Payment practices under the spotlight as the Small Business Protection Bill advances

Contributor: Brittany Morton

The Small Business Protections Bill (’SBPB’) was introduced to Parliament on the 19 May 2026. The SBPB is intended to place a duty on large firms to pay smaller suppliers on time to tackle late payments, an issue which can have a significant impact on small businesses and the self-employed. 

In addition to the ban on retention payments that we covered in our March construction update, the following measures are proposed:

• The powers of the Small Business Commissioner will be increased to allow them to investigate poor payment practices, compel information, adjudicate disputes outside of court and impose financial penalties on persistent late payers.

• A statutory maximum payment term of 60 days will be imposed for most business-to-business contracts, subject to limited exemptions.

• Large companies with persistent poor payment performance may be required to publish board or audit committee level commentary on Gov.uk, explaining the causes of late payment and improvement plans.

• Contracts are expected to make it mandatory for interest to be paid on late payments at eight percent above the Bank of England base rate, with no ability to agree alternative remedies.

• A statutory deadline will be introduced for disputing invoices, meaning that businesses that raise disputes outside a set time limit will need to pay a fixed compensation amount to their supplier. The amount is based on the higher of £40 or 1% of the contract price or the amount disputed. 

The first reading of the SBPS took place on the 19 May 2026, and the SBPS was read for a second time on 9 June 2026. The second reading repeatedly returned to the imbalance of power between large corporates and small suppliers, with general support for the SBPS but a hesitancy around overregulation, unintended distortions and burdensome compliance requirements. Many peers signalled they would seek detailed scrutiny of exemptions, enforcement powers, sector impacts and proportionality as the SBPS progresses through the Houses.

How could the changes affect your business?

Large businesses should expect to see increased scrutiny of their payment practices. Payment terms and processes will likely need to be reviewed to ensure compliance with any new statutory limits to payment time, statutory interest on late payments and deadlines for raising invoice disputes. Standard contract terms may also need to be updated to reflect mandatory statutory interest rights and to remove alternative late payment remedies.

Large business that persistently pay their supplier late are likely to find themselves subject to enforcement action, including financial penalties, under the new powers granted to the Small Business Commissioner. 

In contrast to the changes announced, a proposal to change the reporting frequency for large businesses under The Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 has not been taken forward. This means that businesses will still be required to report twice yearly to maintain transparency.

Small businesses are expected to benefit from clearer payment deadlines, reduced scope for extended payment terms and a strengthened right to interest on late payments. The ability to escalate disputes to the enhanced Small Business Commissioner, with access to adjudication rather than court proceedings, may also provide a faster and lower cost route to resolution of payment disputes.

What steps should you take?

The progress of the draft legislation and any accompanying guidance should be monitored, particularly in relation to implementation dates, exemptions and transition periods.

Businesses should be mindful of the proposed changes when negotiating new business-to-business contracts.

As the draft legislation has only recently been introduced to Parliament, the exact measures proposed may change as it progresses. However, it is still advisable to be aware of the changes that may be required to standard contract terms, payment systems and governance arrangements.

Read our previous article about the ban on construction retention payments.

Sporting Events Bill

Contributors: Kieran Mercer, Saffron Nunes-Petts, and Philip Partington

The Sporting Events Bill (the ‘SE Bill’) was introduced to Parliament on 14 May 2026. It is intended to establish a single legislative framework for future major sporting events hosted in the UK. Nations that bid to host international sporting events are usually required by the event owner to ensure that certain protections around the event (including safety, brand and pricing protections) are in place. Previously, the UK Government has dealt with this by introducing event-specific legislation but there are limits to this type of legislation, such as time and territorial application. The SE Bill is designed to strengthen the UK’s competitiveness when bidding to host major international events, such as the men's UEFA EURO 2028 football tournament, by reducing the need for event-specific primary legislation.

