Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Well the Gove's given in to Theresa Villiers and her motley crew of anti-growth nimbys. Good luck ever becoming a part of a property-owning democracy kids.

Zack Simons nails it again

And adding to quotes - I know this is from the IEA who were the "brains" behind Truss and Kwarteng's mini-budget. But...:

How did we get here?

The problems of the British housing market have been known for quite some time. Already in 1988, when housing was still a relatively low-profile issue, the Institute of Economic Affairs published the book No Room! No Room! The Costs of the British Town and Country Planning System by Prof Alan Evans, who argued:

"[T]here are [...] significant economic costs associated with the planning system. It has significantly increased land and housing prices [...] and distorted the economic structure, all of which have led to the British standard of living being lower than it otherwise would be. [...]

The aggregate reduction is [...] probably of the order of 10 per cent or more of national income" (p. 50).

Fourteen years later, when the house price explosion was in full swing, the IEA published another book on the subject, Liberating the Land by Prof Mark Pennington. He argued:

"[T]he local amenity lobby [...] are keen to prevent any development from taking place 'in their backyard' and have been particularly successful in stopping new housing developments in high demand areas such as South-East England. Evidence from the local planning process suggests that over 60 per cent of the changes brought about by the process of public participation result in a reduction in the amount of development proposed [...]

The principal effect of such restrictions has been the inexorable rise in the price of housing land and hence house prices brought about by the increased scarcity of supply. While there is continuing academic debate as to the precise magnitude of the price rises that may be attributed to such nimbyist action, that prices have risen as a consequence is in little doubt" (pp. 62-63).

These were think tank publications, which most policymakers and opinion formers would not have been aware of. However, in 2003, the Blair government commissioned a landmark study into the British housing market, led by Bank of England economist Kate Barker.

The Barker opened with the following observation:

"The UK housing market is unusual, in that over the past 30 years there has been a long-term upward trend in real house prices of around 2½ per cent per annum [...] By contrast, [...] the increases in many other European countries, such as France and Germany, have been much lower" (pp. 16-17).

She found that housing supply in the UK had become completely unresponsive to price signals, and that if the UK wanted to limit future house price growth to the European average, annual housebuilding numbers would have to almost double (pp.: 58-60).

Barker warned that "in the absence of structural changes [...], national home ownership rates will reach only 71.7 per cent by 2016. Unless there is a structural change in supply, most higher demand will be squeezed out by higher house prices" (pp: 23-24).

The actual home ownership rate in 2016 was 62%, so if anything, the Barker Review was too cautious in its warnings, and too temperate in its choice of words.

On the causes of the housing shortage, Barker said:

"The relationship between supply and affordability is not always recognised in debate: the lack of market affordable housing is bemoaned, while, at the same time, new housing developments are fiercely opposed. [...] [T]his issue has the characteristics of an insider-outsider problem, where those inside the housing market have more power over any decisions than those outside and their decisions naturally reflect their own interests rather than those of the wider community" (pp: 14-15).

And elsewhere:

"[L]and supply is the key constraint to increasing housing supply [...]

In some areas not enough land is allocated for development and/or the rate of land release is not responsive to market conditions and rising house prices. Housebuilding is often politically contentious and [...] the incentives facing decision makers do not reflect those costs and benefits. Local costs of development can be high and those already housed have a much stronger voice than those in need of housing" (p. 25).

The Barker Review marked the end of any plausible deniability. It took away ignorance as an excuse. Since its publication, it is entirely fair to say that any policymaker or opinion former who wants to know the basic facts about Britain's housing crisis and its causes does know.

The political reception of the Barker Review set an unfortunate precedent, in that it was widely praised, but then not followed up on with any meaningful political action.

Since then, this has become a bit of a political tradition in Britain, observed by Labour governments, Tory governments and coalition governments alike.

Then lots of quotes from Nick Boles, Sajid Javid and Robert Jenrick clearly diagnosing the problem before failing to do anything about it.

[Sheilbh]

On planning - I 100% get that the longest road tunnel in the country will take extra planning and be more involved than most. But this just seems crazily excessive:

Lower Thames Crossing application's £267M cost highlights complexity of planning system
06 Dec, 2022   By Rob Hakimian   

The £266.7M spent by National Highways on the development consent order (DCO) application for its Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) scheme displays the increased complexity and scrutiny in the current planning system, according to a leading infrastructure planning lawyer.

