An overview of local authority interactions with the off-site BNG marketplace, including key insights on potential supply and demand for biodiversity units, regulating off-site proposals for the purpose of selling and supplying biodiversity units and working with Natural England’s Gain Site Register.
Overview
Local planning authorities across the country have undertaken substantial work to understand the level of supply of off-site biodiversity units that may be required from development in their area, identify future demand, and analyse existing land use to enable development alongside meeting BNG requirements. The off-site marketplace continues to be a prominent area of interest, and the PAS team has dedicated time to developing a ‘Market in Practice’ series, sharing insights from the viewpoint of local planning authorities collaborating with external stakeholders.
Alongside this, the PAS team has brought together six case studies from councils across England, highlighting how authorities are responding to the evolving off-site biodiversity market. These examples illustrate the mechanisms councils are putting in place to support internal processes, manage risk, and regulate third-party providers seeking to supply and sell off-site biodiversity units within their areas.
Councils are also proactively sharing learning and insights from their work regulating the marketplace. Somerset Council, for example, provides a useful webpage listing local habitat banks that have been secured through S106 agreements or conservation covenants. The Oxfordshire Local Nature Partnership also offers extensive guidance and information on local gain sites, including their voluntary NatureMark initiative, which has been designed to ensure quality, integrity and transparency for both buyers of biodiversity units and local communities.
Through its pioneering Habitat Bank Regulation service, Buckinghamshire Council is helping deliver high-quality BNG. They have sites on Natural England’s national register: one is at Lopemede Farm. This is a compelling example of how local authorities and landowners can work together to deliver development that improves nature for the future.
Future Homes Hub created a Biodiversity Offset checklist in June 2024. The checklist can be used by developers to give them confidence that their chosen offset provider has, or will be developing, a credible biodiversity offset if it has not yet been legally secured or registered. They also have a unit finder tool to connect stakeholders looking for off-site biodiversity units.
Natural England's Gain Site Register
Government guidance is available to support land managers looking to sell off-site biodiversity units to developers, as well as on registering and recording gain sites and allocations on Natural England’s gain site register. The register allows users to view registered sites and check how off-site biodiversity units have been allocated to planning applications.
Natural England’s role as administrator of the gain site register does not involve checking statutory biodiversity metrics associated with gain sites or planning applications. Their responsibility focuses on scrutinising the legal agreements, site ownership and management of the proposal.
If you require and accessible version of this document please contact [email protected]
The following content addresses the questions raised during the July 2025 session with Natural England’s Gain Site Register Team.
There are currently no firm plans to make the register searchable or mapped. While the current version meets legal requirements for demonstrating BNG compliance, its wider usability is limited. Improvements are funding-dependent and would require user engagement. There may be potential to enhance usability through future updates to the metric tool.
This is a known issue. Some banks don’t appear in county-level searches, and others outside the county do. Improvements are on the wish list, but any updates would be part of a broader register review process and are dependent on funding.
No, Natural England does not have the responsibility or resources to perform these checks. Landowners are expected to comply with additionality rules, and they must confirm this when submitting applications. If fraudulent activity is discovered, enforcement powers may be used, but pre-registration checks are not conducted.
This is a known limitation, so you can record pre-mandatory unit sales on the register and this is encouraged. But in practical terms we are limited to using the statutory metric, which is what a lot of people have done. In technical terms that’s what the system built for, it was built for mandatory BNG. It has been difficult ensuring consistency with the current metric and earlier versions of the metric. However, the team is working on producing advice for gain site owners around on what they can do on a voluntary basis on their gain sites outside of mandatory BNG. This advice should support managing the integrity of gain sites and offer confidence around double-counting.
The primary focus is on land ownership details, but all submitted information is subject to review. So far, no fraudulent cases have been encountered, only honest mistakes. Other areas that could raise concerns include evidence entered into the metric, such as habitat type or condition.
Yes. The LPA or responsible body can request changes or removal if the site no longer reflects onthe-ground conditions. Natural England has the power to amend or remove entries based on concrete evidence provided by the enforcing body.
