Category: Biodiversity

Small sites, big losses: The BNG exemption is the strongest argument yet for a national tree replacement standard.

Since 6 August this year, the smallest developments in England (those 0.2 hectares or smaller) no longer have to deliver biodiversity net gain (BNG). To understand what this means for trees, we’ve analysed 505 biodiversity gain plans and 320 readable metric calculations gathered from 59 planning authorities.

The answer is uncomfortable: the exemption removes roughly half of all development sites from the BNG regime, and these are precisely the sites on which trees make up the largest share of the habitat being lost.

In December 2023 we argued for a new Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS) calibrated to the statutory biodiversity metric. That argument was about making the local standard consistent with national policy. It’s now about something much more critical: on half of all sites, a local standard is the only thing left to protect trees being lost to development.

What changed on 6 August 2026

The Biodiversity Gain (Town and Country Planning) (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/790) took effect for planning applications made on or after 6 August 2026. The three changes made matter here:

  1. A site of 0.2 hectares or less, measured by the red-line boundary of the application, is exempt from mandatory BNG unless on-site priority habitat is negatively affected.
  2. Development that’s wholly temporary, with permission granted for five years or less, is also exempt on the same proviso.
  3. For minor development above the area threshold, the mitigation hierarchy has been relaxed: off-site gains are now seen as just as desirable as created or enhanced habitat on the site itself, so a developer may go straight off site without first showing that on-site provision is unachievable.

The self-build and custom-build exemption has also been removed, on the reasoning that most such schemes now fall inside the new small-sites exemption anyway. While applications already submitted before 6 August continue under the old rules, Defra in its 15 April 2026 response to the consultation, estimated that ‘the new area based exemption for sites of less than 0.2 hectares is expected to remove more than 50% of the smallest planning applications which are currently delivering mandatory BNG, from the BNG requirement’.

Trees aren’t priority habitat

The priority habitat proviso sounds protective, and for some sites it is, but it does nothing for trees. Depending on where it is, an individual tree is recorded in the statutory metric as urban tree or rural tree, both of medium distinctiveness; neither is a habitat of principal importance under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Only ancient and veteran trees sit outside these two categories, as irreplaceable habitat, and they are a vanishingly small proportion of the trees felled for development.

So a mature street-side lime, a garden oak, or a row of maturing London planes on the edge of a school playing field — none of these will be protected if they’re in the way of a 0.2 hectare development. Below the threshold, they can be removed without any obligation to count them, replace them, or compensate for their loss anywhere. Unless the tree is protected by a Tree Preservation Order, or unless the local plan says otherwise, nothing now requires their loss to be made good.

This is the gap; and it’s much larger than the word ‘small’ implies.

Half of all development sites now fall outside the system

We measured site area for every gain plan in our dataset that came with a usable metric calculation — 305 sites across 59 authorities. Site area here is the baseline area-habitat total, net of any individual trees, taken from the statutory metric or, for small-sites metrics.

Table 1. Development sites by size, 305 sites with a usable metric calculation
Site size Sites Share Baseline area HUs Post-development area HUs On-site change
0.2 ha or smaller 151 49.5% 48.79 48.67 −0.25%
Over 0.2 ha 154 50.5% 506.88 512.82 +1.17%
All sites 305 100% 555.67 561.49 +1.05%

Habitat units are on-site figures from sections 6.3 and 6.4 of the biodiversity gain plan. Hedgerows and watercourses are excluded as linear features.

Just under half of the sites that have been going through the BNG process fall at or below the new exemption threshold — consistent with Defra’s own estimate. Two further things stand out in that table. First, small sites were barely holding their own on site even under the old regime that’s just been withdrawn: a baseline of 48.79 area habitat units became a mere 48.67 after development, a small net loss, with any gain bought off site from elsewhere. Second, the small-site total is dwarfed by the large-site total, which is exactly why the exemption looked politically cheap. In habitat unit terms these sites are a rounding error. In tree terms, though, they aren’t.

Small sites are where the trees are

Of the 320 metric calculations we could read, 163 relate to sites of 0.2 hectares or less. Sixty of these — 36.8% — record individual trees in the on-site baseline. Between them they carry 3.12 hectares of tree canopy ‘oversailing’ 15.22 hectares of land.

Table 2. Individual trees in the on-site baseline, by site size
Site size Metrics With trees Site area (ha) Canopy (ha) Canopy as % of site area Tree baseline HUs
0.2 ha or less 163 60 (36.8%) 15.22 3.12 20.5% 26.71
Over 0.2 ha 157 81 (51.6%) 219.64 13.79 6.3% 133.22
All sites 320 141 (44.1%) 234.85 16.91 7.2% 159.94

Site area is net of individual trees, because tree canopy oversails the habitat beneath it and is not additional land. Canopy can therefore exceed 100% of the site area it overlies.

That last comparison is the heart of it. On sites above the threshold, tree canopy is equivalent to about 6% of the site area. On sites at or below 0.2 hectares it’s 20.5% — more than three times the share. Small sites are disproportionately tree rich, probably because they’re disproportionately urban: they include infill plots, back gardens, corners of school and hospital grounds, and the fringes of existing built-up land. These are the places where we usually find the mature tree canopy of a town.

The concentration is sharper still for twenty of the 163 small-site metrics, which record canopy covering more than half the site area. Seven record canopy exceeding the whole of it. One example is a 0.18 hectare site at 22 York Road in Sutton, which carries 0.33 hectares of canopy across 18 recorded tree entries — canopy equal to 182% of the site, and worth 3.42 habitat units. At an average of 0.019 hectares of canopy each, these are mature trees, not saplings — on the replacement standard set out below, losing 18 medium trees would require 90 replacements. On an application made today, that site would be exempt and the trees could be removed without any obligation to replace them under the new BNG regime.

Expressed as trees rather than hectares, the 3.12 hectares of canopy on small sites is equivalent to 762 small trees, using the 0.0041 hectares the June 2026 metric assigns to a small tree. Because much of that canopy belongs to medium, large and very large trees, the actual number of trees is likely to be lower — and their replacement cost, in the metric’s own currency, correspondingly higher.

And they’re where the new trees were coming from

The exemption removes an obligation to plant as well as an obligation to compensate. Of the 163 small-site metrics, 72 record individual trees created as part of the post-development scheme.