National Highways submitted its second planning application for the scheme, which will feature 23km of new road and the country's longest road tunnel, at the start of November. It was the second attempt, after the road operator's first DCO application was withdrawn in November 2020 due to the Planning Inspectorate's demand for more information in relation to construction plans and environmental mitigations.

Data obtained by NCE via a Freedom of Information request now reveals how much National Highways spent of on developing and re-developing the application over the course of five and a half years:

Pinsent Masons partner and head of infrastructure planning and government affairs Robbie Owen said that figures of this size are becoming commonplace in the current climate.

Owen, who is working with National Highways on its DCO application for the A66 upgrade and has previously worked on the A303 Stonehenge application, said: "These projects are getting more complex in terms of the issues they give rise to and the contemporary issues that we're having to address, such as climate change, resilience, use of carbon, ensuring biodiversity net gain. All these sorts of things are really big issues and applicants like National Highways are having to deal with them even more upfront more than they have ever had to, because they know that otherwise there will be serious challenges on them."

Projects on the scale of LTC require more information, which takes longer to attain. When an application takes several years, the applicant may be dealing with a moving target. "The metrics are changing all the time," Owen said. "Natural England has a metric to measure the biodiversity net gain that a project needs to deliver, and I think in the space of a year we've had two or three different versions of that metric – we're now on metric 3.0. That requires the applicant to remodel to do these full assessments to make sure the application is entirely robust and thought through."

Owen added that there is also an issue with the National Networks National Policy Statement (NNNPS), which was published in 2015. Applicants use it to guide on public policy, but much of it is now out of date. "2015 was quite a long time ago, before net zero commitments, before the Environment Act and biodiversity net gain, therefore working out quite what the current policy is in certain areas based on an outdated National Policy Statement does itself lead to additional costs," Owen said. "An up to date National Policy Statement is critically important to the cost effectiveness of the process and getting through it as quickly as possible."

He added that a new version of the NNNPS is expected to go out to consultation early in the new year with the hope of enacting it by the end of 2023.

Despite National Highways having now submitted its application for the LTC DCO, the expenditure is not yet complete. It still has to pass the examination process, which Owen expects to be lengthy highly contested, especially by Thurrock Council, which has come out in opposition to the scheme. "You'd expect it to cost a few million to get through the examination process," he said. "It's only right that the plans are properly scrutinised, and I'm sure National Highways would be the first to say that."

The government is looking at ways that the planning process can be streamlined to mitigate these rising costs. One area is shortening the examination period to less than six months – although this would be for smaller projects. "I can't conceive of that ever happening for a project of the size and complexity of LTC," Owen said. "But certainly for smaller highway schemes for example, but also in other sectors, if they are well prepared applications there's no reason why they can't be examined in three or four months. I think there is a particular focus of government to try to do that."

Owen said that the government is also looking at improving the efficiency of the pre-application engagement process with stakeholders. "It may seem counterintuitive in a way but including the ability for statutory consultees to charge earlier on actually does reduce the costs, as you can get to an examination where the issues will have been more thrashed out," he said. "So the process would be aided by the ability for stakeholders, particularly statutory consultees like the environmental bodies, to charge for more pre-application advice than they can at the moment."

Despite the time, money and scrutiny that has gone into the DCO application for LTC, Owen said that it is certainly not guaranteed to get the go-ahead. "There's lots of strategic policy that does support it, but I think there will be a lot of attention particularly at the edges in terms of mitigation and compensation for the impacts on local communities. I think that's where a lot of the focus will be, rather than on the core need of LTC," Owen said. "It's just not possible right now to predict quite what might happen."

A National Highways spokesperson said: "The Lower Thames Crossing is 23km of new road including the longest road tunnel in the UK at 4.2km and new connections with the A2, A13 and M25, making it the largest road investment project since the M25. The Lower Thames Crossing DCO application is the largest ever submitted at more than 63,000 pages but it's also the biggest and most complex project ever submitted for a DCO. Unlike most DCO projects, that either impact a single location or upgrade an existing road or railway, the Lower Thames Crossing will create new connections and change traffic flows across a wide area. The project has also been designed to minimise impacts on many important environmental sites along the route including internationally designated wetlands, an AONB and multiple heritage assets.

