BNG Good practice in BNG monitoring and enforcement

Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) is a shared environmental service funded by Merseyside planning authorities, and West Lancashire, for ecology. The service provides environmental expertise across a diverse geographical area ranging from urban areas to more rural districts presenting a mix of urban fringe development and greenbelt release issues. MEAS operates a business model where local authorities purchase core services based on allocated annual hours, with additional work charged at an agreed rate. The service covers a broad scope including planning applications, policy development, LNRS, protected site strategies, and increasingly, collaboration with green space teams on habitat bank development.  

Recognising the demands of the incoming BNG regulations, two dedicated roles were created: a BNG advisor to provide specialist guidance on policy and implementation, and a BNG monitoring and data officer to track applications and develop monitoring systems. 

This early investment allowed MEAS to develop robust tracking and monitoring systems from the outset of the BNG regime.   

Data Collection and Tracking

MEAS developed a bespoke Excel database to track BNG applications across all member authorities, except where authorities use commercial software such as Exacom and Mycelia. The database captures all planning applications requiring BNG metrics such as habitat unit calculations and types and proposed delivery mechanisms (on-site vs. off-site), and risk ratings for habitat delivery based on the significance of on-site enhancements.  

They are consulted on the majority of planning applications requiring BNG metrics, allowing applications to be logged on the database and tracked through subsequent stages as discharge of conditions applications are submitted. 

Standardised Conditions

MEAS chair a regional Merseyside BNG planners group to develop and standardise planning conditions. The group based their conditions on templates developed by PAS, then refined them through practical use to address emerging issues. Key refinements include:  

• Notification requirements: conditions requiring developers to inform the local authority when habitats are established and when the 30-year monitoring period commences.
• Handling approved documents: amended wording to address the disconnect between documents approved at planning stage versus those submitted to discharge pre-commencement BNG conditions (which may legitimately differ).  
• Biodiversity Gain Plan emphasis: additional conditions beyond the mandatory condition to ensure developers realise they need to submit a Biodiversity Gain Plan, as many were initially unaware of this requirement.  

The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) is a shared service providing biodiversity and ecological advice to all 10 districts in Greater Manchester. The service is funded collectively by the districts based on population size, creating a unified approach to ecological planning across the region. GMEU operates two main strands of work: providing advice on planning-related matters, such as Local Plan work and planning applications (including BNG assessments), and running the local records centre, which collects biological and habitat data for the region.

Database and Digital Infrastructure

As well as an in-house planning consultation database, GMEU has purchased dedicated BNG monitoring software that provides a comprehensive database system to track on-site BNG schemes and their 30-year monitoring requirements. The database includes fields to capture essential information about each site. The system was designed with flexibility to adapt as monitoring requirements become clearer through practice.

To complement the database, GMEU created a dedicated monitoring email address and inbox where all reports could be submitted centrally. This simple but effective approach ensures consistent record-keeping and prevents information from being scattered across different officers or systems. This centralisation is particularly important for managing the 30-year monitoring period, which will inevitably outlast individual staff tenures.

General good practice GMEU have been involved in includes:

• Delivering BNG in Greater Manchester
• Biodiversity Net Gain Guidance for Planners & Applicants
• Greater Manchester Habitat Bank Verification and Auditing Guidance 

East Devon District Council is a local planning authority operating within Devon’s current two-tier system. The Authority is facing potential reorganisation and despite this uncertainty, the Council continues to progress with its planning and environmental duties.  

The Council has developed a structured approach to charging monitoring fees for BNG, recognising this is essential for ensuring long-term delivery of BNG commitments. The Council charges a monitoring fee to cover the costs of oversight and compliance checking over the 30-year BNG period. The monitoring fee system was established to ensure the Council has adequate resources to ensure that BNG obligations are being met.

Approach

The process in preparing an appropriate monitoring fee involved several steps including a detailed cost analysis where the ecology team estimated the likely staff time required for monitoring over 30 years, considering site visits, report reviews, and administration. Benchmarking research was undertaken into what other authorities were charging or planning to charge for BNG monitoring and an assessment was undertaken to ensure the proposed fee structure was reasonable and justifiable in relation to the service being provided prior to submission for approval through the Council’s decision-making processes.

