‘Last resort’ biodiversity credits could be used a lot more than intended, experts say

Credits have been set up as a “last resort”, he added, and have been designed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Natural England to be “reassuringly expensive”. The cost of the cheapest credit is £84,000, running up to £1.3m to offset the rarest habitats.

However Mark Turner, planning, environmental, energy and regulatory partner at Aaron & Partners, told Inside Housing that credits “will probably be used much more than the intention is".

“Developers will at least try to use those more than has been intended,” he said. “They may be seen as a simpler, perhaps swifter, option.”

It will depend on which local authority developers are dealing with, he said. “Some may not be happy with that and they may insist on more on-site or local offsite delivery… It will be very site-specific.”

Angus Walker, infrastructure partner at BDB Pitmans, explained that the government is trying to make it “not so easy just to go straight to credits”. Under the changes, developers must submit evidence showing they tried to find offsite land locally first.

However, he said, credits “certainly will be the quickest solution, the easiest as well, and developers who are always in a hurry might opt for it”.

For sites of more than nine houses, a professional ecologist must be employed to score the development. Consequently, Mr Walker said, there is going to be “a huge shortage” of ecologists and “all their salaries are going to go up".

Some local authorities “will struggle or are struggling to recruit or retain ecologists”, said Mr Turner. They will have to employ private consultants instead. “Ecologists will have work coming out of their ears,” he added.

Experts have also raised concerns that already stretched local planning departments might struggle to implement the laws, leading to more delays.

“There will be a lot of onus on developers and the private sector presenting the right information to the local planning authority,” said Mr Weston. “They are just not going to have the time.”

The government has provided “some funding” for this “extra burden being put on them”, said Mr Walker, but “inevitably it is not enough”. He warned that the policy could also be used as “a new way to attack planning applications” by people who want to block development.

Developers are worried more about delay than the cost of the policy, said Mr Turner. “It takes long enough now to get a response from a council ecologist. With this new requirement, it’s only going to make things worse.”

Some local planning authorities already have 10% BNG requirements in their local plans, such as Guildford, Brighton and Hove, and Worthing.

Others are actively considering a higher level, with Kingston upon Thames and Tower Hamlets set to require a minimum of 30% BNG, although these have not yet been adopted.

While the law is “a huge opportunity for landowners”, Mr Walker added that the law also provides some opportunities for developers. For example, they could convert challenging development sites into BNG sites either for their own use or to sell on the market. Additionally, any BNG created on a site beyond 10% can be sold on the market for someone else to use.

The policy has been delayed twice in recent months. It was originally supposed to come into effect in November 2023 but was later pushed back to January and again this month to February.