"The DCO process puts local authorities and local communities at its centre and this has rightly resulted in a comprehensive programme of consultation and engagement. The design of the project has been shaped by tens of thousands of consultation responses resulting in key improvements such as changes at the A13 junction to reduce the impact of traffic on the local road network and refinements to essential utility diversions to reduce the land required and minimise the impact on Ancient Woodland.

"The time taken since withdrawing our first application in 2020 has allowed us to provide additional detail on topics such as construction, waste, ecology and landscape management, and carbon and energy. We also incorporated updated guidance that impacted our traffic and environmental modelling and responded to developing government policy for Net Zero. On 28 November the Planning Inspectorate confirmed it has accepted our application for detailed examination meaning they are satisfied that our consultation was conducted properly."

It feels like this should be a complex project with lots of consultation. But 5 years from the first application, over 60,000 pages and over £250 million seems out of control

[mongers]

On planning - I 100% get that the longest road tunnel in the country will take extra planning and be more involved than most. But this just seems crazily excessive:

It feels like this should be a complex project with lots of consultation. But 5 years from the first application, over 60,000 pages and over £250 million seems out of control

Just don't bother, we've more than enough roads in this country; we need to manage and limit the road traffic instead.

My proposal, outside of registered work driving and commutes, you're allowed an average of 3 yard/hours per day on the roads, so if you have a 20ft long huge SUV you can use that for nearly 30mins a day, but if you own a small car like a SMART you can still get stuck in local traffic, but for upto 2 hours per day.

[Tamas]

ensuring biodiversity net gain

  I mean, wanting guarantees that the construction project won't wreak havoc with the wildlife is one thing, but wanting them to INCREASE biodiversity by building stuff?

Wouldn't it be far easier for everyone involved if the government introduced a blanket ban on building anything? Tons of paperwork and headaches saved for largely the same end result.

[Josquius]

On planning - I 100% get that the longest road tunnel in the country will take extra planning and be more involved than most. But this just seems crazily excessive:

It feels like this should be a complex project with lots of consultation. But 5 years from the first application, over 60,000 pages and over £250 million seems out of control

Just don't bother, we've more than enough roads in this country; we need to manage and limit the road traffic instead.

My proposal, outside of registered work driving and commutes, you're allowed an average of 3 yard/hours per day on the roads, so if you have a 20ft long huge SUV you can use that for nearly 30mins a day, but if you own a small car like a SMART you can still get stuck in local traffic, but for upto 2 hours per day.

I'm tempted to agree but the use of the yards just makes it sound non serious :p

ensuring biodiversity net gain

  I mean, wanting guarantees that the construction project won't wreak havoc with the wildlife is one thing, but wanting them to INCREASE biodiversity by building stuff?

Wouldn't it be far easier for everyone involved if the government introduced a blanket ban on building anything? Tons of paperwork and headaches saved for largely the same end result.

It's not that hard to do really.

Buy up a farmers field. Build housing on half of it and dig a pond and plant a few trees on the other half - that's a big environmental gain.

[Tamas]

Are there no rules for maintaining things like ponds and trees/forests on your private land? Immediately not that easy.

[Sheilbh]

Apparently it becomes mandatory November 2023 that new developments deliver a 10% biodiversity net gain.

I imagine that's not much of a cost but it's more getting impact assessments and studies to assess the biodiversity cost and then what the net gain will be etc.

So taking a field building on half plus a pond isn't enough. You need to replace the biodiversity loss of the first half a field and then add something to the 10% net gain.

Edit: And they will be challenged over time we'll no doubt have case law on what should be considered etc.

[The Brain]

You can introduce foreign species onto the land for an easy biodiversity bonus.

[Gups]

[

On planning - I 100% get that the longest road tunnel in the country will take extra planning and be more involved than most. But this just seems crazily excessive:

Lower Thames Crossing application's £267M cost highlights complexity of planning system
06 Dec, 2022    By Rob Hakimian   

The £266.7M spent by National Highways on the development consent order (DCO) application for its Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) scheme displays the increased complexity and scrutiny in the current planning system, according to a leading infrastructure planning lawyer.

National Highways submitted its second planning application for the scheme, which will feature 23km of new road and the country's longest road tunnel, at the start of November. It was the second attempt, after the road operator's first DCO application was withdrawn in November 2020 due to the Planning Inspectorate's demand for more information in relation to construction plans and environmental mitigations.

Data obtained by NCE via a Freedom of Information request now reveals how much National Highways spent of on developing and re-developing the application over the course of five and a half years:

Pinsent Masons partner and head of infrastructure planning and government affairs Robbie Owen said that figures of this size are becoming commonplace in the current climate.