Technically, the smallest unit the metric can handle is 0.0001 hectares (1 square metre), so there is no practical minimum size. There is also no maximum size, and multiple parcels of land can be combined to form a gain site.
Yes, but it's based on Regulation 6 of the relevant legislation. As long as a site meets the legal definition and the conditions in the legal agreement, it qualifies. Natural England remains value-neutral beyond these legal checks.
Yes, as long as the legal agreement meets the required criteria, such a setup can be registered. The specifics of how the gain is delivered would be a matter for the responsible body overseeing the site.
There are no formal proposals known to Natural England at this time. However, anecdotal evidence suggests some LPAs are exploring options like entering into conservation covenants or using special purpose vehicles. Natural England is open to conversations with LPAs considering such approaches.
Yes, if units are sold to non-mandatory schemes, such as voluntary markets, site owners should voluntarily remove those areas from the register. This ensures the register accurately reflects land available for mandatory BNG. Natural England is developing detailed guidance to help site owners manage this responsibly. NSIPs will be subject to mandatory BNG from May 2026.
Yes. Legal agreements are thoroughly reviewed against Regulations 6 and 7, with a focus on key elements such as duration, obligations, timelines, maintenance, and monitoring. If any required elements are unclear or missing, Natural England may request a deed of variation.
No. Financial or credit checks are not within Natural England’s remit for gain site registrations.
No specific complaints have been received. Natural England aims to process straightforward site registrations within 2–3 weeks, and allocations can be completed in a few days. Applicants are encouraged to engage early to avoid delays.
If a gain site has live allocations, it cannot be removed until those allocations are addressed. The responsible body and LPA must confirm that the gains were not delivered. Natural England acknowledges this as a long-term risk and may review processes in the future.
Yes, but Natural England does not directly check for compliance. Applicants must declare that they are not impacting such areas. Responsibility for ensuring compliance lies with the enforcing body of the legal agreement.
No. Each gain site requires a separate application and fee. However, if multiple parcels of land are included under a single legal agreement, they can be registered as one gain site with one fee.
No, previously registered sites will not be affected. The strategic significance multiplier in the metric may change the unit value of land, but the register is based on area or length of habitat, not unit totals.
At time of registration, the Gain Site Register records the size, type and condition of the baseline and enhanced habitats. Biodiversity Unit value of habitat is calculated at the time of allocation in relation to the development receiving the units. Therefore, risk multipliers are only considered when the land is allocated.
If a site is expressly prevented from being on the Gain Site Register by its legal agreement, BNG services would not be able to add this site to the Register. If a site is not recorded on the Register, it cannot sell Biodiversity Units into the off-site unit market.
The end date of all obligations on a gain site may not be known at the time of creation. In this case, this field should be left blank during the registration process. This can be amended during the lifetime of the gain site.
Gain Sites can have phased delivery of works and be registered under a single legal agreement. The agreement must be clear that it covers the total length of creation and habitat maintenance for all delivery phases. e.g. if the final phase is completed 5 years after the first, the agreement must cover at least 5+30 years.
Habitat available (area or length) for allocation is defined by the metric for baseline and enhanced habitat submitted at time of site Registration. If these change for any reason, the gain site manager must update the size, type and condition of the available habitat on the site’s register record.
As per Defra guidance (Make on-site biodiversity gains as a developer - GOV.UK) If you intend to use excess on-site enhancements from a development for another development, they should be treated as off-site gains for the development that they are counted towards. All the other development’s requirements for making off-site gains must be met, including:
- Securing with a legal agreement,
- Registration in the biodiversity gain sites register, and
- Allocation to the other development.
Significant on-site gains must be subject to a planning condition, planning obligation or conservation covenant. When selling excess on-site gains, one planning obligation or conservation covenant may fulfil the need to secure significant on-site gains and the other development’s need for off-site gains to be legally secured.
The habitat enhancement must be secured for maintenance for at least 30 years from the completion of the works. E.g. if the work takes 1 year, the total length of the agreement must be at least 31 years.
Yes.
