Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: Yes

Date of Decision: December 16, 2025

Purpose: Use of Conservation Covenants for legally securing offsite Biodiversity Net Gain habitat banks sites that geographically span the Buckinghamshire boundary with a neighbouring local authority

Content: Conservation Covenants were a legal tool, introduced by the Environment Act 2021, that could be used to conserve natural or heritage features of land in England. They were voluntary agreements between a designated Responsible Body and a landowner to deliver lasting conservation benefits. Each CC described what the landowner would do to help conserve the land for public good. They were bespoke legally binding agreements so they could be tailored to suit different circumstances. CCs were a helpful tool for BNG in relation to securing sites for offsite Biodiversity Net Gain. They presented another opportunity to facilitate the BNG offsite market, which was important in Buckinghamshire, recognising the scale of housing growth required. In addition to get onto the national biodiversity site register (to sell BNG unites to developers), an offsite BNG site must have been secured using a standalone S106 agreement or a CC.   A CC must be agreed with a designated Responsible Body who could be a local authority, a public body or charity, where at least some of its main purposes or functions relate to conservation; or a private sector organisation, where at least some of its main activities relate to conservation. Buckinghamshire became a Responsible Body in May 2024.   The Council was able to enter into a CC including land beyond its boundaries on the basis it was not seeking to exercise a statutory role on behalf of, or in place of, another (neighbouring) authority. Therefore, no authority or agreement was needed from the other Council. A CC was a private, voluntary agreement with a landowner.   The Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Environment reported that they were looking at Option 3 to secure offsite BNG sites that geographically cross authority boundaries with a neighbouring authority. A CC would be a much simpler and more streamlined way to secure nature related outcomes at these sites. It would reduce costs by having one agreement instead of two and be much easier to deliver large landscape scale nature recovery sites that span the geographic boundary. The only risk would be managing and enforcing the agreement that would lie outside the Council boundary. Option 2 was already authorised under delegated powers. Any revenue cost would be settled by the maintenance fee. Any fees charged should be set on a full cost recovery basis including for corporate overheads and cover the full duration of the agreement.   The use of Conservation Covenant in relation to Option 3 would enable the easier delivery of a landscape scale habitat bank helping deliver some of the key priorities within the recently approved Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Importantly, they also presented opportunities to enable delivery of projects that supported emerging markets for biodiversity (i.e. mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain) but also other nature markets, such as Carbon, Water Quality and Flood Protection. It would also provide much needed river offsite BNG units, which were currently scarce nationally in the BNG offsite market.   RESOLVED that the use of Conservation Covenants, in relation to Option 3 (securing offsite Biodiversity Net Gain Habitat Banks on sites that geographically cross our boundary with a neighbouring authority), noting that use of Option 2 is already authorised under delegated powers, be approved.