Table 3. Individual trees created in post-development proposals
Site size Metrics With tree creation On-site trees Off-site trees Total trees
0.2 ha or smaller 163 72 (44.2%) 597 8 605
Over 0.2 ha 157 97 (61.8%) 3,135 205 3,340
All sites 320 169 (52.8%) 3,731 213 3,944

Tree numbers are the recorded habitat creation area divided by 0.0041 ha per small tree, rounded up. Off-site units bought from a registered gain site do not appear here, because they sit in the seller’s metric.

Over 600 trees across a dataset of a few hundred plans covering barely two years and 59 authorities out of 306. If you scale that across every planning authority in England and across the years ahead, the tree planting foregone is substantial.

BNG was never going to save urban trees anyway

It’s worth being clear that the case for a local tree standard doesn’t rest solely on the exemption. Even where BNG still applies, it often doesn’t keep compensation anywhere near the trees that were lost.

The Biodiversity Gain Sites register as of 19 August 2026 — 2,328 developments across 306 authorities — shows that 87% of developments in urban authorities offset outside their own authority area. Those authorities needed 1,835 area habitat units and hosted 889. In London the pattern is near total: 98% of the 113 registered London borough developments offset elsewhere, requiring 46.8 units and hosting 3.3.

The units are real, and the receiving sites may well be excellent. But a habitat unit delivered in a rural county doesn’t provide shade in Bristol, intercept its rainfall, cool it in a heatwave, or stand outside anybody’s window. Urban tree canopy is a local public good, yet BNG systematically moves its replacement to some distant field that few, if any, will ever visit.

Why we need a tree replacement standard

A tree replacement standard is a local plan policy, not a national biodiversity calculation. It attaches to the tree, not to the site area; it applies whether or not a metric has to be completed; and it keeps the replacement in or close to the place where the loss occurred. It’s the mechanism best suited to fill the gap the exemption has opened.

This is not a novel invention. Bristol has operated the BTRS since 2014 under Core Strategy policy BCS9, and a replacement table is carried forward into proposed local plan policy BG4. What we argued in 2023 was that the ratios should be recalibrated so that the standard delivers what the statutory metric would have delivered, plus the 10% uplift. Our proposal was not adopted then, though our argument stands. What’s changed is who needs it: not just Bristol, but every planning authority that wants any control at all over tree loss on the majority of its planning applications.

We would encourage authorities without such a policy to adopt one, and those with one to check that it’s calibrated to the metric rather than to a historic rule of thumb whose rationale was and remains hard to understand. As the standard is a local plan policy, it can be applied to exempt sites without cutting across the national BNG regime: BNG sets a floor for biodiversity, and a replacement standard sets a separate, local requirement for canopy.

Recalculating the standard against the June 2026 metric

Our 2023 proposal derived replacement numbers from the tree area equivalents then in force. Those figures have since changed. Table 15 of the Statutory Biodiversity Metric User Guide (June 2026), at page 62, now assigns the areas set out below. Applying the same method — the area of the lost tree divided by the area of one small tree, since a newly planted tree is recorded as small, plus the 10% net gain, rounded up because a fraction of a tree is not a tree — gives revised numbers.

Table 4. Replacement trees required, recalculated against the June 2026 metric
Tree size (DBH) Area equivalent (ha) Multiple of a small tree Plus 10% net gain Replacement trees 2023 proposal
Small (>7.5–30 cm) 0.0041 1.00 1.10 2 1
Medium (>30–60 cm) 0.0163 3.98 4.37 5 3
Large (>60–90 cm) 0.0366 8.93 9.82 10 10
Very large (>90 cm) 0.0765 18.66 20.52 21 20

Areas are from Table 15 of the Statutory Biodiversity Metric User Guide (June 2026), p62. Replacement numbers are the tree’s area divided by the area of one small tree, plus the 10% net gain, rounded up.

Two categories of tree size move. A medium tree is now worth almost four small trees rather than three, so its replacement requirement rises from three to five. A very large tree rises from 20 to 21. Large trees are unchanged at ten.

The small-tree row needs a decision rather than an arithmetic answer. One small tree replaced by 1.1 small trees rounds up to two, which is a real doubling for the commonest category in the surveyed population. The alternative is to hold the small category at one-for-one and take the 10% uplift from the scheme as a whole. We think the honest position is to state the arithmetic and let the policy make the choice explicitly, rather than round the uplift away in silence.

What we’re asking for

  • That local planning authorities adopt, or retain and strengthen, a tree replacement standard in their local plan, applying to all development including sites exempt from mandatory BNG.
  • That the replacement ratios be calibrated to the current tree area equivalents in the statutory metric, so that a local standard delivers no less than the national regime would have done.
  • That replacement be required within the same authority area and as close to the loss site as is practicable, so that canopy is replaced where people live.
  • That authorities continue to require a BS 5837:2012 tree survey with applications on exempt sites, so that the loss is properly recorded even where no metric is required.
  • That Defra keep the 0.2 hectare exemption under review, and specifically consider whether the priority habitat proviso should be extended to sites carrying significant tree canopy.

The exemption was introduced to reduce costs and delays for small applications. Whatever one makes of that aim, it shouldn’t be paid for with the mature canopy of our towns and cities. A tree replacement standard is a cheap, well-understood, locally enforceable way of making sure it’s not.

About the data

Figures are drawn from the Bristol Tree Forum biodiversity gain plan dataset (v11): 505 gain plans logged from 59 planning authorities, of which 320 carry a readable statutory or small-sites metric calculation and 305 a usable site area. Plans are dated 2024 (58), 2025 (254) and 2026 (165). Register figures are from the Biodiversity Gain Sites register extract of 19 August 2026, covering 2,328 developments and 2,686 allocations across 306 authorities.

Two caveats:

  1. Site area in this analysis is the metric’s baseline habitat area net of individual trees, which is a close proxy for the red-line boundary the exemption uses but not identical to it; a handful of sites near the threshold may fall on the other side of it in practice.
  2. The sample is of applications that produced a gain plan, so it describes the population the exemption removes rather than all development across the country.

Take a look at our recent follow-up which looks at the immediate impact of this new exemption for Bristol :

Looking at Bristol’s development sites

Where does our lost habitat go?

Biodiversity net gain is moving habitat out of towns — but small sites are not the reason why

Two years into mandatory biodiversity net gain, a question worth asking is no longer whether developments are delivering at least 10% BNG — almost all of them do, on paper. The question to ask is: where does the biodiversity go answer what Parliament intended it to go?

Our earlier July blog — When a city builds, where does nature go? — asked where the compensating habitat goes physically, and found it travels a median 36 kilometres from where it was lost, and to less deprived places — this remains true today.