To be recorded on the Gain Site Register, an individual tree would have to meet conditions for eligibility set in legislation. Sites must:
- Be in England,
- Be secured with a section 106 or Conservation Covenant which creates an obligation to:
- Undertake works for habitat enhancement, and
- Maintain the enhancement for at least 30 years after completion,
- Make enhanced habitat is available for off-site BNG, and
- Be recorded as a Local Land Charge.
Responsibility for managing outcomes from habitat banks sits with the enforcing body of the legal agreement: the LPA or Responsible Body.
Yes. Gain Sites can have phased delivery of works and be registered under a single legal agreement. The agreement must be clear that it covers the total length of creation and habitat maintenance for all delivery phases. e.g. if the final phase is completed 5 years after the first, the agreement must cover at least 5+30 years.
Local authorities adapting to the off-site market
This document showcases the different approaches taken by three Local Authorities across England to bring their own land into the off-site biodiversity unit market, allowing them to secure environmental benefits by implementing off-site BNG on land under council ownership.
These are shared to provide example approaches for other local authorities looking to bring their land forward to market and exploring ways to generate and supply off-site biodiversity units. It is particularly relevant for asset managers evaluating council-owned vacant land or green space for its potential for off-site BNG.
We looked at approaches to investment in local nature via nature-related projects or improvements to environmental management by Plymouth City Council, Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Coventry City Council.
If you require and accessible version of this document please contact [email protected]
Each case study illustrates how the approach: complements local policy; addresses off-site market demand; considers and manages risks associated with establishing a gain site; establishes management actions over the project lifetime; and integrates the processes of operating in the off-site market within local authority operations.
Key actions taken in each case include:
- Setting up an arm’s length special purpose vehicle to generate and trade biodiversity units.
- Using an impact fund to facilitate the management of supply areas for biodiversity units and carbon credits.
- Working collaboratively with partner organisations to identify local potential for natural capital.
The key benefits of these actions include:
- Collectively generating additional revenue for local reinvestment.
- Creating positive socio-economic and environmental impact for local communities in areas of deprivation.
- Triggering innovative monitoring solutions for the long-term.
- Allowing for precautionary risk management.
- Allocating internal resources to support with maintaining long-term BNG.
- Enhancing transparency for all stakeholders.
- Creating local unit supply to mitigate impacts from local development proposals.
This insight document sets out:
In March 2023, PCC established OCB as a special-purpose vehicle (SPV) to support biodiversity initiatives. The SPV is expected to generate just over £5 million over 30-years, primarily through income from pilot sites owned by the local authority. PCC oversees the broader strategy through OCN, a holding company that retains control over the SPV. OCN manages the overall operations and unit sales, with a board comprising PCC representatives and local environmental stakeholders. A Green Finance Board guides OCN's priorities, ensuring alignment with PCC's strategic objectives. The initial funding for PCC’s business model included a £0.5 million investment from the Council, with the goal of achieving a return, with interest, within 10 years. OCB, funded by Ocean City Nature and third-party investors, operates as the off-site supply area for biodiversity units. OCB focuses on operational activities, including managing habitat banks* and land banks**, and is governed by an operational board that includes investor representatives. The SPV proposes to generate income by selling biodiversity units derived from these banks.
*Habitat banking is where sellers have established sites with ongoing habitat management (through creation and/or enhancement), offering units to the marketplace that are already being actively managed.
**Land banking is where sellers have land which they propose to implement habitat management on, once a purchase of biodiversity units and an agreement has been made between the seller and buyer.
Following a procurement exercise in 2020, Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) entered into a partnership with Lancashire Wildlife Trust (LWT) to establish the Greater Manchester Environment Fund (GMEF). The establishment of the fund was set up in phases. The first phase involved LWT establishing the fund as an independent charity. This initial phase was supported by a collective contribution of £30,000 from GMCA, Environment Agency, United Utilities and Peel Holdings, and including GMCA officer time to support with GMEF development. For the second and current phase, LWT has been managing the fund, attracting donations/grants and awarding funding to environmental projects within the region. In 2022, GMEF successfully secured funding from Defra’s Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund (NEIRF) to set up a BNG investment facility to support land managers wishing to create gain sites, particularly local authorities to secure off-site unit supply on their land. Using the fund, GMEF held a series of workshops with Local Authorities to identify how GMEF could support them in identifying, preparing and developing proposals for off-site gain sites.
