Biodiversity Net Gain is not just an environmental requirement, writes Simon Towers. As it has moved from theory to delivery, it has become a practical tool for better development
Two years after Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) became mandatory in England, the conversation across housing delivery is starting to shift.
What started as a period of uncertainty and, in many cases, frustration is now becoming more practical. In the early months following the policy’s introduction, most housing providers focused on understanding the statutory biodiversity metric and identifying how many units their developments would need to deliver.
But now, the focus is working out how it actually functions on live sites, and how it fits within the wider realities of land, cost and programme.
Forward-thinking housing providers are discovering that biodiversity delivery is not simply an ecological question – it is a delivery question. And in many cases, it is helping developers to solve challenges that they were already dealing with.
Why timing changes everything
One of the reasons BNG has felt difficult on certain schemes is timing. When biodiversity is introduced late in the process, after layouts have been fixed and costs committed, it can feel like an additional constraint. Unit availability becomes uncertain, design flexibility is limited, and the options available to developers narrow quickly.
When biodiversity is considered earlier, however, it becomes part of how a site is delivered rather than something applied to it afterwards, which is where the real opportunity lies.
A good example of this can be seen at Moseley Common in Wigan, where housing delivery, soil management and biodiversity have been brought together into a single, coordinated approach.
Surplus soils from the site, being developed by Kellen Homes, are removed and transported to a nearby habitat bank at Whitehead, where they support the creation of long-term ecological habitats, contributing to Kellen’s overall BNG requirements. On the return journey, those same vehicles bring recycled aggregate back to site for use in sub-bases and foundations supporting the construction process itself.
Alongside this, there is a focus on on-site habitat creation to minimise the need for offsetting, which not only keeps costs down but improves the long-term ecological viability of the development.
While this may seem like a logistics decision on the surface, it actually reflects thoughtful delivery of a much broader set of outcomes. Transport movements are significantly reduced because vehicles are no longer returning empty. Carbon emissions fall as a result, while costs are lowered through more efficient use of haulage.
There is also a clear benefit for local communities, with fewer lorry movements on surrounding roads. At the same time, biodiversity requirements are met both on-site and through local off-site provision within the same authority area.
What is important about this example is both the outcome, and the way it was achieved. It is a clear representation of biodiversity delivery being designed into the way the site functions from the very beginning, alongside materials management, logistics and long-term land use.
Reframing the role of BNG
This example encapsulates exactly where the wider BNG conversation can sometimes miss the mark. It is often framed as an additional requirement that sits outside of core delivery, when in reality it interacts directly with some of the most fundamental aspects of how housing schemes are brought forward.
Housing providers are already managing complex pressures around viability, planning timelines, land constraints and community expectations. In that context, BNG should not be seen purely as an obligation to satisfy. When approached early and with the right level of coordination, it can reduce waste, particularly where surplus soils would otherwise be sent to landfill, improve efficiency across the site and introduce a greater level of certainty into how biodiversity requirements are met.
It can also support viability in a more practical sense than is often recognised. Avoiding unnecessary disposal costs, reducing transport movements and aligning on-site and off-site solutions can have a meaningful impact on the overall cost profile of a scheme.
At the same time, it allows developers to demonstrate environmental outcomes that are tangible and locally relevant, rather than abstract.
The role of early engagement
The common thread across projects that are working well is early engagement. When biodiversity is brought into conversations at the point of land acquisition or early design, there is far more flexibility to shape outcomes. Developers are able to explore what can realistically be delivered on-site, identify appropriate off-site options and align those decisions with programme and cost from the outset.
By contrast, when BNG is addressed later, developers are more exposed to a constrained unit market and have fewer levers available to manage the outcome. Much of the frustration that has characterised the early stages of BNG can be traced back to that timing issue.
A more practical way forward
As the market matures, the conversation is becoming less theoretical and more grounded in delivery. The strongest examples are not those that treat biodiversity as a separate workstream, but those that integrate it into the practical realities of building homes, from how materials are moved to how land is managed over the long term.
For housing providers, that represents a shift in mindset. BNG is not simply about meeting a requirement. It is about understanding how biodiversity, land use and site operations connect.
When those connections are made early enough, BNG becomes far less of a pressure on delivery and much more of a tool to improve it.
Main image: Simon Towers is chief executive of Green Earth Developments Group
Read next: Seddon embarks on major home improvement works
Are you a social housing professional? Sign up for a FREE MEMBERSHIP to upload news stories, post job vacancies, and connect with colleagues on our secure social feed.
