Planning matters blog

The New Plan-Making System: Zen and the Art of Timetable Maintenance

Dominic Bowers 01 May 2026

The legislation for the new plan-making system is now largely in force and initial guidance has been published.

While the headline change of the new plan-making system is the 30-month target for plan adoption[1], the reforms also aim to improve the transparency and consistency of the preparation process. This blog covers the latter aspect of these reforms: the three gateways an authority must pass through on its way to adoption and, in more detail, the timetable it must maintain to keep progress visible[2].

The new timetables, which replace Local Development Schemes, will be one of the first visible changes brought by the new process now that regulations for the new system are largely in effect. The ability of Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to keep them updated in a timely manner will therefore be a leading indicator of the ability of the system to make plan-making faster, clearer, and easier to monitor.

The 30-month plan-making process and the gateways

The new system features three gateways[3], which act as both check valves for plan-making progress – in the case of Gateways 1 and 2, which cannot be repeated (unless the whole process is restarted)[4] – and opportunities for LPAs to receive two rounds of advice from an appointed assessor on the state of their plan, which should in theory expedite the examination process.

Gateway 1 is a ‘self-assessment summary’ of whether the tasks required during the 4-month notice period have been undertaken – passing through Gateway 1 is the start of the 30-month process.
Gateway 2 is the seeking of observations and advice from a Planning Inspectorate appointed assessor on aspects of the proposed plan, having consulted on content and the draft vision.
Gateway 3 is when a Planning Inspectorate gateway assessor provides observations and advice, and decides whether the plan has met the legal, prescribed requirements, and is ready to be submitted for examination.

“Getting ready”

The Government’s ‘30-month overview’ guidance includes the below diagram:

30-month local plan process: an overview, MHCLG, 2026

Before an LPA can progress to the 30-month plan-making process, it must first “get ready”. This stage, which leads to Gateway 1, must be at least four months long.

Recommended progress by Gateway 1 is detailed in the guidance[5] with the following headings, which reflect Regulation 21 of the Local Planning Regulations. The self-assessment summary template[6] which LPAs should fill out in Gateway 1 also uses these headings:

Preparing and publishing a local plan timetable
Establishing project management and governance
Consulting and engaging on the plan
Scoping the anticipated content of the plan
Progressing the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

This initial stage has been allowed for in terms of the deadlines provided to the first LPAs to commence the new system, the 39 which are required to start preparing their plan by 30 June 2026. Guidance states that “these LPAs must publish a notice of intention to commence plan-making by 30 June 2026 and to publish a Gateway 1 self-assessment by 31 October 2026” [7].

Accordingly, there can be no slippage from the 30 June notice of intention to commence, because this must take place at least four months before the Gateway 1 assessment. Working backwards from 31 October and considering the necessary tasks ahead of 31 October is also a factor in meeting both deadlines.

As the system beds in, we will learn whether LPAs will be able demonstrate progress on these five key matters within the minimum of 4 months, or if we will see LPAs mobilising for plan making earlier, which could see the first notices of intention and timetables published very soon.

In with the timetable and out with the LDS

While the speed of plan making is yet to be seen under the new system, an authority’s timeline to completion will have to be reported on in greater detail in the replacement for Local Development Schemes (LDSs). LDSs typically report the intended dates for Regulation 18 and 19 consultations, submission to the Secretary of State and adoption.

In contrast, the new timetables will cover no less than ten milestones in the preparation process, with up to six more where stages have to be repeated or plans revoked[8]. The ten steps in the local plan-making process which must be timetabled (along with the publishing of the timetable itself) are set out in the diagram below:

Lichfields’ interpretation of the Local Planning Regulations, 2026.

A timetable must be first published, at the latest, on the day the notice of intention to commence a local plan is published (or the day a notice to commence a supplementary plan is published, if this is sooner).

VIEW TABLE FOR MORE DETAIL

The timetable must additionally show:

The dates of any additional consultation proposed; and/or
For each supplementary plan intended to be prepared, the dates of the notice of intention to commence preparation, the notice of consultation and when representations must be received by, intended submission for examination and intended consideration of adoption.