Note: These two blogs analyse their data differently — using a different classification of authorities, and 357 gain plans rather than 202 available in July — so figures should not be read across from one to the other. Where they appear to disagree, the note at the end explains why.

This blog asks a different question: how much habitat moves away, and do small development sites explain this?

We’ve been collecting evidence from the following sources:

  • 357 biodiversity gain plans downloaded from 38 local planning authorities’ planning portals and their FoI responses
  • the Biodiversity Gain Sites register (BGS register) as of 19 August 2026 — 2,328 developments and 2,686allocations.

We’ve also analysed the published statutory metric calculations, which give measured site areas for 202 of the plans.

We set out two findings that only appear when these datasets are looked at together. They are as follows:

Urban England is a net exporter of habitat units, at scale

The BGS register records, for every development that bought off-site units, whether the gain site sits within the same authority, in a neighbouring one, or somewhere else. We’ve classified each authority by its ONS 2021 Rural Urban Classification. The pattern is stark.

Table 1: Area habitat units. ‘Units required’ is what developments in that authority had to buy off-site; ‘Units hosted’ is what gain sites in that authority delivered to developments anywhere. London boroughs are a subset of Urban, not an additional row.

Nine in ten developments in Office of National Statistics (ONS)-defined urban authorities compensate outside their own area. In London it is 98.2% — of 113 developments on the BGS, two compensated at home. Urban authorities between them need 1,435 area units and host 602: a net outflow of 833 units of habitat from towns and cities to the countryside. What that means on the ground: at 192 Beech Hall Road in Waltham Forest, two new houses buy their 0.07 units from a habitat bank at Puddington in Mid Devon — 267 kilometres away — and deliver nothing at all on site. Section 6 of their gain plan, the section that records on-site enhancement, is blank.

Both rural classes are net importers on average, but the averages conceal a very wide spread. For example, the largest single importer is Barnsley (an ONS urban authority) which hosts 101.7 units against the 3.3 its own developments require. At the other end, Cherwell (an ONS Intermediate urban authority) needs 76.2 units and hosts 0.95, Westmorland and Furness (an ONS Intermediate rural authority) requires 61.2 but hosts nothing, while Manchester (an ONS urban authority) needs 48.6 but hosts nothing. What determines whether an authority imports or exports is not how urban it is, but whether anyone has registered a habitat bank inside it.

Note what the table does not show. There is no clean four-step gradient from urban to rural: Intermediate rural (59.3%) sits slightly below Majority rural (61.7%). The gradient is in fact two-step: strongly urban authorities export almost everything; for everywhere else the figure sits at around 60%.

Site size doesn’t explain it

The obvious explanation is that urban sites are cramped. A development on a small plot has nowhere to put lost habitat, so it buys it elsewhere. If that were right, the export pattern would be a led by size rather than policy, but this is not what happens.

Taking the 202 plans for which we hold a measured site area, we can see that between 40% and 47% of measured sites are at or below 0.2 hectares across every ONS class, with the median site between 0.21 and 0.28 hectares, whether the authority is Manchester or mid-Devon. The overall median is 0.243 hectares; a quarter of all sites are below 0.102 ha.

Table 1: Small sites are everywhere.

Nor do small sites drive habitat off site. Of the 90 sites at or below 0.2 hectares, 34% use off-site compensation (off-site or both — question 4.6 of the required Biodiversity Gain Plan). Of the 112 larger sites, 42% do. The relationship runs, weakly, the wrong way for the cramped-site theory.So the export of habitat from towns is not a consequence of urban plots being small. It is a consequence of where the available habitat banks are — and they are in the countryside, because that is where land is both cheaper and available. The spatial risk multiplier is meant to discourage distant compensation. On this evidence it is not discouraging it much.

What small sites actually deliver

The small-site analysis is worth reporting in its own right, because percentage compliance conceals what’s happening in absolute terms.

Table 1: Small-site analysis

Small sites are 45% of all measured sites but only 6.6% of the baseline biodiversity. Their median pre-development value is 0.170 biodiversity units — so the minimum statutory 10% BNG required amounts to 0.017 of a unit, equivalent to an area of improved habitat you could easily step across.

They meet the target as reliably as anyone: median on-site net change is +11.5% on small sites against +11.8% on larger ones. That equivalence is the point.

But percentage is not a quantity. Two developments can both report ‘12% net gain’ while one creates a meadow and the other creates a planter, and the 10% BNG test cannot tell them apart.

This matters most in towns, because that is where small sites and high export rates coincide — 44 of the 97 measured urban sites are at or below 0.2 ha, and 90.4% of developments in urban areas send their compensation away. The residual on-site gain left behind in urban England is, in absolute terms, very small indeed.

Our own biodiversity gain plan analysis points the same way. Across all 357 plans analysed so far, 37% use off-site compensation — but that splits 42% in ONS urban authorities against 28% everywhere else. The median on-site net change tells the same story from the other end: +11.0% in urban authorities against +12.5% in non-urban ones. Urban development both delivers less at home and sends more away.

The rules have just changed — but in the same direction as before

From 6 August 2026, three changes take effect for planning applications made on or after that date. Each pushes in the same direction as the pattern set out above.

Development on sites of 0.2 hectares or less is now exempt from mandatory BNG altogether, unless on-site priority habitat is affected. Government expects this to remove around half of residential planning permissions from the regime. In our dataset it would remove 90 of the 202 sites we can measure — 45% of them — and in ONS Urban authorities, 44 of 97.

Those are precisely the sites already contributing least: 6.6% of the baseline biodiversity, and 0.021 of a unit of gain apiece. So the honest reading is that not much is being given up. But not much becomes nothing; the survey that would at least have recorded what was there is no longer required. In towns, where 45% of sites are that small, the regime stops seeing a large part of what gets built.

Minor development no longer has to try on-site compensation first. The biodiversity gain hierarchy is relaxed, so that off-site delivery counts equally with on-site provision. Our data suggests that hierarchy was doing real work: small sites currently use off-site compensation less than large ones — 34% against 42% — which is the opposite of what cost alone would predict. Remove the duty to try on-site first and that gap has only one direction in which to close.

The spatial risk multiplier is being rebased on Local Nature Recovery Strategy areas, cutting the number of habitat trading areas from 306 local planning authorities, or 159 National Character Areas, to 48 LNRS areas.

This is the change that bears most directly on the figures above, and it’s worth being exact about what it does. The BGS already distinguishes compensation that stays inside the development’s own authority from compensation that goes to a different authority in the same LNRS area. We count the second as leaving the authority, because it does, but under the new regime it will attract no spatial risk penalty at all.