Given the extensive development of biodiversity offsetting in the region, CCC is taking a resource-based approach to secure supply areas. CCC intends to bring forward existing land under council-ownership, specifically for the management of off-site biodiversity unit supply in-perpetuity. This will be carried out using existing internal resources and workforce from the city council. Negotiations between internal departments at CCC took place to identify which sites could be released from other uses to set up official biodiversity land banks. CCC prioritised sites which are ecologically connected to development proposals within the city, a primary factor which CCC considered when allocating funds from their previous biodiversity offsetting contribution scheme. Once identified, the sites under development are transferred from the Council’s Estates Team to their Parks Team. This is under an agreement that the Council’s Planning Department has full control of the land with any revenue generated through BNG to be directed towards the management of these sites. The Council is looking to create further sites for future reinvestment and enhance potential for stacking*.
*Stacking is where separate environmental outcomes from the same supply area are sold in more than one nature unit transaction e.g. biodiversity units and carbon credits from the same woodland are sold separately. Bundling is slightly different and comprises the sale of more than one type of environmental outcome from the same supply area combined into one nature unit transaction e.g. a suite of ecosystem services produced by the same activity are sold as a combined unit.
Key takeaways include:
All three Authorities are working on ambitious place-based initiatives to drive an attractive and accessible offset mechanism for local developers. The major drivers for these mechanisms are to generate future revenue to reinvest locally, sustainably manage both land and resources, enhancing natural assets under council ownership, conserving and enhancing priority habitats/species and strengthening the wider ecological network.
CIEEM’s BNG Good Practice Principles for Development, highlight the fundamental role of biodiversity to the natural capital of an area, including its green infrastructure; air, water and soil quality; and food production. Biodiversity is also intrinsically linked to societal benefits such as health, regeneration and social care. Local developments can be encouraged to direct biodiversity investment to sites to give an accumulation of targeted benefits in a local area. Local Authorities as landowners/managers have competing drivers for selecting viable sites in highly urbanised areas. In addition to Local Plan requirements, there is a need to encourage local off-site mitigation to support enhancement to local assets and services, whilst also considering if chosen sites are financially feasible to manage for the long-term.
These cases highlight extensive collaboration by Local Authorities with a diverse range of organisations, showcasing the potential of external funding programmes and the value of research and development into natural capital within a local government context. These examples emphasise the importance of partnerships, across multiple scales both regional and local and with leading authorities. Such collaborations enable resource sharing for activities like monitoring, asset management, and establishing unified and consistent enforcement methods. Internally, forming a working group can secure support from key department leaders, foster an evidence-based approach to integrating offset mechanisms with other council services, and unlock several benefits. These include revenue generation, workforce upskilling, knowledge exchange, and the optimisation of operational processes for greater efficiency and long-term sustainability. Additionally, internal working groups can indirectly enhance collaboration, align organisational priorities, and create valuable networking opportunities across the authority.
Applying a risk buffer to the unit price might be sensible in an evolving off-site market. With nature at risk, this is something Local Authorities must carefully scrutinise when selecting sites and the type of area, linear and watercourse units they intend to sell and manage over a unit’s lifetime. Setting a buffer would account for any interventions required to mitigate potential impacts from physical, transition or systemic risks in the future. Aiming for low-risk operations and contracting in-house services is a sensible, precautionary, yet appropriate approach to managing habitats. Especially habitats of low to medium distinctiveness, giving way for opportunity to further enhance and regenerate more units within the same supply area.
Risks associated with intermediary impact funds like GMEF are slightly different, but could still comprise operational or physical impact risks. Authorities like CCC are less likely to encounter any future risk based on their approach, given their long-term experience with offsetting for biodiversity. With CCC’s risk management approach, for instance, the current development surrounding monitoring opportunities if used as a combined resource, could reduce management failures or lack thereof, it could improve efficiency with monitoring but also reduce expenditure like staff time. Identifying risks early on before starting is best practice. It can help identify the level of capacity required to maintain and operate a scheme. The biodiversity market is also open to all and so it is necessary that Local Authorities monitor market volatility, especially if they are proposing to bring forward supply areas to generate biodiversity units.