In relation to events which are within its scope, the SE Bill contains the following five key provisions dealing with advertising and trading near event locations, unauthorised association with an event, ticket touting, and transport planning:

1. restricted advertising provisions - advertising activity carried out within a designated restricted advertising zone at, near, or linked to the event is prohibited;

2. restricted trading provisions - the sale, or attempted sale, of goods or services within a designated restricted trading zone at, near, or linked to the event is prohibited;

3. unauthorised association provisions - the use of words, images, branding, or other material that falsely suggests a commercial link with the event is prohibited to prevent ambush marketing;

4. ticket touting provisions - tickets may not be resold, offered for resale, or promoted for sale without the required authorisation of the event organiser or rights holder; and

5. transport planning provisions – a competent person may be directed to be responsible for the preparation and delivery of transport arrangements intended to support access to the event, including traffic regulation. 

How could the changes affect your business?

These changes could affect advertising, trading, and marketing in event venues in several important ways:

• unauthorised businesses and individuals may face criminal prosecution, fines, or civil proceedings if they advertise or market products near a sporting event without authorisation;

• local traders will no longer be able to rely on existing local authority licences as a legal defence where a restricted zone is in force;

• businesses will need to take particular care with their branding and promotional materials, as visual cues, phrases, or statements that imply a false association with the event may amount to an infringement of the protected rights;

• businesses, street vendors, entertainers, and charities may be prohibited from operating on streets, in open public spaces, and at transport hubs near sporting events, possibly for up to ten days before an event and for five days afterwards, which could close off key trading opportunities during peak periods;

• businesses operating within a restricted zone may be prevented from running special promotional campaigns, distributing flyers, or displaying outdoor signage directed at event attendees or broadcast audiences unless they are official sponsors.

These provisions are intended to protect the rights of official sponsors and commercial partners by preventing non-sponsors from benefiting from the event’s visibility. However, the SE Bill includes exceptions for pre-existing trademarks, honest descriptive use of a person’s or company’s own name or address, and descriptions of the characteristics of goods or services used in accordance with honest commercial practices.

What steps should you take?

To prepare for sporting events which would be within scope of the proposed framework, businesses should take proactive steps to minimise the risk of penalties and safeguard their operations.

Businesses should review all planned marketing activity to ensure that logos, phrases, social media content, and other promotional materials do not imply an unauthorised association with a relevant event. They should also check whether their premises, trading route, or usual area of operation falls within a designated restricted advertising or trading zone near an event venue, stadium, fan zone, or transport hub. If a business operates within such a zone, it should contact the relevant event organising body at an early stage to confirm whether it can continue trading lawfully and on what terms. Staff training should also be put in place to ensure that employees understand the framework and can comply with its requirements. 

ICO updates clarify how PECR applies to cookies - tightening expectations on consent, transparency and compliant tracking practices

Contributors: Charlotte Cunningham, Fiona Moss

On 29 April 2026, the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’) issued revised guidance on the use of storage and access technologies (‘SATs’), reflecting two consultations and changes introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (‘DUAA’). The guidance explains how Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (‘PECR’) and relevant data protection laws apply to technologies that store information such as cookies, tracking pixels, device fingerprinting and similar technologies.

How could the changes affect your business?

The ICO’s updated SATs guidance, issued as part of its wider DUAA driven focus on transparency and accountable digital practices, will in many cases require organisations using cookies or similar tracking tools to update consent banners, tracking settings, privacy notices and audit trails. Many existing practices will no longer meet the DUAA-driven reforms to PECR, which have been clarified by the ICO in its guidance, and the broader ICO focus. Failure to update processes will increase exposure to enforcement, with PECR penalties of up to £17.5m or 4% of global annual turnover.

What steps should you take?

Organisations should review their use of cookies and other tracking tools, reassess whether new DUAA consent exceptions genuinely apply, and update consent mechanisms, privacy notices and governance controls to meet clarified PECR expectations. They should review the SATs guidance against, and maintain a comprehensive inventory of, all storage and access technologies in use and verify lawful bases for processing (including reliance on any DUAA exceptions). Any SATs that do not meet PECR requirements should be removed or brought into compliance. Now is also the time to refresh privacy notices, cookie policies and internal governance frameworks to reflect the clarified requirements in the ICO’s SATs guidance, ensuring transparency, accurate disclosures of tracking practices, and clearly documented decision‑making around consent and any DUAA exceptions.