The upshot is that the length of time between milestones – and dates – on the timetable should be shorter than in LDSs, meaning fewer long gaps between events where the state of plan-preparation to observers is unclear. Whether the gaps between actions turn out to be long or short, the progress made is arguably clearer than at present, due to the number of milestones.

This timescale uncertainty should be further reduced by an obligation for LPAs to update their timetables much more frequently than before. LPAs were required to revise their LDS only “at such time as they consider[ed] appropriate” or following a directive from the Secretary of State or Mayor of London[9], meaning that authorities’ LDSs were often years old. This left some timetables practically meaningless, as the pace of plan-making had drifted from the pencilled-in dates over the years.

In contrast, the new legislation requires LPAs undertaking a local plan or review to check that their timetables are up to date every month and to revise it if the timeline has changed[10].

There are then further maintenance requirements. LPAs must revise their timetable:

On the day that a relevant plan preparation stage happens[11], to note the date this occurred;
As soon as practicably possible after deciding to carry out an additional consultation, to note its start and end dates; and
As soon as practicably possible after repeating Gateway 3, pausing a local plan examination (to set out the pause period) or withdrawing or revoking a local plan

Therefore, a timetable should never be more than a month out of date, and often less than this following a significant event.

In practice, however, the timeliness of these dates will depend not only on legislation but on LPA resourcing. As noted above, historically, maintenance of LDSs has varied. It remains to be seen whether the explicit duty to revise a timetable every month will prove effective; it is perhaps notable that the Secretary of State’s directive for all LPAs to update their LDS by March 2025 was later bolstered with a resourcing incentive: an up-to-date LDS was a condition of authorities receiving additional Local Plans Delivery Funding[12]. To meet the new, stricter requirements for timetable maintenance, LPAs may need to streamline their review and publication processes, reorganising available resources accordingly.

When authorities provide a timetable, however, it will be in a much more accessible format than in an LDS. Since an LDS also had to detail which plans an LPA was making, in addition to when, the timetable itself was often found in the middle of a long PDF or Word document. The dates themselves also came in inconsistent format, sometimes by month or quarter, making comparisons across authorities difficult.

In contrast, the government has set out an approved data standard for timetables[13]. LPAs will have to provide two datasets, one on their plan and the other on their plan timetable. The plan data will have to include details including a unique reference, its start and end date, and the plan’s required housing figure. The plan timetable will state the event date, entry date, and actual date (when it occurs) of the minimum ten stages described above[14].

Both datasets will have to be published on the LPA’s webpage as tabular data[15] and provided to the government’s Planning Data Platform for collation. These requirements will allow the state of plan-making in an LPA – and in England as a whole – to be much more easily seen and monitored.

With the regulations for the new plan-making system now largely in effect, the new timetables will be one of the first visible changes brought by the new process. The ability of LPAs to keep to these timetables, provided that the timetables themselves are up-to-date, will be an early indicator of the achievability of the 30-month target.

Taking a positive view, the extensive guidance, new templates and timetable structure should support the plan-making process and encourage frequent reporting, such that the greater detail, frequency and accessibility of plan-making timetables will be a welcome improvement for all participants in the local plan-making process.

Footnotes

[1] Albeit there are legally required procedures to carry out before the start of this 30-month period, as covered later in the blog.

[2] The requirement for a local plan timetable is provided by s15B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, and by Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026 ‘the Local Planning Regulations’[2].

[3] The legal requirements for each Gateway are in the Local Planning Regulations (Gateway 1 - Reg 21, Gateway 2 - Reg 26 and Gateway 3 - Reg 31, Reg 32 and potentially Reg 33).

[4] Gateway 3 can be repeated, though only if an assessor advises that one or more of the prescribed Gateway 3 requirements have not been met by the plan – see Reg 33.