The United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) paper on Nature-Positive Insurance: Evolving Thinking and Practices states that insurers may face potential nature-related risks, that fall under three categories: which comprise physical risks, transition risks and systemic risks. Physical risks are those which result from extreme natural weather or ecosystem changes. Transition risks depend on market demands, environmental policy, and regulations which relate to sustainability and nature conservation. Whilst systemic risks derive from more large-scale disruptions like natural disasters or ecological breakdowns that can create major impacts on the financial stability of insurers. It is likely that insurers will assess risk associated with long-term management and biodiversity loss. Any insured accidental damage is likely to conflict with the ‘like-for-like’ requirement and this may require associated risks and costs to be appropriately covered.
With Plymouth’s mechanism, participating stakeholders can secure the delivery of habitat management with a service agreement in addition to the planning obligation. This could be coupled with contracting in-house services to ensure monitoring is undertaken and the Local Authority is afforded the right to enforce and equally govern the vehicle in the appropriate direction. From a Greater Manchester perspective, GMEF can source appropriate resources to monitor sites for the long-term. In Coventry, the ongoing research and development into offsetting and with a partner like NCAP, means there is potential to resource efficient monitoring methods such as remote sensing or eDNA sampling. Remote sensing is non-intrusive and can enable continuous monitoring of local sites, especially where habitats may be inaccessible, difficult to survey or where traditional survey methods are unfeasible. From the enforcement end, these council-owned pilot sites will have strict monitoring measures, and local planning officers will have greater insight into such sites compared to off-site supply areas owned by private parties.
Transparency is a common theme among these mechanisms. There is transparency on the proposed extent or type of units which will be marketed in the future. There is ambition to regenerate across a few unit lifetimes within the same supply area too. Another useful takeaway from this, is that these authorities are considering historic management actions on their pilot sites to identify future interventions to create or enhance habitat, as well as the potential to enhance strategic areas and the associated wider benefits for priority habitats and key species. All of which are collectively being used almost as a precursor for LNRS priorities. Nature recovery, and considerations for ecosystem services are key to these approaches, and have a balance of benefits for both nature and people.
Local authorities regulating the off-site market
This document showcases the different approaches taken by three local authorities in the South of England: Somerset Council, Buckinghamshire Council and Devon County Council to regulate and approve biodiversity gain sites as part of their strategy for providing local off-site solutions for BNG. These case studies look at the approaches taken by the authorities to review and approve landowner schemes for generating a supply of biodiversity units for new developments. Their approaches allow them to take a central role in the governance and regulation of new off-site solutions to BNG and other environmental schemes in the private marketplace.
We highlight how each council’s approach complements local ambitions, addresses existing environmental concerns unique to each authority, considers opportunities for improving resourcing and costs, and influences the development of off-site solutions to mitigate environmental impacts.
If you require and accessible version of this document please contact [email protected]
The purpose of these case studies is to encourage other local councils to consider whether such approaches might be the right route for them. The case studies cover the following key actions:
- Setting up a habitat bank regulation service to review potential supply areas for biodiversity.
- Using an environmental call for sites process.
- Working with landowners on identifying the potential for maximising local ecosystem services.
These approaches collectively, across the three local authorities:
- Contribute to the generation of additional revenue for resourcing and costs,
- Have socio-economic and environmental benefits for local communities,
- Encompass precautionary risk management, and
- Influence supply within the private marketplace.
This insight document sets out:
The Council was successful in bidding to the Government’s Nutrient Mitigation Fund, securing £9.6m of funding to assist in addressing nutrient neutrality issues through the delivery of off-site phosphate mitigation schemes. The proposal to establish a revolving local fund which would purchase credits in bulk from such schemes, sell the credits on to developers as needed, then reinvest the income into further mitigation schemes was premised on launching a call for sites to assess and determine appropriate schemes to fund.