Benedict's Law received Royal Assent

Contributors: Lucy Harding, Philip Ryan

The Schools (Allergy Safety) Bill (also known as ‘Benedict’s Law’) is expected to come into force in September 2026 with draft guidance that was published in March 2026 also expected to become mandatory as part of that legislation. This will introduce mandatory, statutory allergy safety guidance for schools in England, providing stronger protections against anaphylaxis for children with allergies whilst they are in school.

Benedict’s Law is named in memory of five-year-old Benedict Blythe, who tragically died from anaphylaxis at school on 1 December 2021 after mistakenly being given cow’s milk, to which he had a known allergy. Following his death, Benedict’s family established the Benedict Blythe Foundation and worked with clinicians, allergy charities and policymakers to lead a campaign for government to address long-standing gaps in how schools manage life-threatening allergies so that no other family has to experience the same devastating loss.

At present, despite the Department for Education previously recognising the need for allergy policies to be in place in schools, they are not currently mandatory - research showed that 1 in 3 schools do not have a specific allergy policy in place. Schools and their caterers have always had to comply with food safety and hygiene laws which includes labelling, allergens and preparation requirements but Benedict’s Law will ensure that schools also have the policies, training and emergency medication needed to recognise and respond to severe allergic reactions, ultimately saving lives and preventing avoidable hospitalisations. 

Food allergies in children affect hundreds of thousands of pupils across England:

• around two children in every classroom have an allergy;

• schools are one of the most common settings for first-time severe allergic reactions;

• up to 30% of severe reactions occur in children with no prior diagnosis; and

• allergy related child fatalities happen more in school than any other setting.

How could it affect you?

The draft guidance provides that Benedict’s Law will apply to the following education providers in England:

• all state funded primary and secondary schools;

• academies and free schools;

• special schools and alternative provision settings;

• independent schools.

There are some details yet to be completed in the final legislation and guidance but the key requirements Benedict’s Law will impose are as follows:

• life-saving, in date, spare allergy pens must be stocked by schools; 

• compulsory training for all staff (including caretakers, minibus drivers, lunchtime supervisors, teaching assistants etc) covering recognition of anaphylaxis symptoms, emergency response and the use of adrenaline devices;

• a requirement for each school to have a clear, dedicated, whole school allergy policy; 

• individual healthcare or allergy action plans to record specific arrangements for individuals with diagnosed allergies (including food, animal and venom allergies); and

• improved communication and record-keeping around allergies and allergic reactions.

The potential consequences of non-compliance are as follows:

• regulatory action: the Department for Education can take action against providers that fail to meet their legal and safeguarding duties;

• failed inspections: regulatory bodies, like Ofsted, inspect schools and consider effectiveness and compliance with required policies and a failure to follow the new mandatory guidance could result in a failed inspection, negatively impacting the school’s rating and reputation;

• legal liability and litigation: if a pupil is harmed, non-compliant schools could face potential civil legal action from parents for negligence, or criminal prosecutions under food safety and health and safety legislation;

• individual liability: if a named senior leader or governor is required to take ownership of allergy policies, they potentially face personal scrutiny if safety protocols fail;

• reputational damage: schools would suffer loss of trust from parents and negative media attention if they fail to uphold these new mandatory safety standards.

What steps should you take?