Of the 2,328 developments in the current BGS register, 502 — 21.6% — will move from distant to local allocations without a single unit of habitat changing place. In Urban authorities the shift is larger still: 274 developments take the urban share compensating locally from 9.6% to 34.4%.

The reform doesn’t change where the habitat goes. It changes what the metric now treats as local with no spatial risk penalty.

What this does and doesn’t prove

  1. The two datasets count different things. The BGS covers only developments that bought off-site units. It says nothing about the majority of permissions that are met wholly on site. Our 357 gain plans are a hand-collected sample from 38 authorities, not a random one. Where the two are combined above, it’s to test an explanation, not to produce a single national rate.
  2. Hosting is inferred, not stated. The BGS register names the authority of the development but not of the gain site. We place a site in the authority whose developments record an allocation from it as ‘Within (LPA)’, which locates 145 of 212 sites carrying 81% of all units. The remaining 568 units sit on sites used by no development in their own authority; where they are is unknown, so the hosted column is the minimum measurable.
  3. Site area is not the same as the exemption area. Our site areas are based on the baseline habitat area recorded in the statutory metric, not the red line application area against which the 0.2 hectare exemption is measured. The two are close but not identical, so 45% is an estimate of how many of our sites would fall outside the new regime, not a count of them.
  4. Publication is patchy. The BGS register proves the existence of 269 gain plans across 32 authorities, but we hold no local copy of any of these. Each one is a development that cannot have begun without an authority-approved plan. Meanwhile, two authorities have now told us, in answer to FoI requests, about gain plans that are not on their own portals: one listed 60 discharge applications of which 20 could not be found, and the other scheduled six approved gain plans of which two could not be found. That’s a separate issue, but it bears on how much of this picture anyone outside a planning department can see.

Is the BNG regime delivering on its promise?

Biodiversity net gain was sold as a mechanism that would leave development areas richer in nature than it found them. What the BGS register shows, however, is that 833 area units of habitat, net, have left urban England for the countryside, with London exporting 93% of everything its developments require.

That may be defensible ecologically — larger, better-connected habitat banks can be worth more than fragmented urban parcels which may be badly delivered —  though the metric’s multipliers are meant to price that in. But it’s not what most people understood the new regime promised, and it’s happening without anyone having decided that it should. The people who lose the nature are not the people who gain it.

If the answer is that urban compensation should stay urban, the levers were there — the spatial risk multiplier, local nature recovery strategies, and the authority’s own discretion over what it accepts. Two of those three have just been loosened. The multiplier is now being based on areas seven times larger than the authorities it replaced, the duty to try on site first has gone for minor development, and a large share of urban sites will shortly sit outside the regime altogether. What is left is local discretion — and an authority that wants nature to stay in its own town will now have to ask for it explicitly, knowing the metric no longer requires it.

Note on our July 2026

Our earlier July post’s figures are not directly comparable with the figures used here. Then, we classified authorities by hand rather than by ONS category, and had only analysed 202 plans. We also reported on-site change as an average weighted by habitat value, which on a dataset with 202 records was decided by two or three large schemes — Plymouth alone moved the current figure by fourteen points. We now use the median values per plan. Our finding that urban schemes rely more on off-site compensation is unaffected.

Dataset: 357 biodiversity gain plans from 38 local planning authorities; Biodiversity Gain Sites BGS register extract of 19 August 2026 (2,328 developments, 2,686 allocations, 3,030.11 area habitat units); statutory metrics giving a measured site area for 202 plans. Authorities are classified by the ONS 2021 Rural Urban Classification of Local Authority Districts, matched by ONS area code. Bristol Tree Forum.

Our detailed analysis is available here – BGP Full Data Extract v11. However, as this is a working document which we are building on all the time, it is likely that many of the figures quoted above will have changed.

Biodiversity Net Gain – what the biodiversity gain plans approved actually show

Since February 2024 biodiversity net gain has been mandatory for major development in England – and for small sites since April of that year. Two and a half years on, there’s still no publicly available national dataset of the gains that developers promised and say they’re delivering.

While the Biodiversity Gain Sites Register records off-site allocations, these are a small element of the whole BNG regime. The required biodiversity gain plans themselves — the information and documents that state, scheme by scheme, what the baseline biodiversity was and what biodiversity gain the development will deliver — sit dispersed across individual planning portals. Each portal is managed by each of over 300 planning authorities and the information is not nationally collated.

So far, we’ve collected 263 of these biodiversity gain plans from 31 Local planning authorities (about 10% of authorities). We’ve audited them field by field against the published source documents. This is what they show.

How we created the dataset

Every gain plan here was found on a local planning authority’s portal as an approved application, with a published Biodiversity Gain Plan. To date, the earliest is dated 2022; 27 are from 2024, 129 from 2025 and 91 from 2026. The authorities range from Bristol, BaNES and East Suffolk, with 18 or 19 gain plans each, down to several with just one. Site areas, where a statutory metric calculation is published and the baseline habitat area can be read from it, run from a few hundred square metres to several hectares, with a median of 0.225 ha across the 133 gain plans that we have been able to locate so far.

The sample is not representative, and depended on our being able to locate gain plans on planning portals using a variety of search approaches. These searches did not always succeed and we have probably failed to identify all the approved gain plan applications on the portals we were able to interrogate.

How we found the documents

Collecting these 263 plans was harder than analysing them. Once the right application is found, the documents are usually easy to identify: they are labelled ‘Biodiversity Gain Plan’, ‘Net Gain’, ‘metric’ or something equally simple, and the labelling is broadly consistent between planning authorities. The real challenge is finding the application on the authority’s planning portal in the first place.

A gain plan must be submitted to discharge the statutory ‘deemed’ planning condition required under the BNG regime, so it sits within a related discharge application rather than within the original permission. Finding it means knowing which discharge application to look for, and under which application type (assuming there is one). Save for the regulations, there is no guidance on how the biodiversity gain condition should be discharged or what should be published when, so every authority has settled the question differently. A minority have a dedicated application type — e.g. ‘Approval of Details – BNG’ — and one search usually returns everything, but not always : on some planning portals this search returns nothing.

For example, the Bristol City Council planning portal Advanced search option returns no decided results when the ‘Discharge Deemed BNG Condition’ Application Type is used. Only two pending applications are found, but on closer examination, even though one contains the required Biodiversity Gain Plan document, there is no required statutory metric calculation, while the other one relates to an application that predates the BNG regime.