In 2023, the Council began receiving significant interest from third party off-site BNG providers, in addition to the ongoing interest in developing third party nutrient neutrality schemes and legally securing these with the Council. Given the relationship between and ability to stack nutrient neutrality and BNG schemes, the Council decided to cover both aspects within the planned call for sites. The Council set out a transparent and consistent assessment process to ensure there was a clear audit trail and justification for progressing priority sites for assessment, negotiation and legal agreement. Amongst other things, this placed weight on schemes able to deliver both nutrient neutrality and BNG as well as other associated multi-functional benefits including public access, natural flood mitigation etc. The assessment was aided by Urban Intelligence’s PlaceMaker software which helped streamline the process and filter sites.
The Council prioritised sites based on:
- Potential for delivering wider benefits (ecosystem services),
- Readiness to commence immediately or within a year,
- Landowners or managers have consented to the use of the land to supply biodiversity units or phosphate credits,
- A business model and associated governance frameworks is in place, and
- Demonstrates a low risk of failure (based on officer review).
SC also assessed proposals based on a number of wider benefits, for example how proposals will:
- Deliver benefits for local protected sites and species.
- Contribute to the council’s recovery ambitions.
- Support and mitigate flood risk through natural flood management.
- Identify opportunities to sequester and store carbon.
- Improve public access e.g. bespoke educational programmes.
- Improve and enhance the historic environment and local character.
- Impact land-use changes like integrating sustainable agricultural practices.
Whilst also assessing these proposals against constraints like:
- Ensuring schemes do not undermine permitted development proposals or development plan policy.
- Ensuring sites do not fall within areas appropriate for renewable energy production.
- Ensure sites do not fall within designated areas for minerals and aggregates like the nationally important Mendip area.
- Other constraints including the consideration of land for transport, historic environment and aerodrome safeguarding.
BC’s approach involved four key steps. The first step was to set clear criteria and expectations of what BC wants landowners to provide:
- Landowners must have legal control of the land which is to supply units with any associated consents provided.
- Any habitat interventions ensure the best outcomes for biodiversity in Buckinghamshire and adhere to BC’s BNG guidance and LNRS.
- BC expects landowners to adhere to best practice principles. If there are plans to secure additional benefits alongside BNG on-site, what approaches are proposed and how this will be governed.
- A completed statutory biodiversity metric to evidence the potential uplift from interventions is feasible along with adequate baseline survey produced by a competent ecologist.
- A HMMP for the minimum term of 30-yrs, ideally using the Natural England template.
- A financial cash flow model which shows how management will be funded throughout the HMMP term including considerations like inflation and contingency.
- Agreement on how BC will be notified of units sales from the bank.
- Evidence showcasing considerations for other environmental concerns associated with the site under review e.g. archaeology.
The second step comprised identifying and developing guidance to support the above criteria. BC focused on four key pieces of guidance covering ecology, environment, finance and legal. Further guidance has been created, covering spatial risk and strategic significance and the importance of soil testing, essential to support and mitigate queries.
BC has also developed guidance covering archaeology and BNG. From a financial and legal perspective, the council has a monitoring fee calculator to calculate the monitoring fee for all habitat banks, as well as a S106 template, which includes financial reporting and remediation clauses. A cash flow template is also available for providers to complete. The third step was to establish two pilot habitat banks, BC worked in partnership with three local conservation charities The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust, The River Thame Conservation Trust and the Trust for Oxfordshire’s Environment which together will deliver around 22ha of Other Neutral Grassland, 15ha of Floodplain Wetland Mosaic, 0.5 ha of Scrub and 8ha of Lowland Meadow.
All authorities contributed to establishing an FTE role at DCC to support BNG preparedness and development of strategic approach which included the registration of habitat banks on the Natural England register. Despite being a county council, rather than a unitary authority, DCC’s process is not much different to the examples above. Demand for securing banks on the national register within the county is relatively consistent across the Devon authorities. DCC’s ecology team review ecological information about the site and liaise with the applicant on behalf of the individual authority. This review includes undertaking a site visit and confirming the submitted habitat baseline. Once the review has been completed this is then shared with the local authority. DCC also provide ecological input into Habitat Management and Monitoring Plans for districts that do not have their own ecological capacity.
