Real Estate Matters – December 2014
Print newsletter16/12/14

An alien infestation: control of invasive non-native species
Invasive non-native species (INNS) are plants and animals introduced (either accidentally or deliberately) into a […]
Invasive non-native species (INNS) are plants and animals introduced (either accidentally or deliberately) into a natural environment where they are not usually found with serious adverse consequences for the environment. INNS can give rise to physical damage to buildings and land, thus impacting on the value, marketability and insurability of the property in question. The cost of dealing with perhaps the most notorious INNS, Japanese knotweed, has risen to over £165 million per annum, with the government estimating that the cost of eradicating it entirely from the UK would be £2.6 billion. The presence of an INNS on a development site can lead to significant delays in development as the INNS in question is eradicated and treated. Furthermore INNS can impact on biodiversity as they can compete with native species and result in liability (both civil and criminal) for owners, occupiers and anyone handling the INNS if they fail to do so in accordance with the law. Ultimately the problems arising from the presence of an INNS can deter buyers, tenants and funders from proceeding with a transaction.
The most well known INNS in the UK is Japanese knotweed. This was introduced as an ornamental plant in the 19th century but is now the most invasive plant in the UK. It grows incredibly rapidly (up to 10cm in the spring and summer months) and has a vigorous root system which can penetrate foundations and walls causing extensive damage. Furthermore if even a small piece of root or stem is left in the ground it can quickly re-infest a site. In addition to Japanese knotweed there are number of other species that are subject to the same requirements for management and due diligence including giant hogweed and Himalayan balsam (both of which predominantly grow along watercourses), rhododendron and New Zealand pygmy weed and floating pennywort (which grow in freshwater).
The EU strategy
Published in 2011, the EU Biodiversity Strategy required the European Commission to develop legislation that specifically dealt with INNS. This resulted in the EU Invasive Alien Species Regulation 2014 [1] which comes into force on 1 January 2015 (the Regulation). The Regulation aims to address the problem of INNS across the EU and requires that member states eradicate and manage certain specified INNS (which are referred to invasive alien species in the EU). The Regulation defines an invasive alien species as an alien species whose introduction or spread has been found to threaten or adversely impact on biodiversity and related ecosystem services (Article 3) and confirms that member states must draw up, and keep updated, a list of invasive alien species together with appropriate measures for their control and management (Articles 4-5) and prohibits the intentional introduction, keeping, sale or release of such species in the EU (Article 7). Member states are also required to take action to control unintentional introduction (Article 13), undertake early eradication and management of invasive alien species (Article 19) and introduce penalties for breach of the Regulation (Article 30).
Domestic strategy for control of INNS
Currently, the main legislation dealing with the control of INNS in Great Britain is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981). The WCA 1981 contains a list of certain plant and animal INNS that have established themselves in the wild but which the law seeks to prevent spreading further. Under the WCA 1981 a person would be guilty of an offence if they plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant that is included in Part II of Schedule 9 (similar offences can be committed in relation to the release or escape of a listed wild animal) [2]. A person guilty of an offence is liable on summary conviction in the magistrates court for up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (currently £5000) or both, or on conviction on indictment to two years’ imprisonment, a fine or both. It is a defence to prove that all reasonable steps were taken and all due diligence was exercised, provided that a defendant gives seven days’ notice to a prosecutor that he intends to rely on that defence [3].
It should also be noted that when plant INNS are disposed of as part of a removal process they may be classified as controlled waste and therefore subject to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990). Under the EPA 1990 depositing controlled waste in or on any land without a permit or in a manner likely to cause pollution is an offence as is breaching a duty of care by failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the waste is not disposed of in an unlawful way or in a manner that causes pollution or harm [4]. Furthermore local authorities have powers under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to serve notice on an occupier of land requiring it to remedy the condition of land where, in their opinion, the amenity of that area is adversely affected. Such powers could be exercised in relation to infestation by an INNS, especially where it is at risk of spreading into adjoining land.