Fee Structure

The fee structure is based on the development type and area. This includes a reduced fee for minor developments delivering significant onsite gains. 

Monitoring activities

Monitoring involves initial verification to check that habitat creation works have been completed as approved and periodic reviews to assess whether habitats are developing as intended and management is being carried out correctly. The Council review monitoring reports submitted by developers, landowners, or their consultants and undertake enforcement action where BNG obligations are not being met. The Council maintain a register of BNG sites and their status over the 30-year period.

The monitoring fee structure helps ensure the Council can effectively oversee both on-site and off-site BNG delivery. For off-site BNG provided within habitat banks the Council’s monitoring role includes verifying that habitat bank sites are being established and managed according to their agreements, ensuring units allocated from habitat banks are being delivered, and tracking which developments have purchased units from which habitat banks.

Bath and North East Somerset (BANES) Council is a unitary authority in Somerset, South West England, that has positioned itself as an early leader in BNG implementation, having adopted its own BNG policy approximately 18 months before the statutory regime came into force. The Council is currently preparing a new Local Plan with large housing targets, including proposed 20% BNG requirements for sites within or formerly within the Greenbelt, demonstrating the Council’s commitment to going beyond minimum statutory requirements where appropriate.

The Council has developed a comprehensive approach to managing Council-owned and private habitat banks. As both a planning authority and a landowner, the Council has established processes for creating, monitoring, and managing habitat banks that go beyond basic compliance requirements. The approach provides valuable insights into practical implementation of BNG at the local authority level. 

Habitat Banks

The Council has been working through the process of establishing habitat banks on Council land. As a planning authority and landowner, the Council needed to navigate the complexities of establishing and managing habitat banks while maintaining appropriate governance. The Council has worked through the same processes as private landowners, gaining first-hand experience of the challenges involved. This dual perspective has enhanced the Council’s ability to support and regulate private habitat banks effectively.  

Specific processes have been developed for managing private habitat banks, ensuring that proposals are properly assessed and approved, long-term monitoring and management obligations are secured, and data is systematically collected and reported.

Funding Monitoring Systems

Investments have been made into database systems to support habitat bank monitoring and strategic decisions making. It was recognised that the pipeline of fees was unknown and may not cover long-term costs, so the Council decided against funding monitoring software through fees charged to developers and avoided charging monitoring fees to small developers where legal costs could exceed the monitoring fees themselves. Instead, a low-cost solution was chosen with a supplier under a current contract with systems already embedded into back-office infrastructure. BANES renegotiated the contract through centralised IT budgets, recognising this as a long-term investment in effective Local Plan and BNG delivery.

Ensuring Developer Awareness and Compliance

Developers need to be aware of BNG obligations to ensure compliance and proper discharge of conditions. Rather than using informative notes (which appear at the bottom of decision notices), the Council added BNG requirements directly to the list of planning conditions. This ensures developers see BNG obligations alongside other requirements they need to discharge before commencing development, improving compliance and tracking.

After 2-3 years of operating the habitat bank protocol in Greater Cambridge, six habitat banks have been established under Section 106 agreements. Zero enforcement actions have been required, and annual monitoring is functioning smoothly with provider-submitted reports verified by Council ecologists. Section 106 legal obligations provide clear basis for enforcement. While not yet tested, the enforcement process would involve specialist ecologists identifying specific breaches with evidence (photographs and site visits). The Authority’s compliance team would then take enforcement using this evidence.

East Devon District Council recognised that habitat banks would be essential for delivering BNG effectively in the District, and several factors drove the decision to prepare a Habitat Bank Framework.  

The Council’s ambitious Local Plan policy, setting a 20% BNG requirement, meant many developments would struggle to achieve this on-site alone. The Council are realistic about what can be delivered on-site and recognises that off-site provision can often achieve better ecological outcomes. Habitat banks offer opportunities to create larger, better-connected habitat areas aligned with the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS).  

In addition, providing local habitat bank options ensures BNG contributions from development in benefit the district, rather than units being purchased from distant habitat banks, and gives developers more confidence that BNG obligations can be met.