[5] MHCLG, 2026, Getting Ready to Prepare a New Plan guidance

[6] MHCLG, 2026, Gateway 1 Self-Assessment Summary template

[7] MHCLG, 2026, Rollout of the New Local Plan-making System guidance

[8] MHCLG, 2026, Plan and plan timetable template. These ten milestones correspond to fifteen dates in a timetable, since the start and end dates of consultations and gateways 2 and 3 must be reported.

[9] Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s15

[10] Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026

[11] Publishing a self-assessment summary, observations or advice received in Gateway 2 and Gateway 3, and publishing recommendations and reasons in examination.

[12] Chief Planner Newsletter, December 2024, MHCLG, 2025, New Funding to Support Local Authorities with the Costs of Local Plan Delivery guidance

[13] The Planning Data (England) Regulations 2026

[14] MHCLG, 2026, Publish Your Plan Data statutory guidance

[15] MHCLG, 2023, Tabular Data Standard guidance, i.e. typically in .csv format

Unpacking Retail Disaggregation

Jenny Hill 27 Apr 2026

The sequential test was first introduced as part of retail policy back in the mid-1990s in response to the growth in out of centre retailing as a way to direct development towards town centres. While out of town retail remains strong, it is not necessarily the threat to town centres that it was years ago, and there are recent examples of retail parks being repurposed for alternative uses, including residential, logistics and leisure use.

Following James Cox’s earlier blog on the changes proposed for town centres in the consultation draft NPPF, we have been giving more thought to whether there is logic in seeking, on the one hand, to remove the sequential assessment in its entirety or, on the other to reintroduce ‘disaggregation’ a policy requirement that was abandoned for 14 years.

The consultation draft NPPF Policy TC3 requires the sequential test to be applied to proposals for main town centre uses that are neither in an existing centre nor in accordance with a development plan allocation. Part 3 of the draft policy states that when undertaking the sequential assessment, it “should be considered whether the type of development proposed could be accommodate across multiple sites”. Question 91 of the consultation document then asked “Do you believe the sequential test in policy TC3 should be retained?”, which implies that the removal of the sequential test in its entirety is being considered as an option.

Following the closing of the consultation period, there has been limited industry-wide coverage of the polarity between these two positions, and the associated pros and cons.

With successive Governments promising a pro-growth stance and to reduce the ‘red tape’ in planning, retail policies within the NPPF have largely remained as drafted in 2012. The stance generally in Retail Assessments is that while previous policy and guidance made express reference to disaggregation, these references were not carried forward to the current NPPF (or indeed its successive revisions). Since it was first published back in 2012, neither the NPPF nor the PPG (or any subsequent updates to the PPG) make any reference to the requirement for developers and occupiers to consider breaking their proposals into smaller constituent elements which may be accommodated within a town centre when satisfying the sequential test. This was a deliberate choice of the NPPF and not an oversight, in the same way as demonstrating retail ‘need’ is no longer a policy requirement.

The case against disaggregation is also backed by numerous decisions that briefly summarised below.

Firstly, the Supreme Court Judgement in Tesco v Dundee City Council[1] which was the first in a series of consistent interpretations of how disaggregation should be dealt with when considering retail development proposals.

Rushden Lakes[2] was also an important Secretary of State decision in 2014, in relation to an Inquiry which took place shortly after the issue of the (2012) NPPF, and therefore provided an early indication on the application of policy by the Secretary of State. The conclusions of the Inspector were endorsed by the Secretary of State in the application of the sequential test relating entirely to the application proposal, rather than disaggregated elements and whether it could be realistically accommodated on an actual alternative site.

It is equally important to note however that the NPPF has also been consistent in the need for developers and occupiers to be sensitive to the need for ‘flexibility’ as part of the sequential test. However, Secretary of State decisions[3] relating to out of centre retail and leisure development at Scotch Corner concluded that disaggregation is not required in order to demonstrate flexibility.