Owen, who is working with National Highways on its DCO application for the A66 upgrade and has previously worked on the A303 Stonehenge application, said: "These projects are getting more complex in terms of the issues they give rise to and the contemporary issues that we're having to address, such as climate change, resilience, use of carbon, ensuring biodiversity net gain. All these sorts of things are really big issues and applicants like National Highways are having to deal with them even more upfront more than they have ever had to, because they know that otherwise there will be serious challenges on them."

Projects on the scale of LTC require more information, which takes longer to attain. When an application takes several years, the applicant may be dealing with a moving target. "The metrics are changing all the time," Owen said. "Natural England has a metric to measure the biodiversity net gain that a project needs to deliver, and I think in the space of a year we've had two or three different versions of that metric – we're now on metric 3.0. That requires the applicant to remodel to do these full assessments to make sure the application is entirely robust and thought through."

Owen added that there is also an issue with the National Networks National Policy Statement (NNNPS), which was published in 2015. Applicants use it to guide on public policy, but much of it is now out of date. "2015 was quite a long time ago, before net zero commitments, before the Environment Act and biodiversity net gain, therefore working out quite what the current policy is in certain areas based on an outdated National Policy Statement does itself lead to additional costs," Owen said. "An up to date National Policy Statement is critically important to the cost effectiveness of the process and getting through it as quickly as possible."

He added that a new version of the NNNPS is expected to go out to consultation early in the new year with the hope of enacting it by the end of 2023.

Despite National Highways having now submitted its application for the LTC DCO, the expenditure is not yet complete. It still has to pass the examination process, which Owen expects to be lengthy highly contested, especially by Thurrock Council, which has come out in opposition to the scheme. "You'd expect it to cost a few million to get through the examination process," he said. "It's only right that the plans are properly scrutinised, and I'm sure National Highways would be the first to say that."

The government is looking at ways that the planning process can be streamlined to mitigate these rising costs. One area is shortening the examination period to less than six months – although this would be for smaller projects. "I can't conceive of that ever happening for a project of the size and complexity of LTC," Owen said. "But certainly for smaller highway schemes for example, but also in other sectors, if they are well prepared applications there's no reason why they can't be examined in three or four months. I think there is a particular focus of government to try to do that."

Owen said that the government is also looking at improving the efficiency of the pre-application engagement process with stakeholders. "It may seem counterintuitive in a way but including the ability for statutory consultees to charge earlier on actually does reduce the costs, as you can get to an examination where the issues will have been more thrashed out," he said. "So the process would be aided by the ability for stakeholders, particularly statutory consultees like the environmental bodies, to charge for more pre-application advice than they can at the moment."

Despite the time, money and scrutiny that has gone into the DCO application for LTC, Owen said that it is certainly not guaranteed to get the go-ahead. "There's lots of strategic policy that does support it, but I think there will be a lot of attention particularly at the edges in terms of mitigation and compensation for the impacts on local communities. I think that's where a lot of the focus will be, rather than on the core need of LTC," Owen said. "It's just not possible right now to predict quite what might happen."

A National Highways spokesperson said: "The Lower Thames Crossing is 23km of new road including the longest road tunnel in the UK at 4.2km and new connections with the A2, A13 and M25, making it the largest road investment project since the M25. The Lower Thames Crossing DCO application is the largest ever submitted at more than 63,000 pages but it's also the biggest and most complex project ever submitted for a DCO. Unlike most DCO projects, that either impact a single location or upgrade an existing road or railway, the Lower Thames Crossing will create new connections and change traffic flows across a wide area. The project has also been designed to minimise impacts on many important environmental sites along the route including internationally designated wetlands, an AONB and multiple heritage assets.

"The DCO process puts local authorities and local communities at its centre and this has rightly resulted in a comprehensive programme of consultation and engagement. The design of the project has been shaped by tens of thousands of consultation responses resulting in key improvements such as changes at the A13 junction to reduce the impact of traffic on the local road network and refinements to essential utility diversions to reduce the land required and minimise the impact on Ancient Woodland.

"The time taken since withdrawing our first application in 2020 has allowed us to provide additional detail on topics such as construction, waste, ecology and landscape management, and carbon and energy. We also incorporated updated guidance that impacted our traffic and environmental modelling and responded to developing government policy for Net Zero. On 28 November the Planning Inspectorate confirmed it has accepted our application for detailed examination meaning they are satisfied that our consultation was conducted properly."