In all other cases the only method is to guess using search terms like ‘biodiversity’, ‘BNG’, ‘gain plan’, ‘net gain’, and hope this produces results. At one authority a search for ‘biodiversity’ returned 16 results, but fewer than half were gain plan applications. At another, three search terms yielded three plans, and we still don’t know whether that’s all of them.

The problem is not that the documents are concealed; it’s that there’s no reliable way to find them, and therefore no way to distinguish an authority with few gain plans from an authority whose search term we’ve not guessed correctly. We recently submitted 41 Freedom of Information requests asking for a list of biodiversity gain plan applications, but so far only one authority has given us the information we requested (Greenwich Borough Council). The others that have replied so far, such as North Somerset Council, have refused our request on the basis that ‘The information you have requested can be found on our Planning Portal’. We have asked for an Internal Review of these refusals.

There are two further obstacles: some plans are published as scans carrying no text layer, so they cannot be searched even once located, and in four decided cases from one authority the metric is published while the gain plan is not. This is not unusual.

The practical consequence is that a member of the public who wants to know how biodiversity net gain is being delivered, say on a development near them — and even when they know the original application reference — will in many cases still not find the answer. The regime may be ‘transparent’ as a matter of law but it is unsearchable as a matter of practice.

How developers deliver the gain plan

Question 4.6 of each gain plan asks the developer how it will reach the target percentage . Across the 263 gain plans we found these answers:

4.6 answerGain Plans
On-site142
Both on and off site69
Off-site43
Both boxes ticked (contradictory)2
Unanswered7
Total263

So 112 gain plans — 43% — state that all or some part of the BNG required will be delivered away from the development site. That is a much higher rate of off-site reliance than the Biodiversity Gain Sites Register alone would suggest, because a development that delivers everything on site never appears on the register . The register can tell you where off-site provision is delivered, but not how often off-site provision is used, so it systematically understates it.

Is all the BNG required delivered?

The statutory requirement requires a minimum 10% BNG increase in area, hedgerows and watercourses habitats (it applies separately to each of these habitat modules). A scheme that adds, say, 30% of area units but fails to achieve at least a 10% increase in hedgerow units has not met the BNG requirement.

Taking area habitats, where 224 gain plans state figures we can analyse, the median net gain is +15.1%. That sounds sufficient, and for most schemes it is, but we’ve found that this value is not representative of the whole dataset. Twenty-seven gain plans record an area net gain below 10% on their own figures. Another ten record a negative area net change. The largest recorded loss is −62.7%.

There is also a long tail of very small sites recording enormous percentages: 18 gain plans exceed +100% BNG and two exceed +1,000%. These are almost all sites with a baseline close to zero — say a car park or a concrete garage base — where a handful of new planters produces a percentage gain that means very little. Any analysis that averages percentages rather than pooling units will be dominated by them.

The hedgerow and watercourse modules are where the failures concentrate. Eighty-four gain plans state hedgerow figures; the median is +72.8%, but eight fall below 10%. Only 14 gain plans state watercourse figures at all — and of those 14, five fall below 10%, one of them negative. Watercourses are rare in this sample and poorly served when they appear, so it is hard to draw conclusions from this limited dataset.

Applying the test across all modules shows that 190 gain plans meet 10% everywhere, 35 do not, and 38 cannot be assessed based what the gain plan discloses.

Where do the off-site units go, and do they exist?

One hundred and four gain plans record post-intervention units at section 7.5 of the gain plan — that is, they state an off-site position in figures. Only 73 of those can be matched to an allocation on the Biodiversity Gain Sites Register, totalling 77.88 area habitat units.

The gap between those two numbers is the most consistently troubling thing in the dataset. It has several causes, and we have separated them in the register that accompanies this piece. Some gain plans record the whole habitat bank rather than the units allocated to the development, inflating the figure by a factor of ten or more. Some repeat their section 6 on-site figures in section 7, so the same units are counted twice. Some record a positive off-site uplift with no gain site reference at 7.2 and no allocation on the register at all. Twenty-seven gain plans fall into that last category — an off-site gain asserted in an approved document, with nothing on the statutory register to correspond to it. However, it may be that these sites have yet to purchase their offsite requirements.

The reverse case also occurs: 11 gain plans have units allocated on the register while the plan itself records no off-site gain.

Unit density: more habitat, no more biodiversity

Pooling the metrics we hold — 143 metrics covering 134.5 hectares of on-site area habitat — produces a finding that percentages conceal.

 BaselinePost-development
Habitat area (ha)134.53138.25
Biodiversity units424.65424.97
Units per hectare3.1573.074

This table covers on-site area habitats only and excludes hedgerows and watercourses, which are linear habitats, and off-site purchases. It also predates the most recent additions to the dataset, so treat it as indicative of the 143 metrics we hold rather than of all 263 plans.

Across these sites, habitat area rises by 2.8% while total biodiversity units are flat, and unit density falls by 2.6%. The 10% gains recorded scheme by scheme do not aggregate into a 10% gain in on-site units, because a large share of the recorded gain is bought off site rather than created on it, and because what is created on site tends to be lower in distinctiveness and condition than what was there before. Greener, but with a lower habitat value.

What the documents show

Alongside the dataset, we maintain a register of defects — matters visible in the approved document itself, without site visits or ecological judgement. As of today it records 143 defects across 104 gain plans, from 263 held: a defect rate of 40% across 28 of the 31 authorities.

These are not close calls. They include gain plans dated before the survey they rely on; mandatory fields left blank; section 6 net-change figures that contradict the section 6.3 and 6.4 values above them; post-development values entered in the pre-development box; section 7 left empty on a gain plan that states the gain will be achieved partly off site. Every entry cites the figures it rests on, so any authority that thinks an entry is wrong can check it against its own document.

A distinct category is worth separating out. In four cases from one authority, a search of decided applications returned a statutory metric calculation but no biodiversity gain plan at all. At one of those sites the metric records the development losing 32% of the baseline area units. Off-site provision could in principle make that up — but the document that would say so, the gain plan, was not published. Under paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A, approval of the gain plan is the condition on which lawful commencement rests. It is the document that matters, and it’s the one that’s missing.

That case is worth dwelling on, because it’s the visibility problem meeting the compliance problem . A metric published without a gain plan is not a filing error. Under paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A the approved gain plan is the document on which lawful commencement depends, and it is the one document a reader cannot find. Whether it exists and was not published, or was never required, or was never produced, cannot be determined.

