The most immediate development is the confirmation of changes to mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG). The new regulations will come into force on 6 August 2026.
The government’s programme of planning and environmental reform continues to gather pace, with a series of measures aimed at balancing ecological protection with the delivery of new development. Recent announcements signal a greater emphasis on proportionality and strategic environmental interventions, with the first significant changes now beginning to take effect.
CHANGES TO MANDATORY BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN
The headline change is a new exemption for development on sites of no more than 0.2 hectares, provided that the development would not affect an onsite priority habitat. The threshold applies to the whole site within the planning application’s red-line boundary, rather than simply the development footprint or the area of habitat affected.
The existing de minimis exemption also remains available, including on sites larger than 0.2 hectares where habitat impacts fall below the relevant thresholds and no onsite priority habitat is affected.
A separate exemption will apply where the whole development is temporary, does not affect priority habitat and is subject to a condition requiring its removal and the reinstatement of the land within five years. Successive permissions for the same temporary development will be considered cumulatively, preventing the exemption from being extended through repeated temporary consents.
The specific exemption for small-scale self and custom-build housing will be removed, although many smaller schemes may instead fall within the new area-based exemption.
For development that is not major development, the BNG hierarchy will also be relaxed so that onsite habitat creation and enhancement and registered offsite gains occupy the same level of preference. Statutory credits remain a last resort. Broadly, major development includes schemes of 10 or more homes, development creating at least 1,000 sq m of floorspace, other development on sites of at least one hectare, and minerals or waste development.
THE REFORMS ARE NOT RETROSPECTIVE
The application of the reforms is principally determined by the date on which the planning application is made, rather than when it is decided. The new provisions will not generally apply to applications submitted before 6 August or allow an older permission to be brought within the new regime through a subsequent section 73 application. Conversely, qualifying self and custom-build applications submitted before 6 August will retain the previous exemption.
The changes are expected to remove BNG requirements from a significant number of small applications, although the effect on overall housing delivery is likely to be modest. The government’s rationale is that BNG can impose disproportionate costs and administrative burdens on the smallest schemes – a concern of particular relevance to SME builders. The reforms are therefore aimed primarily at easing those pressures rather than delivering a substantial increase in housing supply.
An exemption from mandatory BNG will not, however, remove wider ecological considerations. Existing protections for habitats and species, national planning policy and the mitigation hierarchy will continue to apply.
BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN – FURTHER CHANGE TO COME
Further change is expected later in 2026, including the government’s response to a possible targeted exemption for residential development on brownfield land.
Other planned reforms include exemptions for development whose primary purpose is to conserve or enhance biodiversity and for certain improvements to parks, playing fields and public gardens. Changes to the statutory biodiversity metric are also expected, including reforming the spatial risk multiplier so that it is based on Local Nature Recovery Strategy areas.
The August changes are therefore an important step in the reform of BNG, but are unlikely to be the final word.
STRATEGIC MITIGATION – BUILDING THE DELIVERY MECHANISMS
While BNG is being simplified at the smaller end of the market, the machinery for delivering environmental mitigation more strategically is also taking shape.
The draft Nature Restoration Levy Regulations set out the proposed administrative and enforcement framework through which developers could contribute towards conservation measures identified in an Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP). Levy rates would be set through individual EDP charging schedules and reflect the costs of delivering, managing and monitoring the relevant measures.
Important components are still missing. The first EDPs and their charging schedules have not yet been published, and further guidance will be required to explain how developers engage with Natural England and elect to use the levy. Nevertheless, the draft regulations move the Nature Restoration Fund closer to becoming an operational alternative to bespoke project-level mitigation.
The government is also consulting on a new permitted development right for specified conservation works undertaken by Natural England, or those acting on its behalf, to implement an EDP. Potentially permitted works include ponds, wetlands, ditches, fencing, paths, small structures and certain facilities associated with Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace.
This is an important part of the emerging framework. A strategic mitigation system will only be effective if the conservation measures funded through it can be delivered promptly. The proposed right is intended to reduce the risk of the delivery body itself encountering avoidable planning delays.
HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENTS – A CHANGE IN REGULATORY TONE
A similar theme can be seen in Defra’s proposed revisions to HRA guidance. The consultation has closed and the government’s response is awaited, so these changes are not yet settled.
The draft guidance encourages competent authorities to focus on credible rather than hypothetical risks, reuse relevant existing assessments, seek proportionate information and work constructively with applicants. It also promotes earlier consideration of strategic solutions and derogation where these may be required.
The underlying legal tests would remain unchanged. The significance lies instead in how the government expects those tests to be administered: with greater emphasis on relevance, proportionality and timely decision-making.
A TWO-TRACK APPROACH
A clearer pattern is now emerging. At the smaller end of the development market, project-level requirements are being reduced where the government considers their administrative cost disproportionate to the environmental benefit. At the same time, greater emphasis is being placed on strategic mitigation, pooled funding and delivery through Natural England.
This is not simply the removal of environmental regulation. It represents a redistribution of where and how environmental impacts are addressed: fewer bespoke requirements for some individual schemes, alongside a more centralised framework intended to secure improvements at a wider scale.
The success of that approach will depend on delivery. EDP coverage, levy rates, Natural England’s capacity and the speed with which conservation measures can be implemented will ultimately determine whether the new system provides both greater certainty for development and better outcomes for nature.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)