Notwithstanding the existing laws which aim to deal with INNS, there has been a move towards amending wildlife law in England and Wales in recent years. In 2008, the INNS Framework Strategy for Great Britain was developed to tackle the issues posed by both plant and animal INNS and in 2011 the Law Commission commenced a review of the law on protection, management, use and welfare of wildlife and to make recommendations for its modernisation. As yet the Law Commission’s final report has not been published. At the request of DEFRA however the Law Commission has produced a separate report relating to the control of INNS entitled ‘Wildlife Law: Control of Invasive Non-Native Species’ which makes it clear that INNS pose a significant threat to both biodiversity and the economy and that the law as it stands does not contain sufficient powers to control and eradicate INNS in England and Wales. The report went on to suggest that a control procedure similar to that in Scotland should be introduced to permit the making of Species Control Orders (SCOs) to control INNS.
The Infrastructure Bill 2014-2015 (the Bill), which has passed through the House of Lords and is currently residing with the House of Commons, having had its first reading in November, amends the WCA 1981 to permit SCOs to be made in England and Wales in circumstances where voluntary agreements cannot be reached to control INNS. Clause 16 of the Bill would introduce a new Schedule 9A into the WCA 1981 which sets out a staged process for the making of an SCO which would commence with environmental authorities attempting to reach a voluntary agreement (a species control agreement (SCA)) with the landowner requiring them to control the INNS. For an SCA to be entered into the environmental authority would need to be satisfied that the content of the agreement is proportionate to the objective to be achieved and where there is more than one owner, that the owner with whom the SCA is entered into, is the most appropriate one. Where an SCA cannot be made and there is a significant threat from inaction the environmental authority would have powers to not only compel action on the part of the landowner by the making of an SCO but also to enter the land in question for surveillance or to carry out works to eradicate the INNS. Obstructing an environmental authority or failing to comply with an SCO would be a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment of not exceeding 51 weeks, a fine or both.
The Bill provides that in England, the Secretary of State, Natural England, the Environment Agency (the EA) and the Forestry Commissioners would be ‘environmental authorities’ entitled to make SCOs with the Welsh Ministers and Natural Resources Wales having the same powers in Wales.
Owners’ and occupiers’ liability and considerations for property transactions
Whilst the owner or occupier of land is not required to control, remove or treat INNS, failure to take reasonable measures to control one that results in the plant spreading into the wild or being negligent about it occurring could amount to the offence of causing it to grow in the wild under the WCA 1981. Therefore an owner or occupier of infested land would be well advised to take prompt action to control plant INNS. It is also worth considering that if a plant INNS spreads onto neighbouring land an owner or occupier could be liable for common law or statutory nuisance potentially entitling the neighbouring owner to compensation for loss of enjoyment and costs of removal and a continuing injunction against reinfestation. From a landowner’s perspective it is important to ensure that the correct remediation strategy is put in place dependant upon their plans for the site and an appropriate budget set aside to implement it.
The EA has issued specific guidance on managing knotweed on development sites [5] which provides guidance on prevention of spread, management plans, treating and disposal on site and dealing with the long term effects of knotweed. The guidance also summaries the relevant legislation and liabilities.
In terms of property transactions it is essential that adequate due diligence is carried out before committing to purchasing or leasing a site. A landowner is not under any duty to disclose information about the physical condition of a property and this extends to the presence of an INNS. Whilst it is possible that the commercial property standard enquires (CPSEs) cover INNS (enquiry 8.1 asks for details of infections or infestations on site and enquiry 15.7 requires details of environmental problems to be disclosed) a well advised buyer/tenant should raise supplemental enquiries relating specifically to INNS if they have any concerns. It is however, highly unlikely that a seller/ landlord will give a definite answer and will usually require a potential buyer/tenant to rely on its own inspection. In this case the buyer/tenant should commission a specific survey and inspection to ascertain whether there are any INNS’ on site and what the costs of a remediation strategy would be. A standard desktop environmental survey, as it is generally based on publicly available information and does not include a site visit, is not likely to reveal whether an INNS is present on site and as such a site visit by an environmental consultant or specialist knotweed consultant is essential. If knotweed (or another INNS) is present on site then specialist contractors will be required to undertake remediation. Ideally a guarantee for the work undertaken should be obtained with the guarantee backed by insurance so that the costs of retreatment would be covered even in the event of the insolvency of the original contractor. Such a guarantee should also be assignable to subsequent owners of the property to assist in its marketability. A buyer/tenant may also wish to take an indemnity from the seller/landlord to cover costs arising from potential proceedings as a result of the spread of the INNS to neighbouring land and the costs of compliance with notice to remove or manage the INNS.