It feels like this should be a complex project with lots of consultation. But 5 years from the first application, over 60,000 pages and over £250 million seems out of control

Ha! Robbie Owen has recruited me twice and I've had to have the difficult resignation conversation with him twice (he was very nice the second time). Didn't know he had got the LTC promotion, nice job.

He's absolutely right about this. National Policy Statements (not just the Highways one) desperately need updating. The quantum of documentation associated with DCOs is a real problem. It's understandable in terms of transparency but the amount means that the process is actually less transparent for the public or even professionals like me advising them. The amount of material effectively hides what is important.

[Gups]

On planning - I 100% get that the longest road tunnel in the country will take extra planning and be more involved than most. But this just seems crazily excessive:

It feels like this should be a complex project with lots of consultation. But 5 years from the first application, over 60,000 pages and over £250 million seems out of control

Just don't bother, we've more than enough roads in this country; we need to manage and limit the road traffic instead.

My proposal, outside of registered work driving and commutes, you're allowed an average of 3 yard/hours per day on the roads, so if you have a 20ft long huge SUV you can use that for nearly 30mins a day, but if you own a small car like a SMART you can still get stuck in local traffic, but for upto 2 hours per day.

The traffic problem in north Kent is largely due to lorries rather than cars.  The LTC would take away freight traffic  going between Dover, Folkestone and Essex, East Anglia, Humberside etc.  Currently they use the Dartford Tunnel/Bridge and M25 and the area is in gridlock a lot of the time.

[Sheilbh]

I was hoping this would be another of those moments when Gups would explain that actually I'm wildly wrong and over-hyping everything planning. Sadly not

Separately Matt Hancock is stepping down as an MP at the next election according to his statement "I look forward to exploring new ways to communicate with people of all ages and from all backgrounds", "for his part" he wants to do things differently and is excited by all of these opportunities.

It may surprise you, but this might not be a true reflection of why Hancock's stepping down:

Matt Hancock's constituency ruled he was 'not fit' to represent them before he resigned as an MP
Exclusive
A letter from the Tory MP's constituency chairman, sent before Mr Hancock announced he was quitting, said his local party had lost confidence in him over his appearance on I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!

Matt Hancock on I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here! (Photo: ITV)
By Kate Maltby, Jane Merrick
December 7, 2022 2:42 pm(Updated 4:50 pm)

Matt Hancock resigned as an MP after losing the confidence of his Conservative constituency association, who ruled he was "not fit" to represent them, i can reveal.

The ex-Health Secretary announced on Wednesday he would be stepping down from parliament at the next election, saying he intended to "engage with the public in new ways".

But his surprise statement followed a letter from his constituency chairman to the Tory chief whip Simon Hart – seen by i – that the local association officers believed the MP for West Suffolk is "not fit to represent this constituency".

The letter, from Terry Wood, president of West Suffolk Conservatives, was sent to Mr Hart on 1 December and is due to be published in the weekly local paper, the Newmarket Journal, today.

Mr Hancock released his statement ahead of the letter being published.

His association ruled no confidence in their MP on 30 November, three days after Mr Hancock came third in ITV's I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here! Mr Hancock lost the Tory whip after it emerged he was a contestant on the show.

The revelation will put pressure on Mr Hancock to stand down immediately.

Mr Wood wrote: "I have been instructed by the Officers Group of West Suffolk Conservatives Association to write to you and advise you of the following. At an Officers Group meeting held on the 30 November 2022 a vote was taken that ruled that the Officer Group have no confidence in Matt Hancock as our sitting MP, and we would request that the Whip is not restored to him.

"This vote was brought about following feedback from the constituents in West Suffolk, advising that by virtue of recent events, they consider Matt Hancock not fit to represent this constituency."

A political ally of Mr Hancock said: "This letter is irrelevant. It hasn't been sent on behalf of the association, and the chief whip told Matt he was going to get the whip back. Matt had already decided not to stand again when it came to light."

Mr Hancock will remain as an MP until the next election. Conservative MPs had until 5 December to declare they were not running again, and after his appearance on I'm A Celebrity he had insisted he intended to remain in politics. But Mr Hancock's camp insisted that he had already decided not to run before Mr Wood's letter emerged, and that there had not been a full confidence vote of the association, only the officer group.