For any education providers that fall within the scope of Benedict’s law, it is advisable to start taking actions now to ensure compliance when it comes into force in September 2026. Recommended actions include:

• define ownership: there should be clear roles and responsibilities to manage this risk with failsafe mechanisms in the event of absence, illness or departure;

• develop and implement clear allergy policies: a standalone allergy policy will be required to ensure allergies are handled appropriately and consistently and developing a new policy now will provide schools with the time to include all necessary information and give staff and parents time to familiarise themselves with the policy;

• invest in training: allergy training will become mandatory for all school staff so taking the time to train staff now will alleviate stress and time pressure, ensuring that staff properly engage with the content plus all staff should also be trained in emergency response;

• review allergy procedures: schools should review their allergy management procedures, including in relation to:

  • risk management;

  • food and catering procedures; and

  • arrangements surrounding adrenaline devices, including how to ensure these are kept in date and the number of spares required;

• check individual healthcare plans and review regularly: undertake a review of any individual healthcare plans now to ensure that they are in place where required (with input from parents and/or guardians) and ensure that all staff members understand their responsibilities (depending on the number of students with allergies this may be a sizable task, so starting early allows time for this information to be documented accurately and put in place procedures to ensure that these are regularly reviewed and kept up to date);

• check equipment regularly: allergy pens, like all medication, have a shelf life so introducing regular checks to ensure they are in date and effective is vital; and

• strengthen incident reporting: review how medical incidents, near misses and lessons learned are being recorded.

Recent case highlights importance of correctly identifying when collective consultation obligations crystallise

Contributors: Clive Day and Cory Doran. 

As is well known, an employer “proposing to dismiss” 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days must consult with appropriate representatives, as well as carrying out any individual consultation. The period for such collective consultation is normally a minimum of 30 days (45 days for 100+ employees). Practically, a significantly longer period can be required where the election of appropriate representatives is required first. 

Where a company gets into sudden financial difficulties, these requirements are difficult to meet as time will be of the essence. Nevertheless, it is vital to understand when an employer has reached the tipping point of ‘proposing’ such dismissals as this triggers the collective consultation obligation. Significant civil and criminal liabilities can turn on whether sufficient compliance has taken place.

In the recent case of Ellard v Alliance Transport Technologies Ltd [2025] EAT 169, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that closure of the business was envisaged when company directors first met administrators on 2 May 2023. On the facts and from that point forwards, the potential for closure and liquidation (with the loss of all jobs) was clear. Mass redundancies were envisaged and there was a clear, albeit provisional, intention to make all employees redundant from that date even though redundancies were announced in phases after that date. This conclusion meant that all employees (not just those employees dismissed at a later date when redundancies became all but certain) could claim a ‘protective award’ of 90 days’ pay. That was the case even though other possibilities remained on 2 May 2023. Significantly, it remained so even though, at that date, the administrators were actively seeking sale as a going concern to save jobs and maximise a return to creditors.

How could the changes affect your business?

It is vital where large restructurings are envisaged to identify the point at which a ‘proposal to dismiss’ (in other words, to make collective redundancies) has been reached. That ‘tipping point’ is not, as is commonly assumed, when there is only one potential outcome left. The test, clarified in other case law, is of a ‘proposal’ (which is more than mere ‘contemplation’) which is clear, albeit provisional. In this case, the judge found that “at the very least, that closure was envisaged in the event that the one remaining interested party did not pursue matters any further” and on the facts, consultation was required from that point. The financial significance of getting collective consultation wrong has recently increased. With effect from 6 April 2026, the value of a ‘protective award’ has doubled from 90 to 180 days’ pay.

The case makes clear that the legal question is not limited to whether a final decision to dismiss has already been taken. Even where other options may be on the table, if the employer can see that there is clear potential for a mass redundancy or restructuring exercise if the other options do not materialise, the obligation to inform and consult (and a corresponding duty to inform the relevant Secretary of State) may be triggered. The question is whether dismissals are sufficiently in contemplation that consultation obligations have been triggered. This increases the need for businesses to identify potential redundancy scenarios at an early stage, assess how likely those scenarios are, and keep the position under regular review. The case therefore increases the compliance burden on employers in distressed situations and reinforces the need for early legal advice where any large-scale job losses or restructuring may realistically occur.

What steps should you take?

In practice, this means businesses will need to seek advice at an early stage. They should also keep any initial assessment under review, and document why consultation has or has not begun. 