A prospective tenant may also wish to give some consideration to the drafting of the repairing obligation in their lease in order that any liability for repair of damage caused by knotweed is excluded from the repairing obligation and the responsibility shifted on to the landlord by way of a specific covenant to repair such damage. The provisions relating to statutory compliance may need amending to remove any obligation to comply with statute so far as it relates to management of INNS. Service charge provisions may be amended to remove the costs of INNS management and, as mentioned above, an indemnity could be taken from the landlord in relation to costs incurred in dealing with knotweed.
It should be borne in mind though that no contractual or lease provision will protect a buyer/ tenant from criminal liability, for example under the WCA 1981.
WM Comment
It is clear that by strengthening existing legislation relating to INNS the Bill could have a significant impact on landowners. It is imperative that landowners and buyers/tenants of property have a clear understanding of the legislation relating to the control of INNS. Appropriate enquires should be raised when a site is being purchased however the responses to these enquiries may be insufficient to provide a buyer/tenant with the information they require to make an assessment as to the likely impact of any INNS on site. Sites where the presence of an INNS is suspected should be visited by an appropriately qualified surveyor in order that the likely financial impact of a remediation scheme can be ascertained. Finally, transaction documentation should be amended to ensure that, so far as possible, liability for any pre-existing INNS infestation is suitably apportioned.
[1] Regulation 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species.
[2] Sections 14(1) and 14(2) WCA 1981.
[3] Sections 14(3) and 14(4) WCA 1981.
[4] Sections 33 and 34 EPA 1990.
[5] Managing knotweed on development sites: the knotweed code of practice (version 3, 2013)

Dealing with leases: a new protocol for applications for consent to assign and sublet
Introduction It was hoped that the enactment of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 (the […]
Introduction
It was hoped that the enactment of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 (the LTA 1988) would bring to an end the uncertainty that plagued applications by tenants to assign or sublet their premises. Such uncertainty had, prior to the LTA 1988, in the opinion of tenants at least, been exploited by landlords to allow them to delay in granting consent, or giving reasons for refusing consent. In cases where landlords delayed unreasonably, the only recourse available to tenants was to apply to court for a declaration that consent had been unreasonably withheld. Such an application however would be time consuming and the delay could potentially result in the tenant losing its assignee/subtenant. The tenant could, of course, proceed with the assignment/subletting without consent but if it then transpired that consent had been withheld on reasonable grounds, the tenant would be in breach of the lease and potentially liable in damages and the lease itself at risk of forfeiture.
The LTA 1988 imposed positive obligations on landlords in relation to applications for consent to assign, sublet, charge or part with possession, including requirements to give consent (save where it is reasonable not to do so) and to do so within a reasonable time, to give written notice of the decision and to pass applications for consent on to appropriate people. The LTA 1988 has, in the main, achieved the aim of redressing the balance between landlords and tenants and the threat of an action for damages from a tenant unfairly prejudiced by a landlord’s delay in providing consent has provided an incentive to landlords to process applications in a timelier manner.
Whilst the LTA 1988 certainly improved the position in relation to applications for consent, it is not without its issues and a plethora of case law has arisen in relation to interpretation of its various provisions. As such, the position from both parties point of view is not necessarily as clear as it could be.
Aims of the Protocol
As a result of this residual uncertainty, Falcon Chambers and Hogan Lovells International LLP have developed a protocol for applications for consent to assign or sublet leasehold interests in commercial property that is located in England or Wales (the Protocol).
The protocol is not mandatory and nor does it comprise an exhaustive list of requirements which would be applicable in all circumstances. It aims to set out best practice and the authors hope that its use will help to both avoid disputes between landlords and tenants and resolve any that do arise. It is designed to be used in conjunction with provisions in the new Model Commercial Lease and the Code for Leasing Business Premises and the intention is that the Protocol would be incorporated into leases as code that the parties agree to be bound by. The Protocol is described as having three purposes:
- To improve communication between landlords and tenants in relation to applications for consent and to establish a timetable that allows landlords sufficient time to fully consider applications but gives tenants some certainty that their application will be dealt with within a reasonable timeframe.