Paragraph 11.7 confirmed that:

“In carrying out the sequential test it is acknowledged that whilst Framework paragraph 24 indicates that applicants should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale, it does not require the applicant to disaggregate the scheme. The sequential test seeks to see if the application, i.e. what is proposed, can be accommodated on a town centre site or on sequentially preferable sites.” (emphasis added)

A further key decision related to out of centre retail and leisure development at Tollgate in Colchester[4] stated (Paragraph 12.3.4 of the Inspector’s recommendation and confirmed by the Secretary of State):

“The sequential test within the NPPF should be interpreted without reference to old policy and guidance which mentioned disaggregation. Those references were not carried forward and neither the NPPF nor the PPG make any reference to disaggregation, or sub-division.”

Disaggregation has not been part of retail planning policy since Policy EC15 of PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’, published in 2009. This required flexibility to be demonstrated, including in terms of “the scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development, including those which are part of a group of retail or leisure units, onto separate, sequentially preferable, sites”. However, even then, the policy had an element of realism, recognising that the ‘arbitrary sub-division’ of proposals was not a sensible approach to take.

Our research found only a handful of pre-NPPF appeals where the issue of disaggregation as part of the sequential test was a factor in the outcome of the decision. A pragmatic approach and understanding of the commercial reality of how companies operate seems to have been applied. For example, an Inspector’s decision[5] allowing an extension to an existing Sainsbury’s store in Chesterfield in 2010 confirmed (para 34) that “It is not the purpose of national policy to necessarily require development to be split on separate sites.” The Inspector then concluded (paras. 39-41) that:

“Although there might theoretically be sequentially preferable sites capable of accommodating some or all of the proposed additional floorspace, in circumstances where there is a real need for the enhancement of an existing store, it would be unreasonable and pointless to insist that the proposed provision should be disaggregated …

Were the proposed floorspace to be disaggregated and located elsewhere, the existing superstore, with a number of manifest deficiencies, would remain. This would not benefit the shopping provision in the area. What would theoretically be provided would be a non-food store on another site. However Sainsbury’s do not operate non-food only stores, so there would be little chance in reality of the development going ahead.

For the above reasons, I consider that disaggregating the proposed comparison floorspace to another site would amount to an arbitrary sub division of the development. It would not accord with the policy related to the sequential approach.”

Likewise, for a call-in decision for Marks & Spencer at Cheshire Oaks[6] the Inspector concluded (IR para. 178) that:

“As far as disaggregation is concerned, I have already mentioned that aspect in previous sections of the Report. Marks and Spencer requirement is to be able to conduct their business as a whole and that is one of the reasons for the size of store proposed. To my mind, in order to allow the proposed scheme to be a success, boost the economy of Ellesmere Port and diversify the economy, it would be unreasonable to expect the Applicants to disaggregate various parts of the scheme.”

The Secretary of State (para. 19) agreed with the Inspector that “the disaggregation of the scheme would not be feasible given to the Company's need to offer a complete range of goods within the store.”

So the question is why would the Government potentially be seeking to reinstate disaggregation at this stage, when it has not been considered an option in the last 14 years, and even when it was included within policy does not seem to have been an effective tool? Presumably, the intention is to try and direct more investment to town centres. However, my view is that there are likely to be limited advantages in seeking to achieve this through disaggregation, as opposed to the disadvantages, which include growth not being realised, preventing jobs and investment from coming forwards and potential increased delays and uncertainty.

The currently drafted wording of the NPPF requires applicants to demonstrate flexibility “on issues such as format and scale”, and this has been accepted as a reasonable approach for policies to take. Suggesting that the type of development proposed could be accommodated across multiple sites would go significantly beyond what can reasonably be assumed as flexibility, and will not have the desired effect of directing developments into town centres. Our experience is that planning applications take into account realistic options for development of a site. Trying to shoehorn a development that does not resemble the requirements of a planning application, or individual components of a proposal, into unsuitable sites is more likely to stifle investment and is not a commercially realistic approach.