Why the numbers have fallen in our audit

Two months ago this analysis would have reported a defect rate of 49%. It reports 40% because we audited our own dataset before publishing it, and because we corrected it again afterwards when an authority showed us we were wrong. Both times the effect was to remove findings, not to add them.

Machine transcription fails silently. A field the extraction misses looks exactly like a field the applicant left blank, and a blank on our spreadsheet had been turning into a finding against a named authority. We compared 2,409 fields against the source documents and found 58 errors — a rate of 2.4% — of which the largest group were fields recorded as blank that were in fact fully answered.

The worst of it concerns tick boxes. Question 4.6 is a tick box, and so are 4.1, 4.7, 4.13 and 5.2. None of these PDFs stores its ticks as form data: the tick is drawn on the page, and every text extractor reports a ticked box and an empty one identically. A gain plan that answered the question looked exactly like a gain plan that ignored it. We had recorded 30 gain plans as leaving 4.6 blank and had made findings against 27 of them. Re-reading every box by measuring the ink inside it showed that all but one had answered. Thirty-one register entries were withdrawn.

We mention this because anyone building a dataset from these forms by text extraction has the same problem and may not know it. If your BNG data has tick-box fields in it, they are incorrect.

The full method, what was tested, what was found and what remains unverified, is set out in the audit statement published alongside the register. It includes the things we still cannot vouch for: only 4.6 was read in full across the whole set, and 11 of the gain plans are not on the Defra template at all, so questions cannot be said to be unanswered on them.

What this evidence fails to show

Six filters sit between this dataset and the population of approved gain plans in England:

  • The authorities are self-selecting, being those whose portals expose gain plan applications in some sort of searchable form.
  • The search of each portal may not have found every application.
  • Only decided applications are included.
  • Only published documents can be tested.
  • Fewer than half the gain plans have a metric published alongside them.
  • A blank in the dataset is not proof of a blank on the form.

The figures here should therefore be read as a floor on the rate of defects among approved biodiversity gain plans, not an estimate of it. A 40% defect rate among gain plans that were found, decided, published in full and then audited downward says nothing reassuring about the gain plans that were not found.

It is worth being explicit about what the first filter does. The authorities in this dataset are here because their portals let us find gain plans. That is not a neutral criterion. An authority that publishes its BNG documents in searchable, consistently named form is, on the face of it, an authority paying attention to the regime and the obligations it imposes. If anything, this dataset over-represents the diligent.

The dataset, the register and the audit statement are published in full below. In the meantime: we’d like to know which authorities do this well? If your portal makes gain plans easily findable, please tell us. Good practice is easier to copy than to invent.

How to fix this

Two things could make work like this unnecessary:

  • National guidance from Defra and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on how the biodiversity gain condition should be discharged and what should be published — the sort of specification the LGA’s Planning Advisory Service could write if funded.
  • A pre-submission checklist, ideally endorsed by CIEEM, covering the handful of errors that account for most of what we found.

Neither of these solutions would be difficult and both would do more for biodiversity net gain than yet another round of metric revisions. They might also, perhaps, make the life of the poor, beleaguered planning officer a lot easier!

The full dataset (263 gain plans, 31 authorities), the non-compliance register, the BGP Full Data Extract spreadsheet and the audit statement are available via the link below. The register details every defect found, with the figures it rests on.

BGP non-compliance register

Correction, 21 August 2026

An earlier version of this piece reported 159 defects across 116 gain plans, a rate of 44%. Nine plans have since been withdrawn from the register because the planning applications they discharge were made before 12 February 2024, when the biodiversity gain condition took effect: the condition did not apply to them, so no requirement of it could have been breached. Following a query from one of the authorities listed (for which, our thanks), the figures above have been amended to 143 defects across 104 gain plans, 40%. Three further entries were withdrawn on the same day after the same authority checked the off-site allocations: in two cases the units are registered and our matching had failed to find them, and in the third an apparent discrepancy is an artefact of the plan reporting to one decimal place. The dataset figures elsewhere in this piece are unaffected, as they record what the plans state rather than whether a legal requirement was met.

The cover image shows the development at Baltic Wharf which was located on the Floating Harbour in Bristol — a former caravan park that has lost 78 well-established mature trees to make way for the development.

Assessing habitat parcels: strategic significance explained

To calculate the biodiversity value of a habitat, it’s important to assess its strategic significance. A habitat’s strategic significance takes into account both its type and its location. If strategic significance is high, then the habitat’s value will be uplifted by 15%. However, as this article explains, the opportunities for doing this are limited.

A habitat parcel is an area of habitat which is all of the same distinctiveness, condition and strategic significance. Strategic significance refers to the importance of a habitat parcel based on its location and type.

Each habitat parcel needs to be assessed both before, when the baseline habitat is surveyed, and after development, on or off site.

This flowchart sets out how to assess the strategic significance of a habitat parcel. It uses the tables, shown below, from the Statutory Biodiversity Metric User Guide.

Our blog, The Local Nature Recovery Strategy fails to deliver for Bristol assesses the implications of this for Bristol, which recently adopted the WECA LNRS.

These are the tables referred to in the flowchart:

Table 7: strategic significance categories where an LNRS has been published.

Table 8: strategic significance categories where an LNRS has not yet been published.

Replacing lost biodiversity: a missed opportunity for local offsetting?

When developers cannot meet their obligation to replace habitat lost within their development site, plus at least 10%, they may buy habitat units to offset this lost habitat. These habitat units are available in ‘biodiversity gain sites’.

This article was updated on 23 February 2025 to take account of the development of our new site which dynamically analyses the Biodiversity Gain Register and collates and summarises the published data:

The BGS Register

To date, 46 of these biodiversity gain sites (BGS) have been registered in England. They provide:

  • 1,376.7 hectares (ha) of baseline area habitat.
  • 32.76 kilometres (km) of baseline hedgerow habitat.
  • 11.37 km of baseline watercourse habitat.

The BGS sites cover 1,770.41 ha, though not all of this area is used for habitat improvement. 1,420.83 ha baseline habitats are made available for offsetting habitat loss caused by development elsewhere where this lost habitat cannot be replaced on the development site itself.

Distribution of biodiversity gain sites in England

19 of the 46 BGS sites are controlled by  RSK Biocensus Limited as the Responsible Body but are mostly owned by Environment Bank. One other is controlled by  Harry Ferguson Holdings (based on the Isle of Wight) as the Responsible Body, with the remaining sites under the control of various Local Planning Authorities (LPA) as the Responsible Body. We assume that the LPA sites have been created in order to deal with those local developments which require offsite mitigation. Nonetheless, these sites are also selling habitat to developers which require offsite mitigation but are outside the LPA boundary.