- To avoid arguments with regard to the information and documentation that should form the basis of the tenant’s application and period in which the landlord ought to provide a decision.
- In the event that disputes do arise, the Protocol guides the parties towards alternative dispute resolution in the form of arbitration or mediation with recourse to the courts being a last resort. Speedy resolution of disputes is in the interests of both parties; from the tenant’s perspective it either allows it to proceed with the deal as soon as possible or gives it certainty that it can’t and from the landlord’s point of view it mitigates the risk of liability under the LTA 1988.
Detail of the Protocol
It should first be noted that the protocol is only designed to apply to applications for consent to assign or sublet a lease. It does not apply to any other application under the lease, for example, an application for consent to alterations.
The application
The protocol confirms that any application for consent to assign or sublet should be in writing and should specify the following:
- Whether the tenant proposes to assign or sublet the whole or part of the premises (and if a part, which part).
- Identify the assignee or subtenant and any guarantor that is being provided.
- Provide sufficient information about the assignee or subtenant to enable the landlord to consider the application including, where relevant:
– Details of their trade or business;
– If they’re a company their company number and registered office;
– If they’re an individual, character references;
– Bank and/or accountants’ references; and
– In the case of an assignment, information that is sufficient to demonstrate that the assignee and any guarantor can comply with the tenant covenants in the lease (for example the last three years’ accounts).
- Provide the information referred to above in relation to any guarantor.
- Details of the proposed use of the premises.
- In the case of a subletting, provide a draft sublease or sufficient information about its terms.
- Provide a solicitors undertaking in respect of the landlord’s reasonable and proper legal and professional costs associated with the grant of consent.
- Confirm whether there are any circumstances which make the application for consent particularly urgent.
- Provide to the landlord and other pertinent information which could impact on the landlord’s decision.
This list is not designed to be exhaustive and the tenant must, when making its application, take into account all of the circumstances and consider what information the landlord might require. All information should, ideally, be provided in one package and should be served on the landlord in accordance with the terms of the lease. Where possible, a copy of the information ought also to be served on the landlord’s managing agents.
Further information
The landlord should, within 5 working days of receiving the application, respond to the tenant to confirm receipt. If the landlord is of the belief that the application does not contain sufficient information for a decision to be reached, or further time is reasonably required to deal with the application, the landlord should notify the tenant in its response. If the landlord is itself required to make an application to a superior landlord it should attempt to serve on that party a copy of the application and supporting documents within 5 working days of receipt from its tenant.
Where further information is requested by a landlord the tenant should try to supply that in one single package, as soon as reasonably possible and in any event before the original information that it supplied becomes out of date.
Landlord’s decision
The landlord should deal with the tenant’s application expeditiously and provide its decision and reasons for it to the tenant in writing with a reasonable time of receiving the application (and any additional information reasonably requested). Ideally the decision should be provided within 21 days of receiving the application but what constitutes a reasonable time will depend on the circumstances of the case in question, including the type and quantity of information provided and requested, the speed with which the tenant responds to requests for information, any particular time limits binding the tenant and the complexity of the transaction.
It should also be noted that generally, the landlord should not assume that a new 21 day period begins when the tenant provides any further information that it has requested.
Alternative dispute resolution
If the tenant believes that the landlord has unreasonably withheld or delayed the provision of consent the parties should then consider whether some form of alternative dispute resolution would be more suitable than litigation and attempt to agree which form to adopt.
If, the parties cannot reach agreement after complying with protocol then court proceedings should be commenced as a last resort.
WM comment
Even before the Protocol was issued a well advised tenant would, when making an application for consent, provide the landlord with all pertinent information to enable it to fully consider its position. The Protocol does not therefore break new ground as such. It is however a useful reminder of how applications for consent to assign or sublet should be approached and, if its use becomes standard in the industry if may achieve its aim of speeding up the process of obtaining consent.

Developer funding of adopted highways
Where roads and highways are constructed as part of new developments, it is generally envisaged […]
Where roads and highways are constructed as part of new developments, it is generally envisaged that these will become public highways maintainable at the public expense at some stage after the scheme’s completion. Under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 (the Act), the local highway authority can agree to subsequently adopt roads that have been constructed to a specified standard. In the past, it has generally been accepted that Section 38 Agreements place liability for roads on the developer up to adoption, but with liability ceasing and transferring to the highway authority thereafter. However, R (on the application of Redrow Homes Ltd) v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council has put this assumption in doubt.
