Without early engagement with landscape architects and a framework that values ecologically valuable sites, BNG risks becoming just another compliance box to tick.

The introduction of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) has propelled landscape architects to the forefront of development conversations. Finally, we’re in the room early, challenging design principles and influencing the very foundations of placemaking. Our input is now vital to shaping developments that genuinely enhance natural habitats rather than merely mitigate their loss.

But being at the table is only the beginning.

BNG is more than just a policy; it’s an opportunity. And if we don’t lead with conviction, it risks becoming simply another compliance box to tick. It’s our responsibility to ensure that site-specific, robust strategies are embedded from the outset, rather than falling back on generic offsetting solutions that serve policy but miss the point of meaningful ecological uplift.

Yet while the ambition is clear, the route to achieving it is not. Delivering BNG comes with very real challenges: urban land constraints, limited local authority resources and a growing reliance on off-site compensation schemes all raise questions about the long-term viability and integrity of the policy.

Encouraging biodiversity should be embraced as an investment in natural capital. But in practice, it’s at risk of being treated as a future liability, especially when the ecological value of a site conflicts with development goals. Take, for example, a disused city-centre car park in Newcastle. Over time, this brownfield site may have rewilded naturally, supporting diverse flora and fauna. On paper, it scores high on the BNG baseline metric. But in reality, it could trigger planning constraints, ecological surveys, species mitigation strategies and timelines that are difficult to navigate. Paradoxically, such ‘green’ sites can become harder to develop than their ecologically barren counterparts. Now contrast this with a car park in central London, mostly asphalt, with minimal biodiversity value. Here, the scope for ecological enhancement is broad, and planning pathways are relatively clear. Developers can integrate nature with fewer hurdles, achieving the required net gain with greater certainty.

Encouraging biodiversity should be embraced as an investment in natural capital. But in practice, it’s at risk of being treated as a future liability, especially when the ecological value of a site conflicts with development goals.

But even in seemingly straightforward cases, limitations emerge. In the redevelopment of a student housing site in London, for instance, achieving a 10% BNG proved nearly impossible on-site.

Space restrictions meant that lost trees couldn’t be replaced within the application boundary. The only viable option was to offset, either by planting elsewhere within the same local planning authority or purchasing habitat units from a third-party provider. The problem? Most of these providers don’t offer individual tree units. Instead, they deal in credits for habitats like lowland meadows, which are easier to source, meet the BNG trading rules and are cost comparable. This workaround satisfies policy, but does it serve the place? Does it deliver the meaningful, sustainable development we’re all striving for?

The answer is often no. When compensatory habitats are created miles away from the site of impact, we lose the opportunity to improve local ecosystems and community wellbeing. And, more worryingly, we set a precedent for meeting the letter of the law without fulfilling its spirit.

That’s why early engagement is critical. When landscape architects are brought in from the start, we can shape strategies that embed nature into the design, rather than bolt it on at the end. On a recent project, we had to fight to integrate sustainable drainage systems and green-blue roofs, features often met with resistance cloaked as pragmatism: “This is a great idea, but here’s why it won’t work.” What if, instead, we heard: “This is a challenge… how can we make it work together?”.

We are still in the early design stages of many frameworks. This is our moment, not to settle for aspiration, but to actively challenge constraints. The BNG policy gives us a mandate to push for more ambitious, site-led outcomes. It’s not only our opportunity; it’s our obligation.

To do this well, we need mechanisms that balance ecological enhancement with the realities of urban regeneration. The current system risks delaying projects on ecologically valuable land while giving a free pass to low-value sites and missing an opportunity to maximise their potential. We must call for a framework that streamlines planning without diluting ecological rigour. One that values context and encourages long-term stewardship.

Because the real question is this: will the planning system continue to empower us, or will shortcuts and loopholes erode the progress we’ve made?

As landscape architects, we are uniquely placed to turn BNG from a bureaucratic hurdle into a design opportunity. Let’s not waste the invitation to lead.

Beckenham Place Park East

The proposal is a regeneration of the eastern side of the park. The project includes 28,000m² of native meadows, 1,900m² of shrubs and herbaceous plants (5,500 total plants), 236 trees of 25 species (80% native, 20% climate-resilient), 1,500m² of native hedgerow whip planting and 5,500m² of native broadleaf woodland species.

The BNG on this project is more than 22%, which was easier to achieve in terms of an increase and diversification of planting and less built-up space.