At present, there is no structured triage system in place, which means proposals are assessed individually. As DCC is also a developer, it is in their interest to see habitat banks established within the districts. Each of the authorities have their own individual internal processes for reviewing proposals. These can include coverage on the historic environment, landscape ambitions and even member committee approval. From an ecological perspective, DCC shares any documents they have developed, such as guidance on soil analysis and habitat bank verification criteria, to support the lower tier authorities. They continue to aim to co-develop these resources in collaboration with the districts.
Key takeaways include:
Setting up an environmental call for sites process allowed Somerset Council to control and manage the existing demand for off-site schemes based on their existing capacity. The use of Placemaker in this process reduced officer time and filtered such schemes for further review. It highlighted that processing times can vary depending on the individual proposal and that applicants may row back on proposals during negotiations. Somerset Council have highlighted that nationally there needs to be better oversight on stacking land uses and payments. Buckinghamshire Council’s regulation service is slightly different; they have an online portal which allows applicants to submit an EoI form. The scoring system in place, is the mechanism which improves efficiency and reduces review time. It also allows the council to appropriately respond to interests. The review stage of the regulation service is chargeable to the applicant which means there is no internal resourcing the scheme. Devon County Council also has verification criteria in place for off-site unit suppliers. This provides transparency on what documents are required prior to any site visits or agreements. They have also established guidance on monitoring fee thresholds based on site size.
These regulatory processes encourage applicants to outline the potential for other benefits if relevant, such as how management actions can support other local factors including:
- Protected species and/or priority habitats,
- Landscape character,
- Green infrastructure networks,
- Natural flood management,
- Carbon sequestration and storage,
- Sustainable agricultural practice,
- Soil nutrient status,
- Archaeology and heritage assets,
- Education and public use, and
- Local nature recovery strategies.
The provision of guidance specifically on how schemes could deliver additional benefits from management actions is highly impactful for identifying contributions towards local ecosystem services and helps LPA’s in delivering their nature recovery priorities. One of the principles set out within the BSI FLEX 702 highlights that for nature markets, market participants should recognise that nature is multi-functional, suggesting that stakeholders involved should already be aware of the range of benefits associated with nature and how these benefits or services could support climate adaptation and mitigation. By integrating these considerations early in the process during the scheme review, these councils are encouraging landowners to maximise ecosystem service outputs in habitat interventions tailored to local context and strategic priorities. The detailed assessment criteria are individually unique to each council’s jurisdiction and justifiably help strengthen scheme designs by setting out the needs and expectations of what proposals can deliver for the long-term.
Strategic Benefits & Integrating Quality - Local authorities could demonstrate the potential of proposals to deliver wider environmental benefits, including biodiversity enhancement, habitat restoration, carbon sequestration, flood risk mitigation, and opportunities for public access or education which help deliver against wider ambitions. Alignment with local priorities, including the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and Local Plan, alongside satisfying legal and policy requirements beyond BNG is essential. Ecological quality should be prioritised, with the right habitats in the right places, enhancement of priority or distinctive habitats, and protection of irreplaceable habitats. Proposals should integrate with wider landscape management, sustainable land-use practices, and other local environmental objectives.
These processes were introduced to reduce and manage risk associated with off-site offsetting solutions. With these types of approaches being relatively new and growing due to demand, these councils are setting a precedent with detailed criteria of what needs to be verified before any future sales are processed. Prior to securing legal agreements, applicants are requested to provide a response on financial capability to deliver the scheme design. Applicants are expected to justify management actions, competency to deliver the scheme for the long-term and appropriately plan for unintended consequences.
Managing Risk - Compliance with planning, land-use, and environmental constraints is essential, avoiding conflicts with development, renewable energy, minerals, or infrastructure priorities. Overall, submissions should be well considered, sustainable, low-risk, and designed to deliver measurable, long-term benefits beyond baseline biodiversity gain. Local planning authorities looking to establish screening mechanisms should also consider BSI Flex 701- Nature markets, overarching principles and framework to identify suitable proposals and ensure a consistent approach across the country. The standard sets out principles to support with validation and verification, avoiding unintended consequences and ensuring the delivery of benefits for the credit/unit lifetime.
