Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning the introduction of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda item 8’, is filed with these minutes.

The Chief Executive explained that the new requirement to achieve 10% BNG applied to all planning applications, unless they were exempt. The implementation of the new requirements had highlighted gaps in the statutory guidance, some of which were intentional to allow local interpretation, and some which were identified as planning applications were received and these were being addressed as the application was considered.

Members were informed that anecdotal information suggested that developers were seeking legal advice for the assessment of the potential development site for BNG prior to submission to the Council for consideration. This resulted in a slowing of the planning process and enabled developers to identify the BNG benefits of the site, or whether it was more suited to be used as a BNG offset site.

The Lead Member for the Environment and the Green Agenda commended officers for the work undertaken in putting in place the infrastructure for delivery of BNG.

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

      i.         The statutory guidance provided a framework for monitoring visits which were required over a 30-year period and included eight in total; one in each of years one and two, and then in five-year increments. Officers were developing a Section 106 BNG Policy and Charging Schedule in order that the long-term monitoring requirement could be funded and carried out. This would mirror the process in place for Section 106.

     ii.         The requirements were a new responsibility for the Planning Departments and were likely to include an enforcement role should the BNG requirements not be met by developers. This role would be the responsibility of district councils and not the County Council; further Government guidance was awaited. 

    iii.         The County Council had in place a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the district councils to supply ecology advice for the Local Planning Authority, and this service was paid for by the district councils. This arrangement had been in place for some time and had been amended with the introduction of the new BNG guidance to enable the County Council to make recommendations to the district council’s enforcement team should the BNG monitoring not meet the requirements of the statutory guidance. Members were informed that, if the district councils did not use the County Council for this support, they would need to seek and pay for the support from elsewhere in order to discharge the requirements for ecology advice within BNG. Charnwood District Council and Leicester City had their own in-house staff so were not involved in the MoU.

   iv.         Members expressed concern about the monitoring requirements and the additional responsibilities on the county and district councils to meet the new legislation. Officers explained that the legislation clearly set out that conducting the monitoring was the responsibility of the planning applicant i.e. the developer, who was required to sign up to a 30-year monitoring plan, and their report at the required intervals would be monitored by the County Council. Further guidance was awaited on roles and responsibilities when this was not carried out effectively or the developer was no longer in operation. 

     v.         Members expressed concern about various species, such as swifts, hedgehogs and badgers, that were not included in the new legislation and were assured that the original legislation for the protection of endangered species was still in place and had not changed. Although swifts, hedgehogs and badgers were not included in the endangered species list, members were assured that these issues were addressed through the planning system. 

RESOLVED:

That the summary provided on the introduction of Biodiversity Net Gain be noted.