The Council's role

The Council may seek to own or operate habitat banks directly, but this will be balanced against the risk of taking on long-term management liabilities with an uncertainty around local government reorganisation. The Council will shape how habitat banks develop in the District by creating a framework that enables private landowners and environmental organisations to establish habitat banks and provides a point of contact for potential habitat bank providers, and helps connect them with developers. The Council have set out expectations and priorities for what types of habitat banks the Council would like to see established and have developed a scoring system to prioritise habitat banks that align with strategic priorities, ensuring habitat banks deliver BNG through the Council’s monitoring regime.

The Framework

The framework includes a scoring system that awards points based on specific criteria and habitat bank proposals that score more highly are prioritised by the Council. Key criteria includes:

• Public access: Sites offering public access score 3 points, while those without score 1 point. This incentivises habitat banks that provide community benefits, as well as encouraging habitat bank providers to incorporate features that the Council values.
• Habitat diversity: Sites creating a range of habitat types score more highly than monoculture approaches. The Council wants to avoid situations where, for example, a landowner seeks to turn good quality arable land into moderate grassland and nothing else.
• LNRS alignment: Habitat banks that contribute to LNRS priorities and involve environmental organisations or community groups that ensure good long-term management are scored favourably.
• Scale and quality: Larger sites creating higher-condition habitats are preferred over small, low-condition sites and sites that connect to existing habitats or nature reserves score better than isolated patches.

Ensuring the scoring system was legally sound and would not lead to unintended constraints on development was an important consideration. The scoring system provides a consistent, defensible way to assess different habitat bank proposals. The approach makes the Council’s priorities clear to potential habitat bank providers from the outset and promotes habitat banks with greater public and ecological benefits. By signalling preferences, the Council can influence what types of habitat banks get established in the market and help developers identify which local habitat banks the Council would prefer them to use. 

The Process

The process of preparing the Framework required careful thought about what was politically acceptable, legally sound, and ecologically beneficial. The key stages include initial scoping to define the Council’s role and objectives for habitat banking and identifying what factors should influence prioritisation decisions and assigning point values to different criteria to create appropriate incentives. Internal discussions with planning and legal colleagues were undertaken to ensure the approach was sound before securing cabinet approval for the framework.

Challenges

Several challenges emerged during development and implementation. The question of whether the Council should own or operate habitat banks is still being discussed due to resource implications, limited land holding, and long-term liabilities. The uncertainty about future local Government structure in Devon made long-term planning challenging.

Communicating with wider teams, like DM, and ensuring political buy-in was addressed as the Council were mindful that habitat banks can be controversial if not properly explained. The team helped DM officers understand that habitat banks are a legitimate and often preferable way to deliver BNG, not a ‘second best’ option, and prepared planning officers to explain habitat banks positively in Committee Reports and at Planning Committees. Officers benefited from clear explanations of how to assess whether a developer’s use of a habitat bank is acceptable and how to secure it through planning conditions or obligations as well as understanding how to direct developers toward higher-priority local habitat banks.

Securing political support for the Habitat Bank Framework required careful communication to frame BNG as a tool in enabling development. Officers emphasised how habitat banks help facilitate sustainable development within the District, addressing potential concerns that environmental requirements might block housing delivery.  

Officers highlighted co-benefits of the Framework which included delivering tangible community benefits alongside biodiversity gains and emphasising that the framework ensures development in East Devon benefits the District, rather than BNG money leaving the area.

Officers presented habitat banks as a realistic way to achieve the Council’s 20% BNG ambition without making development unviable and aligning the Framework with broader goals such as connecting the framework to the Council’s Climate and Nature Recovery Strategies.

At the time of development, the habitat banking market was emerging, making it difficult to predict how many providers would come forward or what they would offer. Finding the right balance between encouraging high-quality habitat banks and not being so prescriptive that providers would not come forward was a challenge.

The Council maintains an open dialogue with potential providers as well as maintaining ongoing conversations with landowners and environmental organisations interested in establishing habitat banks. Providers can discuss their proposals with the Council before formally submitting, allowing refinement to better meet prioritisation criteria.