Providing these services to applicants gives both parties the ability to develop and learn more about the potential positive impacts local off-site schemes may have on the local natural environment. These processes allow councils to identify current responses to local demand and what offers are available for new developments. Continuously using these regulatory processes will support these authorities in building a local market portfolio of off-site solutions that have been verified and approved to sell biodiversity units and other environmental benefits. Scheme applicants now have detailed submission guidance and additional information relating to local requirements, which can help in steering designs to provide offsetting solutions to new BNG applications with more transparency. Influencing landowners early in the process with local assessment criteria, can help navigate and support applicants in responding to local market demand. It allows for councils to take a more central regulatory role in this process of setting up new off-setting schemes and strengthens a collaborative relationship between parties for the longer-term. These mechanisms are also designed to enable and authorise more local offers to developers and contribute towards the diversity of the local marketplace.
Readiness & Evidence - Sites must be ready for near-term delivery, with landowner consent, legal control, and robust ecological evidence such as baseline surveys and statutory biodiversity metrics. Proposals should be supported by sustainable business models, governance frameworks, and long-term financial planning to ensure delivery and monitoring over the minimum term. Local Planning Authorities can play a constructive role by providing information that supports the development of the market and ensures that local provision meets actual needs e.g., data on housing and other development pipelines, their likely locations, and the habitats they will interact with can help avoid mismatches in supply, such as an oversupply of woodland units when watercourse or other habitat units are required by local developers.
LPAs could also consider what information is publicly available on monitoring fees and how these are calculated, to promote transparency for market participants. This information can help landowners incorporate it into their own sale strategies. There is also an opportunity to emphasise the benefits to local landowners of establishing a gain site, encouraging them to bring forward land to contribute to supply. Examples of successful collaborations with private landowners to secure land for off-site BNG could serve as useful illustrations to promote off-site BNG to local landowners.
For entering legal agreements, government guidance states that the legal agreements for BNG are a legal obligation for enhancing and maintaining a habitat type for a minimum of 30-yrs. Further information on legal agreements can be found here: Enter a legal agreement for biodiversity net gain.
For offsite BNG, the habitat enhancement works will need to be maintained for 30 years from completion of the habitat creation or enhancement. The LPA should identify what ‘completion’ is referring to and when exactly the management and monitoring term begins and ends.
The agreement for off-site BNG should detail:
- Planned habitat enhancements to the site.
- Specific actions to achieve enhancement work.
- Assign parties responsible for habitat interventions, maintenance, and monitoring. (the agreement should outline the party subcontracting work for habitat interventions).
- A schedule of management and monitoring using the HMMP template as a steer.
The LPA or Responsible Body must ensure they receive sufficient information comprising:
- How to gain access to the site, with a monitoring schedule including information on how the site will be monitored.
- A start/end date signifying 30-yrs from the date habitat interventions have been initiated/completed.
- Any consent or licenses associated with delivery, monitoring and maintenance associated with the agreed interventions.
- An agreement between all parties within the agreement on what actions can be taken if obligations are not met or if planned interventions on-site do not go as planned. If the obligations are not met, the appropriate body may take enforcement action.
- A payment schedule for any funding arrangements e.g. ongoing monitoring.
- A metric which outlines the pre-intervention habitat baseline for land under consideration.
Private market stakeholders are highlighting publicly a range of medium to very high distinctive unit supply in addition to current cost averages for specific habitat types which include transaction and legal fees. Based on guidance regarding statutory credit pricing, credit prices are not to be used as a guide for setting prices for off-site biodiversity units. Further information on statutory credit pricing can be found here: Statutory Biodiversity Credit prices.
Market in practice
The PAS team is always interested in emerging BNG approaches, particularly where a local planning authority is trialling an innovative approach that supports, or is tailored to, its specific needs. Recordings from recent episodes in the series can be accessed below. We intend to continue developing this series, and any future episodes will be uploaded to YouTube and posted here.
DISCLAIMER: The PAS team updates these pages regularly to reflect current guidance on biodiversity net gain as best we can. Our goal is to provide accurate, timely information to support local planning authorities. If you are from a local authority and have any questions about the content or need further information, please contact us at [email protected]. This page was last updated on 28/11/25.