BNG isn’t just a nice thing to have or a legal box-ticking exercise. Approaching the responsibility seriously and creatively can bolster local support, win planning and lift public trust in construction.
For many developers, biodiversity net gain (BNG) still feels like yet another regulation which impacts on viability. Introduced by the Environment Act 2021 and mandatory for most major developments since early 2024, BNG requires a minimum 10% gain in biodiversity compared with the pre-development baseline. Achieving this uplift often demands long-term habitat creation and enhancement, measured using Defra’s biodiversity metric and secured for at least 30 years.
While it is understandable that some view BNG as yet another box to be ticked, that perception undersells its potential. BNG can do more than satisfy regulation and benefit the natural world: it can strengthen community engagement, win planning support and build public trust in new development.
Turning compliance into collaboration
At Lanpro we have seen first-hand how BNG can change the tone of early engagement. Our ecologists, arboriculturalists and landscape architects work together from the outset, mapping the existing natural assets of a site and asking assessing their value, and potential contribution to good design, and how they can be enhanced, rather than erased.
This green infrastructure-led approach – starting with understanding vegetation, watercourses, topography and public opportunity instead of viewing the site as a blank sheet of paper – creates a very different conversation with stakeholders. Neither should we protect all habitats where poor quality habitats may minimise development opportunity. Sound assessment focuses development in appropriate areas of a site and maximises BNG opportunity in those areas less developable or with greater biodiversity potential.
Local planning authorities have welcomed masterplans that show a measurable biodiversity uplift and embed protection and mitigation from the start of the planning process. In the context of improving biodiversity, pre-application meetings can take on a more positive tone: where can habitats be improved, how will they be managed long term, and how can these spaces connect with wider ecological networks? When planners see that a scheme could leave nature in a better state, and is well considered it often smooths the path to consent and reduces the risk of appeals.
Building social licence with communities
Public consultation is invariably fraught, especially when greenfield or edge-of-settlement land is proposed for housing. Too often, early engagement focuses on traffic, density and affordable housing quotas, while environmental issues take a back seat. BNG gives development teams a more positive narrative.
Instead of promising to “offset” harm elsewhere, developers can show how existing woodlands will be restored, degraded grassland turned into species-rich meadow or ponds enhanced.. These are tangible improvements that people can understand and value. When presented through iterative design – inviting local feedback on habitat plans, explaining how BNG units are calculated, and showing that arable land is often ecologically poor – scepticism can shift to curiosity or even pride. Coupled with opportunities for new public access to nature facilitated by development this can send a positive message that engagement adds value to new development.
The numbers are increasingly compelling. A recent report from Biodiversity Units UK found that more than £320m has already flowed into habitat creation, with over 21,000 acres under active ecological restoration and a projected £3bn market for BNG units by 2035. This scale of investment creates visible change in the landscape and offers communities reassurance that biodiversity promises are not tokenistic.
A commercial and environmental win
Developers often fear that BNG means losing developable land. That need not be the case. Significant uplift can be achieved by improving existing habitats rather than setting aside new space: bringing neglected woodlands into management, enhancing poor-quality grassland, or re-establishing hedgerows that define field patterns.
Early, evidence-led design can avoid costly re-work. Removing a mature copse and replacing its biodiversity value would require extensive new planting at significant cost; retaining it may deliver the required uplift for free with increased quantum of trees on site creating the required 10% uplift. Likewise, understanding tree root protection zones from the outset helps set realistic development boundaries, avoiding later redesigns and unexpected construction expenses.
These choices can also add value. Homes overlooking well-designed natural spaces typically achieve a price premium and support health and wellbeing. Moreover, a robust BNG strategy can reduce appeal risk by demonstrating minimal harm to sensitive landscapes – an advantage when planning policy is under pressure to unlock growth while protecting the environment.
Making multi-disciplinary working the norm
BNG works best when landscape architecture, ecology, arboriculture and planning collaborate from day one. At Lanpro, our GIS-based Constraints Viewer allows teams to analyse a site’s environmental parameters early and shape an environmental masterplan that integrates green and blue infrastructure with the client’s commercial brief.
By reading the landscape like a book – understanding each chapter before writing the next – we can help secure consents faster and, in some cases, unlock additional capacity: one recent scheme gained extra homes on a 1,200-unit site simply because the landscape-led approach was adopted early.
This joined-up method also resonates with statutory consultees. Agencies responsible for protected species, water quality and flood risk can engage with a coherent plan rather than piecemeal mitigation. BNG becomes a framework for collaboration rather than negotiation.
Avoiding the late-stage trap
The biggest risk is leaving BNG to the end. Trying to retrofit habitat gains after a masterplan is fixed can be costly and tokenistic. It also undermines trust with local authorities and communities, who can sense when biodiversity is an afterthought. This approach also inevitably creates a requirement for offsite BNG units.
Embedding BNG from the first feasibility studies – when red lines are drawn, drainage routes set and density assumptions made – is far more effective. It saves money, reduces planning risk and creates a stronger story for consultation.
A policy worth protecting
BNG has its challenges. The market for biodiversity units is still maturing, and there is debate over exemptions for small sites. Rolling back requirements could destabilise habitat banks and private investment, risking both environmental and financial benefits. But done well, BNG is a rare example of policy that aligns ecology with viable development.
To take advantage of this change developers and planners must treat BNG not as a regulatory cost but as a design tool and a communications asset. Used creatively, it helps win over planners, satisfy consultees and give communities confidence that growth can enhance, not erode, the natural environment.
Mark Topping is Director of Design at the environment-led multidisciplinary planning consultancy Lanpro.
Image: Emily Wassmansdorf / Unsplash
More Case Studies, Features and Industry Insight:
Cutting super pollutants is COP30’s emergency climate change brake
Carbon dominates climate debate, water scarcity may be a greater threat
UK public reveals price of getting them to embrace renewable heating