Future Evolution

The Framework is expected to evolve as the habitat banking market develops, and lessons are learned from early implementations. Potential refinements may include adjusting scoring values or adding new criteria based on experience of what factors most effectively drive beneficial outcomes. Additional guidance or resources may be developed to help landowners and organisations establish successful habitat banks, potentially creating a register or directory of approved habitat banks to help developers identify suitable options.

The Council is considering how the framework might operate under any future local government reorganisation in Devon and envisages closer alignment with the finalised LNRS collaborative arrangements with environmental organisations or neighbouring authorities.

Lessons Learnt

The following lessons learnt demonstrate that while habitat banking involves challenges, the benefits of delivering BNG locally make it worthwhile.

• Understand your processes: understanding Council decision-making processes is critical for navigating governance and securing necessary approvals.
• Secure political buy-in: having the political buy-in is essential, as habitat banking can be controversial without proper explanation and framing. Framing habitat banks as enabling sustainable development, not blocking it, is essential for political support.  
• Internal engagement matters: DM teams need to understand and support habitat banking for the framework to work effectively. Work with DM and communicate to committees how habitat banks help facilitate sustainable development.  
• Be ecologically pragmatic: high standards for habitat banks must be balanced with making them deliverable and attractive to providers. Be pragmatic and realistic about what can be achieved on development sites versus through habitat banks.
• Think strategically: habitat banks offer opportunities for strategic, landscape-scale nature recovery beyond individual development sites. Scoring systems can help nudge people towards delivering habitat banks with public and ecological benefits beyond just unit provision.
• Facilitation, not ownership: local authorities can effectively shape habitat banking markets through guidance and prioritisation without taking on ownership liabilities.
• Network with providers: maintaining open communication with potential habitat bank providers helps shape viable development proposals. 

Greater Cambridge Shared Planning serves approximately 300,000 residents across Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. Greater Cambridge is preparing for local government reorganisation within the next few years. The area is characterised by significant development pressure driven by Cambridge's proximity to London and the Southeast, and the desire for new homes and business set within the context of an affluent and attractive city.  Burgeoning biomedical and pharmaceutical industries have created a highly dynamic planning environment with substantial infrastructure and housing development.  

The Planning Service comprises approximately 70-100 officers across different specialist teams. The Built & Natural Environment team operates as an internal consultancy with around 30 specialists including ecologists, landscape architects, tree officers, and additional drainage, historic conservation and urban design specialists.  

The Shared Planning Service is focused on ensuring efficient planning processes such as the habitat bank framework and Section 106 templates will transfer smoothly to any new unitary authority structure. The authority is expanding its paid for advisory services to neighbouring councils, generating income to sustain ecological capacity. There is potential to develop this model further, particularly if reorganisation creates opportunities for regional service delivery.

Habitat Bank Protocol

In 2021, Greater Cambridge published an SPD on biodiversity, timing this to align with forthcoming Environment Act. This positioned the Council to respond quickly when approached by Bidwells, an established land agent, about creating the first habitat bank on a 160-hectare former County farm at Lower Valley Farm in Fulbourn. The Section 106 agreement took over a year to finalise due to lack of precedent or established processes, uncertainty about appropriate legal language and clauses, and the need to develop monitoring and charging frameworks.

The Authority received numerous unsuitable proposals from landowners seeking to monetise small, disconnected parcels. To manage this the team developed a pre-qualification process that includes initial phone consultation to assess credibility of the applicant and establish a minimum site habitat bank size requirement of 40 hectares. Consideration was given to the sites proximity to existing natural resources (County Wildlife Sites, etc.) and alignment with the Cambridge Nature Network priority habitats. Whilst the Authority’s existing habitat banks were established prior to the adoption of the LNRS, new applications should be aligned with LNRS priority areas.

A site visit was agreed for credible proposals, and a fee was set at £1,000 and covered principal ecologist officer time in undertaking the initial assessment and associated reporting.  

