmental impacts, and that exempting more projects from biodiversity requirements could cause serious harm to both wildlife and people as well as the emerging BNG market (and therefore would not support growth).