Clearly the Government wishes to be seen to be doing what it can through policy to protect town centres, however the high street is not as dead as it has necessarily been reported in the press recently (see James Singer’s recent blog on this topic).

Outside of the planning world bubble, there was an interesting response to an editorial in the Guardian on the decline of town centres recently where readers provided their views on the future of town centres. Much like James’ blog, it is recognised that the traditional ‘high street’ has evolved and is no longer solely a retail focus and there should be diversification and a different offer, but also that more incentives such as changes to business rates are what is required to bring investment back into centres.

It seems therefore that the way forward to support town centres is not to roll policy backwards, but to recognise and embrace the evolution of the town centre in more effective ways.

Footnotes

[1] Supreme Court Judgement in Tesco v Dundee City Council (21 March 2012) Para 29/37

[2] APP/G2815/V/12/2190175

[3] APP/V2723/V/15/ 3132873 & APP/V2723/V/16/3143678

[4] APP/A1530/W/16/ 3147039

[5] APP/A1015/A/10/2120496

[6] APP/AO665/V/09/2098680

BNG for NSIPs: Update Signals Flexibility in a Complex System

Alice Wibberley & Emily Clarke 24 Apr 2026

On 15 April 2026 the Government published its much-awaited response^[1] to consultation[2] on Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), alongside confirmation that the requirement will apply to applications made in England on or after 2 November 2026. This joins the announcement of upcoming changes to make the existing BNG system simpler, more flexible and more proportionate as described in Nuala Wheatley’s blog.

The consultation generated 260 cross-sector responses plus 10,143 email responses from a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) campaign. A delay of six months is perhaps understandable when considering the challenges in adapting the BNG system to take advantage of the strategic scale of NSIPs. The requirement represents a huge opportunity for landscape-scale interventions, funnelling significant private capital investment into the unit market and aligning with public support for nature recovery.

Despite the diversity of NSIPs, BNG will apply consistently across all project types, except for those in the marine environment beyond the intertidal zone and changes to DCOs that were not subject to mandatory BNG at the time of application. A timeline has also been published identifying how BNG will integrate into the NSIP process.

^[3]

The response document has confirmed that NSIPs will need to use the statutory biodiversity metric; it will be interesting to see how this works for large-scale projects where redesign and iteration is both essential and encouraged. However, it is encouraging to note the submission of an outline biodiversity gain plan for acceptance followed by an updated version post-consent as a positive way to balance upfront and strategic considerations of BNG against the need to preserve flexibility.

Further guidance will be published in due course on the criteria for an Inspector to confirm that biodiversity objectives can be met. Whether one or several updated BGPs and metrics might be required during the Examination isn’t yet clear, and likely to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The response document also addresses the following:

The ability to use a ‘BNG boundary’ instead of the Order Limits for the BNG baseline which establishes proportionality and helps to preserve the utility of the Rochdale Envelope;
Temporary impacts do not need to be legally secured for the 30-year period, preserving temporary acquisition as a practical tool for developers and landowners;
The essential backstop of compulsory acquisition for BNG purposes is retained, reducing the potential for applicants needing high-distinctiveness habitats landing in a ‘ransom position’ in the unit market; and
On and off-site gains will be treated as equal, aligning with updates applying to minor developments (see Nuala’s recent blog). We can expect significant private capital investment to the nascent unit market to support its ongoing use alongside this. Combined with the confirmed ability to site non-watercourse gains anywhere within the Order Limits, even transboundary projects could deliver landscape-level ‘deep and green’ intervention where it is most needed.

The delay of BNG roll-out for NSIPs to 2 November 2026 will allow careful consideration of the pending further guidance which will hopefully reduce risks to infrastructure providers. We hope that the guidance provides further clarity and gives applicants confidence on the following two issues:-

The Examining Authority’s approach to considering how an application has demonstrated early in the project that it has secured as many units “as can reasonably be secured”[4], while maintaining recognition that this will vary project to project; and
Where a BNG boundary is a more suitable approach for specific projects rather than the entire Order Limits - though the latter may "demonstrate a more ambitious approach”[5], so that baseline standards for the BNG assessment are clear and achievable.