Legal advice, particularly in distressed businesses, is crucial. In such scenarios, management in conjunction with insolvency practitioners will also need to factor collective consultation obligations into their planning and communications with the potentially affected employees. Failure to do so increases the risk of protective award claims, additional costs and personal liability, so early action is critical.

The next phase of building safety reform across Wales

Contributor: Clare Good 

The Building Safety (Wales) Act (‘BSWA’) was passed by the Senedd in March 2026 and received Royal Assent on 27 April 2026. This follows the Building Safety Act 2022, which governs England and was enacted in October 2023. 

In England, the Building Safety Act 2022 introduced a centralised system focused primarily on higher-risk (high-rise) residential buildings, overseen by the Building Safety Regulator. In contrast, Wales is developing its own, broader framework which will apply not only to high-rise buildings but to all multi-occupied residential buildings, with enforcement led by local authorities. The Welsh approach is therefore wider in scope and likely to impose more extensive ongoing obligations on landlords and freeholders, even for lower-rise properties.

There will be a phased roll-out of the various provisions within the BSWA between 2026 and 2027, with some elements still being developed.

The design and construction phase regulations (formally known as the Building (Higher Risk Buildings Procedures) (Wales) Regulations 2025 ) (‘Regulations’) will come into force on 1 July 2026., These are new regulations for higher-risk buildings (being at least 18 metres in height) and a new duty holder regime for all building work coming into force. 

The regulations regarding ongoing safety rule and management of existing multi-occupied buildings will begin to take effect in phases from 2027.

How could the changes affect your business?

The BSWA will impact both developers and freeholders/landlords of relevant buildings. 

As the BSWA and the Regulations are far wider than the English regime and extend beyond high‑rise buildings, they will capture a broader range of residential buildings (including care homes and hospitals for the design and construction phase) and strengthen oversight across the entire building lifecycle.

It will particularly affect development, asset management, health and safety, and compliance teams. 

New duties will apply to ’accountable persons‘ to actively manage building safety risks, maintain safety case reports and ensure ongoing resident engagement. This will usually be the person (or persons) who has repairing obligations in relation to any of the common parts  

Existing fire safety, risk assessment and building management processes will need to be reviewed and strengthened. Businesses will need clearer governance, enhanced record‑keeping and more rigorous contractor oversight. Internal compliance systems should be updated to ensure timely registration of buildings and adherence to the new regime. Those operating across both England and Wales will need to adopt distinct policies and procedures, reflecting not only the differing statutory obligations but also the broader scope of buildings captured under the Welsh regime.

Overall, the BSWA represents a material shift towards proactive, demonstrable building safety management.

What steps should you take?

Although the BSWA is still being implemented, action should be taken now to start preparing. Businesses should:

• Review building portfolios in Wales to identify all multi-occupied residential properties (any property with more than one residential units will be caught), not just high-rise buildings.

• Audit repair and maintenance obligations.

• Proactively address known defects as, once on notice, failure to act may lead to increased risk both financially and legally.

• Strengthen record keeping by keeping a clear record of inspections, complaints, maintenance works and contractor reports.

• Plan for increased compliance obligations.

• Review insurance arrangements to ensure any known risks are disclosed. 

• Engage early with other stakeholders.

The enforcement regime is significantly tougher than before and breaches of core duties can lead to criminal liability, with unlimited fines and, in serious cases, imprisonment of up to two years. Authorities will also have powers to issue compliance and stop notices, with further penalties where these are breached, as well as potential ongoing daily fines for continued non‑compliance.

If the Building Safety Act 2022 is any indication, courts will also be taking a very broad-brush approach to enforcement meaning strict compliance is necessary to minimise risk of legal action.

Rewiring the grid: government targets grid delays with proposed reforms

Contributors: Laura Lyon, Shambhavi Le Goff, and Gemma James

Last month the government published its response to the Electricity Network Infrastructure: Consents, Land Access and Rights consultation. The proposals seek to amend legislation pertaining to the electricity network, with changes impacting utility providers, landowners and developers.