Following successful qualification, the authority provides a template Section 106 agreement to the applicant. This was developed from earlier templates prepared for the Lower Valley Farm habitat bank. Key elements of the template include:

• Cost recovery structure (three-tier Charging): administrative overhead charge of ~£2,500 one-time fee for Section 106 team, One-off legal fee charge for drafting and negotiation, and an annual monitoring fee based on site complexity.
• Inflation protection: annual monitoring fees are index-linked to CPI/RPI, ensuring that the first-year charge remains fit for purpose over the 30-year agreement lifetime. This approach was preferred over requiring an upfront lump sum payment, which the Council viewed as a liability.  
• Monitoring commitment: for larger sites, 5 days annual monitoring was deemed appropriate to cover site visits, report review, emails, meetings, and potential weather-related revisits. Smaller sites may require only 2 days annually.  
• Agreement and Publication: following iterative refinement and agreement of the Section 106, the document is sealed by the Council and published to ensure transparency.  

The Authority has demonstrated that early, proactive engagement with habitat bank provision creates competitive advantage and establishes robust processes for BNG delivery. By investing time in developing a comprehensive Section 106 template, establishing clear pre-qualification criteria, and building strong provider relationships, the Authority has created a scalable, replicable model. Success depends critically on adequate in-house ecological expertise, clear cost recovery mechanisms, and willingness to engage pragmatically with both providers and Natural England.  

North Northamptonshire Council operates as a unitary authority following local government reorganisation in 2021. The Council developed one of the first local authority habitat banking protocols in the country. This pioneering work emerged from practical necessity when the authority received its first habitat banking proposal. Rather than developing guidance after problems emerged, the authority took a proactive approach to establish clear frameworks from the outset.

Several factors drove the development of the habitat banking protocol. Statutory BNG created opportunities for habitat banking that did not exist under previous policy-led approaches and the Council received interest from landowners wanting to establish habitat banks. The Council recognised that habitat banks would require long-term administration and oversight, and the lack of national guidance led the Authority to establish clear processes before being overwhelmed with proposals. The Authority reviewed what other LPAs were doing and found very little established practice. By working through a live habitat banking proposal, the team tested the emerging protocol and looked at refining the approach.  

The administrative side of a habitat bank can take up a lot of officer time. The Authority addressed this by establishing a dedicated SharePoint site for tracking all incoming habitat bank documents and submissions, and their submission dates, managing version control for habitat management and monitoring plans, and archiving superseded documents while maintaining current versions. A proactive approach to ongoing management includes co-ordinating reviews across multiple proposals and responding to queries and requests throughout the approval process.

Dover District Council’s initial expectations for habitat bank applications in the Authority were low due to Dover’s location and lower development pressure than surrounding areas. However, Dover has secured one habitat bank via Section 106 (January 2024) with five more habitat banks in progress.

Criteria were largely adapted from Buckinghamshire Council's pioneering work, enabling Dover to get ahead quickly. The first habitat bank proposal came from an independent entrepreneur specifically purchasing land to create a habitat bank as a passion project. Subsequent habitat banks have been slower in coming forward due to competing priorities and resources within Dover, as well as landowners getting to grips with the requirements. To address some of these challenges, the team have begun drafting Section 106 agreements using templates, working directly with the district solicitor to expedite the process. 

North Yorkshire developed a sophisticated discretionary service model for habitat banking that balances supply and demand while ensuring alignment with strategic priorities. The process involves several key stages:

• Expression of Interest (EOI): applicants pay an initial fee and submit a broad proposal, which the Council reviews for corporate risk, financial viability, and competence.
• Priority assessment: proposals are evaluated against multiple criteria including alignment with the LNRS, geographic distribution of habitat units, type of habitat created (particularly high-demand habitats like open mosaic habitat and ponds), and whether it addresses gaps in available provision.
• Capacity-based selection: a habitat bank panel reviews expressions of interest, selecting applications based on both merit and organisational capacity. For example, if the team can handle 6 applications in 6 months, they select the 6 highest-priority proposals.
• Rejected or deferred applicants: Those not selected are directed to alternative options like Conservation Covenants or invited to reapply in future rounds.

This prioritisation approach acknowledges that local authorities cannot process unlimited habitat bank applications while maintaining quality. By being transparent about capacity constraints and selection criteria, North Yorkshire provides certainty to applicants while ensuring habitat banking serves strategic ecological priorities.