We also ask who is policing these sites to ensure that was has bee promised is being delivered? This must especially be the case for LPA sites given that the LPA cannot monitor itself?

In Bristol the LPA has delegated this function to neighbouring authorities using s.101 Local Government Act 1972 (the power for councils to delegate functions to other local authorities). – See 30 Sept 2024 Economy and Skills Committee notes – from paragraph 9. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. However, despite this, no BGS sites have yet been registered in the city, so it is hard to see how this initiative will be delivered where offsite mitigation is required.

The habitat improvement potential

These sites provide a total of 4,819.3 area baseline habitat units (HUs), 325.59 hedgerow baseline HUs and 105.6 watercourse HUs – we have assumed that all the sites have low strategic significance and that the watercourse habitats are free of encroachment.

We have been able to calculate the improved habitat units being created but not the improved habitat units being enhanced. This is because the parameters upon which these baseline habitats are being improved have not been identified.

The take up to date

So far, 31 of these 46 BGS sites have been used by 59 LPAs to allocate lost habitat caused by 85 developments. The majority of habitats are Other neutral grassland and the remainder are Lowland meadows, Traditional orchards, Floodplain wetland mosaic and CFGM, Mixed scrub, Woodland and forest and Hedgerow habitat.

To encourage developers to choose sites as close as possible to the habitat loss, they don’t need to pay a ‘spatial risk’ penalty if the biodiversity gain site is within the same Local Planning Authority (LPA) as the development. However, if the biodiversity gain site is outside the LPA for a particular development, the developer must pay a penalty when calculating the number of habitat units to be offset. If the site is in an adjacent LPA, the penalty is 25%. If it is farther away, the penalty is 50%.

Unfortunately, it appears that developers are not using BGS within their LPA areas (if available) for offsetting but are paying the spatial risk premium, though perhaps this is because they have no choice as there are no local BGS sites available.

Our analysis shows that, to date, the average distance between the centre of the LPA* where the habitat was lost and where its loss is offset is 80.1 km, with the greatest distance between loss and replacement being 344.8 km. Only six sites are within 10 km of the site of the habitat loss, while 23 are over 100 km away.

* It is difficult automatically to calculate the exact site of the habitat loss on the basis of the information provided. If at least Post Codes were provided, this would be possible.

What is particularly notable is that many of the development sites we have examined appear to be in locations where there should be ample opportunities for local habitat to be improved, but nothing has been done to realise this. Even the South Downs National Park LPA has allowed the replacement of habitat lost in two applications on the same site under its care near Petersfield to be exported to a site some 67 km away near Lewes, albeit that it is still in the National Park.

Furthermore, all 46 of the BGS sites are located on private land, in rural settings that are not easily accessible, whereas the lost habitats were largely located in built-up areas.

However, given the requirement that offsite mitigation only be delivered on registered sites, its hard to see what choice developers have apart from testing the BGS market and buying the cheapest habitats required, albeit that this may be miles from the site of the original loss.

This is still a small sample, which will grow over time so, perhaps this will change as more biodiversity gain sites become available and a clearer trend emerges. At the moment, however, the trend is not encouraging and looks like it will result in local nature, especially in urban settings, becoming hollowed out, as we feared it would when the biodiversity net gain requirements became obligatory nearly a year ago. See our article on this: ‘It seems inevitable Bristol will see a steady, inexorable biodiversity decline’

The Local Nature Recovery Strategy fails to deliver for Bristol

WEMCA’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) will fail to provide Bristol with the benefits promised for nature. While the new Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) rules require most development in the city to increase biodiversity by at least 10%, unfortunately the LNRS will not apply to most potential development sites.

The West of England Mayoral Combined Authority (WECA as was) Local Nature Recovery Strategy was published to much fanfare last November. Defra’s blog, Kickstarting local nature recovery: a new strategy for the West of England, hailed it as the first in the country.

The LNRS is a locally led and evidence-based strategy which aims to target action and nature investment where it’s most needed. We’re told that the strategy will also focus on biodiversity net gain by increasing the strategic significance of specific habitats. However, it is hard to imagine how the LNRS will help to enhance biodiversity net gain in most, if not all, potential development sites in the city.

We might have been better off, at least as far as the application of biodiversity net gain to new development is concerned, by asking the LPA to specify alternative documents (such as those listed at the end of this article) for assigning strategic significance instead.

The issue

When calculating the impact of a proposed development on biodiversity, one factor taken into account is the strategic significance of any habitat found on a focus area for nature recovery site (coloured purple in the map above). If strategically significant habitats are created or enhanced, then their strategic significance is set to High in the Statutory Metric calculator tool and a 15% uplift to the calculation of its value is applied. Subject to which of the six LNRS areas is being considered, these are the strategically significant habitats in the city:

  • Ditches
  • Ecologically valuable lines of trees
  • Ecologically valuable lines of trees – associated with bank or ditch
  • Grassland – Floodplain wetland mosaic and CFGM
  • Grassland – Lowland calcareous grassland
  • Grassland – Lowland meadows
  • Heathland and shrub – Mixed scrub
  • Heathland and shrub – Willow scrub
  • Individual urban or rural trees
  • Lakes – Ponds (priority habitat)
  • Priority habitat (on the River Avon and the Riparian buffers)
  • Species-rich native hedgerow with trees – associated with bank or ditch
  • Species-rich native hedgerow with trees
  • Species-rich native hedgerows – associated with bank or ditch
  • Species-rich native hedgerows
  • Urban – Open mosaic habitats on previously developed land
  • Urban – Biodiverse green roofs
  • Woodland and forest – Lowland beech and yew woodland
  • Woodland and forest – Lowland mixed deciduous woodland
  • Woodland and forest – Other woodland; broadleaved
  • Woodland and forest – Wood-pasture and parkland

However, a detailed examination of the LNRS map reveals that not all parks and green spaces have been designated as focus area for nature recovery sites. It’s only those which are in one or both of the following:

  • a location where they can make a greater contribution to ecological networks
  • deprived areas with a lack of access to nature.

These designations were based on Bristol’s previous work on ecological networks within the city and where wildlife-friendly interventions are most likely to be feasible. This means that the existence, creation or enhancement of these special habitats outside these areas will not attract the 15% strategic significance uplift.

The BNG requirements

The now compulsory Statutory Metric Guide, used for calculating Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), advises (at page 27) that: ‘Strategic significance is the local significance of the habitat based on its location and habitat type. You should assess each individual habitat parcel, both at baseline and at post-intervention, for on-site and off-site.’

