HBF Planning Conference 2024

The Home Builders Federation has made seven asks of government on biodiversity net gain (BNG) as highlighted at its Planning Conference, including ensuring the system fully works.

Speaking at the event in Birmingham, Rachel Danemann, HBF’s planning manager – local plans, said HBF wished to stress to ministers that BNG, which became a legal requirement earlier this year, "costs time, money and land. The government thinks it’s all fine because nothing’s gone wrong yet”.

The nature of planning meant that problems with the new environmental regulation would not be immediately apparent, she said. Under the Environment Act, all sites are subject to a 10% uplift in BNG.

In one of HBF’s asks, the industry wants the government to get the system “working” before progressing any further. And Danemann said statutory credit systems should be fully functioning. This, HBF stated, would give confidence to those relying on them to deliver BNG.

Danemann also said the government should require local plans to include a baseline BNG assessment as part of the site allocation process. It should also make clear in local plans that “you can deliver BNG in the green belt [if off site] and in green wedges”.

HBF also wants the government to ensure local nature recovery strategies and local plans work together to support offsite delivery and require that local planning authorities only refer to national guidance (not produce their own). There should also be a Quality Mark for offsite BNG credits.

Danneman said she had undertaken “a lot of work” through the housing department, Homes England and Future Homes Hub on the challenges of BNG. "The government thinks it's all been sorted."

Also speaking at the conference, Emma Ramell, HBF’s director of external affairs, said there would be a “longer term detrimental effect” to developers’ current difficulty with fulfilling section 106 requirements. Some registered providers (RPs) are unable to purchase affordable housing units thanks to numerous financial pressures.

“We’re in a housing crisis,” she stated. “Delivery of homes of all tenures is at risk of stalling or being delayed. It really is an alarming situation.”

HBF is currently undertaking its second piece of research on the section 106 situation for housebuilders, widening its scope. It is also looking to trial a brokerage service which would connect RPs who are bidding with housebuilders who have section 106 units to sell.

On the other pressing matter of nutrient neutrality, James Stevens, HBF’s director for cities, said the new government’s approach to solving the problem “may involve some change to legislation”.

In another possible remedy, Stevens said that setting a nutrient baseline could determine “how much needs to be removed” to return affected catchments “to a favourable condition”. But he pointed out that “we can’t do that at the moment as the state of monitoring of catchment areas isn’t there”.

A rumoured levy-based solution was unlikely as the Habitat Regulations would view this as compensation, not mitigation, Stevens explained.

Stephen Hill, director of Hyas Associates, probed the government’s New Towns programme which, according to ministers, will produce “at least 10,000 homes”. Hill said a New Towns code would accompany the initiative.

But he detailed some challenges to the programme, including the possible replacement of decades-old legislation on new towns and how the new initiative would align with other legislative requirements, for example, BNG and other sustainability policies. And: “How do New Towns fit into a strategic planning world?”

Simon Ricketts, partner at Town Legal and Paul Smith, md of the Strategic Land Group, considered another new government concept: grey belt.

Smith noted that the conversation about grey belt had, since the general election, shifted from discussing wasteland to considering areas “that make a limited contribution to the green belt" through the revised National Planning Policy Framework.

Ricketts said he welcomed the government’s “pro-growth approach” to green belt. But he pointed out that the five purposes of green belt land – as a way of defining grey belt against them - “are not to do with the quality of land; they’re to do with the separation of developments and constraining of development”.

Mark Behrendt, HBF’s planning manager – local plans, looked at net zero planning and the evolution of local energy standards within national policy. He concluded that local authorities could create their own zero carbon plans but within the framework of national regulations.

“At HBF, we’ll continue to press for a single standard through Building Regulations. We don’t believe it’s for the planning system to address standards," he said.

Also at the conference, Zack Simons of Landmark Chambers talked through changes in planning guidance to the Flood Risk Sequential Test. Now, the guidance says a sequential test should be undertaken for all sources of flood risk on a site, including surface water.

The change “has had seismic consequences,” Simmons stated, with some local authorities and judges refusing planning permission. He said surface water flood risk should be removed from the sequential test and covered through drainage.

Claire Petricca-Riding, partner and head of planning & environment at Irwin Mitchell and Tamsin Almeida, Hayfield Homes’ senior planning manager, spoke of their BNG observations and experiences alongside Rachel Danemann.

Nicola Gooch, Irwin Mitchell’s partner - planning & environment, discussed devolution and strategic plans alongside James Stevens. And Anna Relph, director of Turley and Shelly Rouse, the Planning Advisory Service’s principal consultant, spoke about targets and local plans.

Simon Ricketts closed the conference with a look at the complexities of land value capture.

The HBF Planning Conference took place on 17th September 2024 at Austin Court, Birmingham.