The consultation response demonstrates Defra’s commitment that mandatory BNG should work with the NSIP process to maximise its considerable potential for restoring habitats across the country. Being the largest projects undertaken in England, there is considerable opportunity for landscape-scale benefits from the new mandatory requirement. We welcome the emerging approach, which has responded to the sector’s needs for flexibility and iteration. However, it is clear that implementing it in practice will require early consideration, with consultation and input from ecologists, contractors, stakeholders and policy experts to achieve the best outcomes.

We look forward to more details in forthcoming separate guidance for applicants and decision-makers[6] to add to the existing National Policy Statements, to give some more clarity within the complex NSIP process. As these details emerge, Lichfields’ DCO experts and in-house BNG Team can help navigate the changes.

Footnotes

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/biodiversity-net-gain-for-nationally-significant-infrastructure-projects/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response#biodiversity-net-gain-for-nsips-summary-process

[2] The Government’s BNG consultations explained (and why you should care)

[3] Figure 2, https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/biodiversity-net-gain-for-nationally-significant-infrastructure-projects/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response#biodiversity-net-gain-for-nsips-summary-proces

[4] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/biodiversity-net-gain-for-nationally-significant-infrastructure-projects/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response#other-comments Annex 1

[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/biodiversity-net-gain-for-nationally-significant-infrastructure-projects/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response#other-comments Section 6.4

[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/biodiversity-net-gain-for-nationally-significant-infrastructure-projects/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response#other-comments See Section 6.7

BNG Simplified? Smaller Sites, Fewer Hurdles

Nuala Wheatley 17 Apr 2026

When mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) came into force in February 2024, it represented one of the most significant environmental changes to the English planning system in decades. The principle of the system was clear – development should leave nature in a better state than it was before. Despite this sizeable shift, most developers supported the change, quickly adapting their working practices to factor in BNG design requirements, costs etc. to their projects.

However, the first couple of years of implementation revealed that in some instances, the system was creating disproportionate cost, delay and uncertainty, particularly for minor developments. Responding to this, the Government launched an 8‑week consultation[1] last year on improving how BNG is implemented for minor, medium and brownfield development, alongside a separate consultation covering NSIPs*. Following more than 25,000 consultation responses, the Government published its response on Wednesday.

Having reviewed the consultation outcome document in full, the overarching message is clear: BNG is staying, but it is becoming simpler, more flexible and more proportionate. Our reading is that the Government aren’t stepping back from the principles of the BNG system, more it is undertaking a recalibration of where the policy delivers most value. We summarise the key changes below.

Exemptions

The most substantial change is the introduction of a new area‑based exemption (originally announced in December 2025) meaning any development with a red line site area of 0.2 hectares or less will be exempt from BNG, provided no priority habitats are affected. Whilst it is noted that this change could result in a 12% reduction in biodiversity units delivered, the Government considers this change is proportionate to reduce the burden on smaller developers.

The exemption will remove what was often a significant cost relative to scheme size, as well as the need to commission ecological surveys, submit biodiversity gain plans and secure off‑site units for very small impacts. It is important to note that this exemption is measured by the planning red line, not the developable area, making it simple to apply and easy for LPAs to enforce.

Other changes include:

The removal of the self-build and custom build exemption (widely viewed as complex, hard to enforce and susceptible to misuse).
The retention of the de-minimis exemption (however this is to be reviewed following a separate brownfield consultation – more on this below).
Biodiversity-led development where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity will be exempt from BNG e.g. habitat creating schemes requiring planning permission.
New exemption for parks, public gardens, playing fields e.g. community sports facilities ancillary to existing playing fields (this will not apply to professional sports stadiums or these types of proposals within residential or mixed-use developments).
New exemption for temporary development which is five years or less (this only applies where the whole development comprises solely of temporary development).