Background
The case involved roads forming part of a 525-dwelling residential development at Huyton, near Liverpool. While both parties wished for the roads to be adopted, Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) refused to enter into a Section 38 Agreement unless Redrow (the Developer) agreed to contribute a capital sum of approximately £39,000 for future maintenance of street lights.
The Council suggested its request was lawful, based on the provisions within section 38(6) of the Act. This provides that “an agreement under this section may contain such provisions as to the dedication as a highway of any road or way to which the agreement relates, the bearing of the expenses of the construction, maintenance or improvement of any highway…to which the agreement relates and other relevant matters as the authority making the agreement think fit”. The Council therefore suggested they were acting within their discretionary powers in requesting the ongoing street-light contribution.
At the initial trial in the Administrative Court, Judge Michael Fordham QC found in the Council’s favour.
Court of Appeal
On appeal, the Developer argued that the Council’s requirement was contradictory to the purpose of section 38 – which is to turn private roads into public highways, maintained by the authority at the public expense.
However, the Court found that section 38(6) does not incorporate such qualifications. The key findings were:
- The relevant section of the Act is widely-drafted and expressed in unqualified terms. In particular, there is no distinction between periods before and after the road comes to be publicly maintained.
- The phrase “maintainable at the public expense” does not specify how a highway authority should discharge its responsibilities. This is left to the individual authority’s discretion. The authority can either maintain the road itself or require this of a developer. Similarly, it can use:
– public funds;
– monies obtained from the developer; or
– a combination of the two.
- The legislation is not intended to exclude the possibility of roads either being (1) privately maintained or (2) the cost of maintenance coming from private contributions where highways maintainable at the public expense are involved.
- Regardless of the approach the authority decides upon, if the highway is not maintained as agreed in the future, it is the highway authority that is ultimately liable. This is a matter of public law. It reflects the fact that the road in question is a ‘highway maintainable at the public expense’.
Future Implications
The Court’s ruling raises the question of whether local authorities can resultantly hold developers to ransom and whether Section 38 Agreements may become ineffective going forward. However, Lord Dyson MR noted: “I do not accept that…section 38 will become a dead letter. The benefits of Section 38 Agreements are well understood. They are of advantage to both developers and highway authorities”.
The judgment explains that Section 38 Agreements, provided they are sensibly negotiated, are a useful way to ensure both local authority and developer achieve their objectives. Hence, where an Agreement can be reached that is commercially and practically acceptable for both parties, they will most likely continue to be made. If developers cannot agree with the highway authority in question, different statutory machinery will have to be engaged. For example, a developer may use section 37 of the Act and have the road established as a highway maintainable at the public expense as of right.
The judgment means councils may require either payment of a commuted sum in respect of future up-keep or impose ongoing obligations on a developer to carry out maintenance works. For more information on the impact for future developments involving Section 38 Agreements, contact the Planning & Environment team.

England and Wales move a step closer to conservation covenants
What is a conservation covenant? A conservation covenant (CC) is a voluntary agreement between a […]
What is a conservation covenant?
A conservation covenant (CC) is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and a responsible body, whereby the landowner promises to carry-out or refrain from carrying-out activities on his / her land to achieve a conservation objective. For example, the purpose may be to preserve a historic building, maintain woodland, cultivate a particular plant species, or protect farming land in a certain way.
CCs are in use in other jurisdictions such as Australia, the USA and Scotland, but do not currently exist in English and Welsh law. This reflects the traditionally cautious approach adopted, based on the view that subsequent landowners should be free to make independent decisions regarding land-use and not restricted by parties who are no longer living. As a result, there have historically been very limited circumstances in which a binding obligation on land (i.e. a covenant) will endure beyond the landowner who created it. It has largely been impossible for a landowner to create binding and positive obligations for general purposes, rather than to benefit specific neighbouring land.
Why the sudden interest?