If the LPA has adopted an LNRS then only the High or Low strategic significance multipliers can be used (High – formally identified in local strategy = 1.15. Low – area compensation not in local strategy = 1). If it has not adopted an LNRS, then the Medium strategic significance multiplier may also be used (Location ecologically desirable but not in local strategy = 1.10).

Where an LPA has adopted an LNRS, all those sites which have not been identified as a focus area for nature recovery site will be designated as having Low strategic significance and so attract no uplift, even if they’ve been identified as important habitats in the Local Plan or in another strategic document adopted by the Council. These documents (used where an LPA has not adopted an LNRS) can include:

  • Draft Local Nature Recovery Strategies
  • Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans
  • Local Planning Authority Local Ecological Networks
  • Parks and Green Spaces Strategies
  • Tree and Woodland Strategies
  • Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plans
  • Biodiversity Action Plans
  • Species conservation and protected sites strategies
  • Green Infrastructure Strategies
  • River Basin Management Plans
  • Catchment Plans and Catchment Planning Systems
  • Shoreline management plans
  • Estuary Strategies

Baseline habitats cannot be uplifted

Despite the BNG strategic significance guidance, Defra has stated that LNRS designations only apply to the creation or enhancement of post-development biodiversity mitigation habitats. They don’t apply if these habitats – called the baseline habitats – are found on the site before development begins.

This means that the 15% strategic significance uplift can only be applied where offsite biodiversity mitigation is being delivered in a focus area for nature recovery site. If these habitats are being delivered elsewhere, the uplift may not be applied.

However, even if the baseline habitats were included, it is unlikely to make any difference This is because the focus area for nature recovery sites identified in Bristol are, for the most part, located in public parks or green spaces, on river banks, in riparian buffers or on railway margins, none of which are likely ever to be developed or, in many cases, used to offset habitat lost to development elsewhere.

So far, no announcement has been made as to whether any of Bristol’s focus area for nature recovery sites will be made available for offsite habitat mitigation and the proposed new Local Plan does not commit to using these sites for this purpose.

This, combined with the challenge of finding LNRS suitable for offsite habitat mitigation, registering them as biodiversity gain sites and then managing them, effectively, in perpetuity, suggests that few feasible LNRS sites will be found, especially as many sites are also in demand for public access for recreation.

We set out the process used to assess the strategic significance of habitats on our blog, Assessing habitat parcels: strategic significance explained.

The 2025 Annual Tree Giveaway – free saplings available for planting

Many thanks for of of you who have asked for trees – over 1,200!

We have now closed the offer.

Planting a tree is, perhaps, one of the most significant things we can do to help protect our future environment, promote nature and make the world a better place for the generations to come. The trees we plant today will continue to provide benefits for the environment, wildlife and people, for hundreds of years.

A veteran chestnut

We all know the value of trees in sequestering carbon, and they still represent the most effective and widespread means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. For instance, a single mature oak tree is the equivalent of 18 tonnes of CO2 or 16 passenger return transatlantic flights. However, it is in our cities that trees provide the greatest benefits; cleaning our air, reducing flooding, improving our physical and mental health, and, crucially, reducing temperatures during heat waves.

Our cities suffer additional problems during heat waves, with all of the concrete and tarmac absorbing a lot of energy from the cooling sun and releasing it as heat. This “heat island” effect can raise temperatures by as much as an additional 12 degree centigrade. Trees can greatly reduce, or even eliminate, this effect, partly through shade but also actively cooling the air by drawing up water from deep underground, which evaporates from the leaves… a process called evapotranspiration. According to the US Department of Agriculture, this cooling effect is the equivalent to 10 room sized air con units for each mature tree. This cooling greatly enhances our resilience to the dangerous heat waves that are predicted to increase in severity and frequency.

A veteran Beech

A stand of Silver birch

Also, Trees improve air quality by absorbing both gaseous (e.g., NO2) and particulate pollution. They reduce traffic noise and flooding and improve physical and mental wellbeing.

Thus, trees are a crucial, but often ignored, element in increasing our resilience to climate change.

What are the Bristol Tree Forum doing to help?

It is said that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, and the second-best time is now.

Unfortunately, important mature trees are constantly being lost to development, damage and disease. Though these might easily be replaced by new trees, what is less easy is replacing the decades or even centuries that the tree has taken to grow, the carbon that the tree has sequestered, the ecosystems the tree supports and all of the other benefits trees provide. For these reasons, most of the work of the Bristol Tree Forum focuses on protecting our existing trees. These efforts are particularly crucial in the urban environment where our trees are under the greatest threat.

However, as well as advocating the retention of life-saving trees in our city, Bristol Tree Forum have been encouraging new tree planting by holding an annual tree giveaway since 2020; the ancient trees of the future are being planted today! Most of Bristol’s trees are sited in private land and gardens, so the trees we have are mostly thanks to the efforts of Bristol residents, and it is those residents we must look to if we want to increase our tree canopy.

Over the last four years, we have given away around 10,600 trees, with species as diverse as English and Sessile oak, Downy birch, Silver birch, Grey birch, Alder, Alder buckthorn, Rowan, Scots pine, Sweet chestnut, Sycamore, Spindle, Wild cherry, apple, pear and plum.

The trees planted to date.

Trees given away in 2022 / 2023

Red oak sapling

This year’s Tree Giveaway has been made possible by the generous support of Maelor Forest Nurseries, based on the Welsh borders, and Protect Earth whose aim is to plant, and help people plant, as many trees as possible in the UK to help mitigate the climate crisis.

Thanks to Maelor, we are able to offer a variety of species with a wide range of sizes and preferred habitats, including Pedunculate (English) oak, Red oak, Sweet chestnut, Silver birch, Sycamore, Hawthorn, Beech, Hornbeam, Wild cherry, Alder, Red alder, Field maple and Norway maple.

Trees can be ordered using the form below

We will get delivery of trees in February, when the trees can be collected from a site in Redland, Bristol. We will email you when they are ready.

The saplings come bare-rooted (i.e. out of the soil) and will need to be planted as soon as possible after collection, although the viability of the trees over winter can be extended by storing the trees with the roots covered in damp soil.

The form below is to find out who would like to have saplings for planting, which species, how many and where you plan to plant them.

Please provide your email so we can contact you organise collection of the trees. Your contact details will be kept private and will not be used for any other purpose than to process your request.

Our Giveaway offer has now been filled.

Thanks for all your support.