Pexels - Altaf Shah

The Government has decided not to proceed with proposals for a blanket exemption for all minor development. Despite concerns that BNG was slowing progress on small sites, the majority view appears to be that a full minor development exemption could lead to substantial cumulative biodiversity loss, particularly in towns and cities. The new area‑based exemption is intended to strike a balance: removing BNG where it is most disproportionate, while retaining it where impacts and opportunities are greater.

No changes to the ‘de minimis’ exemption are currently proposed, with the Government noting that this will be considered alongside the future government response to the consultation on BNG for residential brownfield development. A change to this exemption is still crucial, given there will be certain types of development that have a site area above 0.2 hectares (and therefore not covered by the new area-based exemption) which will have little or no impact on habitat. In these cases the application of BNG is often disproportionate to the benefits.

Other notable changes

Beyond exemptions, the response also makes it easier for developers to ‘go off‑site’, particularly on smaller schemes that remain subject to BNG. For minor development, the biodiversity gain hierarchy will be relaxed so that off‑site delivery is treated equally to on‑site provision. This is a practical change that many developers have requested. For already constrained sites, attempting to make room for marginal on-site gains has often led to questionable design outcomes and long-term management risks. It seems that going forward, we’ll have greater certainty that purchasing off-site units is an accepted and equal option.

The Government has also confirmed changes to the spatial risk multiplier, which affects where off‑site units can be sourced from. Rather than being assessed against local authority boundaries and National Capital Areas (NCAs), the multiplier will be based on Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) areas – reducing the number of habitat ‘trading areas’ from 337 LPAs or 159 NCAs to 48 LNRS areas.

This change could be fairly polarising. On the one hand, this shift to LNRS based spatial risk will strengthen the link between BNG and strategic nature recovery but could also have negative consequences for landowners with gain sites or BNG providers – some landowners will see greater demand for units whilst others will be cut off from previous clients. For developers, this change could translate to greater availability and improved choice in off-site units.

Brownfield sites

Brownfield development, particularly sites with Open Mosaic Habitat (OMH), has also received targeted attention. OMH has proven difficult to identify, value and compensate for, often creating viability challenges on previously developed land. It’s encouraging to see these long-standing challenges being addressed, with a commitment to make metric and guidance changes for the use of proxy habitats as a suitable alternative to OMH. Metric information, including the definition of OMH, will be updated to assist with clearer identification.

A further consultation[2] for residential brownfield development is now open and runs until 10 June 2026. It seeks feedback firstly on a definition of brownfield residential development - establishing a clear, operational definition that combines both what constitutes residential led development and what counts as brownfield land. This definition is then applied to a targeted BNG exemption for brownfield residential development, on sites potentially up to 2.5 hectares, unlocking urban sites where BNG requirements have previously had a significant impact on viability.

Implementation and next steps

In terms of the implementation of the above key changes, this will be phased through 2026. By 31 July 2026 (subject to parliamentary timetabling) secondary legislation will be published to introduce the 0.2 ha exemption, exempt temporary permissions and amend the gain hierarchy for minor development. Until then, existing BNG rules remain in place.

Later in 2026 the other exemptions will come into force, as well as a possible brownfield exemption subject to the outcome of the open consultation.

Overall, the raft of changes proposed is positive. It is clear that the Government has listened to delivery concerns and is willing to make adjustments without undermining its environmental objectives. The proposed changes mean that for minor development schemes, BNG should be simpler and more commercially workable than it was when the system was first introduced.

As always, Lichfields’ in-house BNG team are on hand if you have any queries in relation to the above, are interested in responding to the open Brownfield consultation, or need help with navigating the BNG system more generally. Please get in touch!

*Keep your eyes peeled for an incoming Lichfields blog on the Government’s response to the BNG consultation on NSIPs!

Footnotes

[1] Improving the implementation of Biodiversity Net Gain for minor, medium and brownfield development - Defra - Citizen Space

[2] Biodiversity net gain: considering a targeted exemption for brownfield residential development - GOV.UK

Planning matters