Recent years have witnessed growing interest in landowners being able to create binding positive (requiring something to be done) and restrictive (promising something is not done) obligations for the public’s benefit and wider purposes. Green spaces, remarkable buildings, unique habitats and historic places are increasingly regarded as important – giving a sense of identity and community, encouraging recreation and healthy relaxation, broadening socio-cultural understanding, and boosting the economy. However, in turn, parties have had to utilise convoluted methods to circumvent the restrictive rules regarding covenants to ensure conservation objectives can be achieved.
In 2012, the Law Commission began work on its project to consider:
- whether a case existed for the introduction of CCs into the law of England and Wales; and
- if so, what elements would comprise a new statutory CC scheme.
After a lengthy consultation, the Law Commission’s Consultation Report was published in June 2014 and recommended the introduction of a new statutory CC scheme in England and Wales.
What are the main elements of the CC scheme likely to be?
The Report includes a draft Conservation Covenants Bill, which would introduce the CC scheme into law. Under the scheme, CCs would operate as follows:
- CCs could only be formed via written agreement between two parties – (1) the landowner with the freehold estate or leasehold interest of more than seven years and a (2) ‘responsible body’. The ‘responsible body’ will be limited to include local authorities, registered / exempt charities and public bodies such as Natural England in the main. These will be listed as such by the Secretary of State.
- The ‘responsible body’ does not need to hold neighbouring land, but will take on responsibility for monitoring and (where necessary) enforcing the landowner’s obligations. It may also assume obligations itself as part of the CC.
- The CC must be made (1) for the public good and (2) for a conservation purpose. The draft Bill takes a broad view of what can be defined as a ‘conservation purpose’.
- CCs could contain both restrictive and positive obligations – the departure from the historic approach apparently being justified by the importance of looking after the nation’s environment and heritage.
- There would not need to be any ‘benefitted land’ for the CC to take effect and it would bind successors in title to the original landowner. Hence all subsequent owners, even after the landowner has disposed of his / her interest, would be under the same obligations.
- The land would be bound in perpetuity, unless the CC specified a shorter time-frame. However, where CCs were created in relation to leasehold land, it is intended these would only last for the remainder of the original lease term – again, unless a shorter term was specified.
An interesting point regarding the scheme as proposed, is that where it relates to leasehold land, the freeholder’s consent is not required before the leaseholder enters into a CC. Despite the fact the land would be bound in perpetuity and the long-term nature of CCs however, there is some flexibility in that subsequent changes in circumstances could be reflected by modification or discharge of an existing CC.
When could CCs be used?
The Report outlines the following potential uses for CCs:
- philanthropic uses;
- securing heritage and community assets;
- as an alternative to purchase or disposal by conservation organisations;
- as payment for eco-system services and agri-environment schemes; and
- in biodiversity offsetting.
For example, the owner of a family estate may decide to enter into a CC so he / she can still keep the estate in the family after death, but also ensure surrounding woodland is protected for future generations, with it being maintained and open to the public. The woodland would not then have to be bequeathed to a conservation organisation for these aims to be achieved. In turn this would benefit the conservation organisation, in that they could ensure the protection of the land without actually having to buy it.
How does this link with biodiversity offsetting?
The Law Commission envisages that CCs could deliver long-term binding obligations currently sought in other ways for biodiversity offsetting purposes. Biodiversity offsetting is a way that conservation activities / schemes are implemented to compensate for losses or damage to nature, where such loss / damage is unavoidably caused by new development. Newer, bigger or improved nature sites have to be provided.
Currently, biodiversity offsetting is to be taken into account by local planning authorities both at the development plan-making stage and when considering planning applications. The mitigation hierarchy of the National Planning Policy Framework is to be followed, so environmental harm should ideally be avoided, but (where this is not possible) mitigation is then the next step.
The concept of biodiversity offsetting is certainly controversial and has in no way been fully developed yet in England and Wales. Only over time will it be possible to see if the approach brings positive environmental benefits or simply gives a way for detrimental development to go ahead. However, CCs do appear to offer a legal tool for delivering binding and permanent obligations on an offset site.
What is next?
Currently a decision is awaited from the government on whether and how biodiversity offsetting is to be implemented, following DEFRA’s consultation paper in September 2013 and a recent report on the topic from the House of Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee. With the Law Commission’s CC proposals also under governmental consideration, it is likely to be early 2015 before any further progress is made.
For more information contact the Planning & Environment team at Walker Morris.