Mr Hancock would have won a vote of confidence if it had gone to a full vote, his allies claimed.

No guessing who his "allies" are making those statements in that article

[Josquius]

Apparently it becomes mandatory November 2023 that new developments deliver a 10% biodiversity net gain.

I imagine that's not much of a cost but it's more getting impact assessments and studies to assess the biodiversity cost and then what the net gain will be etc.

So taking a field building on half plus a pond isn't enough. You need to replace the biodiversity loss of the first half a field and then add something to the 10% net gain.

Edit: And they will be challenged over time we'll no doubt have case law on what should be considered etc.

You may be under estimating just how poor in biodiversity a lot of farmland and regular patches of grass are.

It is absolutely within the bounds of reason to provide a net increase in biodiversity by removing a large but environmentally weak area and replacing it with a smaller but more optimised area.

I'd be curious to see how they actually measure this stuff.

[Tamas]

Josq don't tell me you are not seeing the bureaucratic nightmare that such a rule is bound to unleash.

[Sheilbh]

I'd be curious to see how they actually measure this stuff.

From an environmental consultancy:

Biodiversity Net Gain
Biodiversity Net Gain refers to a mandatory intervention which results in the net improvement to biodiversity for a defined area of land.

Biodiversity Net Gain has been used for many years by various local planning authorities, utility providers, housing developers and other organisations to demonstrate how developments achieve positive biodiversity outcomes.

However, it will soon become an integral part of planning consent due to legislation changes proposed in the new Environment Bill. These changes include a mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain of 10% for most new developments.

What is Biodiversity Net Gain?

Biodiversity Net Gain refers to an intervention which results in the net improvement to biodiversity for a defined area of land. An intervention is defined as a human-induced impact which results in a change to the type or condition of a habitat. Developing land or changing the way it is managed, are both examples of interventions.

What is a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment?

A Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment compares baseline conditions to post-development plans. Biodiversity Net Gain is achieved if the post-development plans provide a net improvement to the biodiversity of a site.

The following steps are used to calculate biodiversity net gain or loss
    A field survey is undertaken to collect pre-development habitat data.
    Post-development habitat data is defined using the landscaping plans.
    Pre-development habitat data and post-development habitat data is converted into 'biodiversity units' using a biodiversity metric. Additional biodiversity units may be added to post-development data using offsite compensation or biodiversity credits.
    The Biodiversity Net Gain or Loss is calculated using the difference between the pre-development and post development habitat data. It is often presented as a percentage.

What metrics are available for calculating Biodiversity Net Gain?

There are many metrics which have been developed for calculating Biodiversity Net Gain. The Defra Biodiversity Metric has been a common metric in the UK. However, it's recently been updated and replaced by the Natural England 'Natural England Metric 3.0 (or The Small Sites Metric, where applicable).' The update is intended to improve the metric through changes such as an extended range of habitat types and consideration of ecological connectivity. It also includes a spreadsheet-based calculator, which improves the ease with which Biodiversity Net Gain calculations are made.

Several organisations and local planning authorities have also devised their own biodiversity metrics. For this reason, it is important to consult with the local planning authority when deciding which metric is most appropriate for your development.

What are the requirements for Biodiversity Net Gain?

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) places a responsibility on local planning authorities to encourage net gains for biodiversity to be sought through planning policies and decisions. This allows the local planning authority to determine how Biodiversity Net Gain is assessed and enforced within their jurisdiction.

How significant are the changes proposed in the new Environment Bill?

All planning permission will be subject to a condition that the development may not begin unless the local planning authority approves a biodiversity plan. The planning authority can only approve the plan if they are confident of its accuracy and that any offsite biodiversity gain or credits are already allocated or purchased. Furthermore, the gain must be at least 10%.

Does my development require a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment?

If you have a development proposal that requires planning permission it is likely that Biodiversity Net Gain requirements within the new Environment Bill will have an impact on your project and expert advice will be essential to ensure an efficient process and outcome for your development.

Echoing that article, it's mad to me that this was introduced in consultation in 2019-20 and the law was passed in 2021 - with this mandatory requirement taking effect next year. And the Natural England biodiversity metric is already on 3.1 - add to that that other organistions and local authorities may have their own metrics/requirements

[The Brain]

Horrible legislation. Putting a number like "10%" on something like that? A make-work scheme for biodiversity consultants.