The government's response confirms a comprehensive number of legislative reforms which will require amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Electricity Act 1989, and the Planning Act 2008 consenting regimes. Implementation is expected later this year through legislation and updated guidance.

Key changes include expanded access rights (including over private land), extended wayleave terms, and accelerated national grid updates. As present, existing consent and land access processes are seen as a blocker to network expansion, leading to a queue for connections to the grid that grew by around 460% in the six months leading up to the consultation.

How could the changes affect your business?

The proposed changes will mean that developers will need to carefully consider the site infrastructure and commence engagement with Distribution Network Operators (‘DNO’) earlier on in the process. Existing apparatus on sites will have stronger protections and the default term of wayleaves will be extended from 15 years to 40 years. Development designs will therefore need to be more accommodating to existing infrastructure. 

Operators will benefit from additional automatic rights and access over private roads, which could unlock services to sites with private access. However, it will also mean that providers will have access over private estate roads and additional consideration will need to be given to phased sites.

For commercial property landowners, extended wayleave terms create longer-term certainty regarding network apparatus but reduce flexibility to relocate or remove infrastructure. Commercial property owners will face a higher burden when demonstrating the necessity to remove network apparatus. 

Private street owners and estate management companies will no longer be able to withhold consent for DNO underground cable installation. While this enables network access, it requires engagement through compensation mechanisms.

Responsibility for tree and vegetation management will transfer from landowners to Licence Holders. Licence Holders will benefit from expanded access rights to carry out work with prior notice, balanced by a requirement to compensate landowners for loss or damage caused by tree works. When accessing to carry out works, Licence Holders will be required to give 21 days’ notice, except in case of emergency, where access can be taken immediately and notice given as soon as possible afterwards.

What steps should you take?

Developers should liaise with DNOs at a much earlier stage and conduct site investigations paying close attention to existing apparatus. The timeframe for providers to apply to retain equipment has extended from 3 to 6 months. The licence holders may also apply for wayleaves, without the landowners consent. Additionally, the argument for redevelopment removing the apparatus will now demand a higher burden of proof, for instance there is the potential for this to require approved planning permission. This means outlaying the cost of planning ahead of the certainty of being able to remove equipment. 

Commercial property owners and landlords should conduct apparatus audits to identify existing electricity infrastructure on estates (including substations and cabling), particularly for multi-tenanted properties where DNO maintenance accessibility will increase. It will be important to review existing wayleave agreements and current terms, and assess the implications of longer-duration wayleaves.

Commercial landlords should update lease and maintenance agreements (including private road maintenance agreements) to account for DNO statutory rights to install underground cables without consent. Given the increased materiality for commercial properties with significant apparatus, early preparation will mitigate risk and cost exposure.

Biodiversity Net Gain: Key changes developers and land owners need to know

Contributors: Alan Corinaldi-Knott

DEFRA has recently published its formal response to last year’s consultations on Biodiversity Net Gain (‘BNG’).

The two consultations looked at improving BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development, and introducing BNG for nationally significant infrastructure projects (‘NSIP’).

Currently, BNG is a mandatory planning policy in England that requires new developments to leave nature in a better state than before. Since 2024, the majority of planning permissions in England require a minimum 10% uplift in biodiversity and must deliver BNG. This can be done by creating or enhancing on-site habitats, off-site biodiversity units, or by purchasing statutory biodiversity credits from the government who then reinvest that money into nature recovery. These options are hierarchical.

The formal response for the consultation on improving BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development suggests the following key changes:

1.    A new area-based exemption will apply to development sites of 0.2 hectares or less, excluding those containing priority habitats.

2.    For minor development, off-site biodiversity gains will now carry equal weight to on-site delivery within the biodiversity gain hierarchy.

3.    Biodiversity units will be traded within Local Nature Recovery Strategy areas for all development types, replacing the existing Local Planning Authority / National Character Area approach.

4.    DEFRA will refine metric guidance for Open Mosaic Habitat on brownfield land, including exploring additional medium distinctiveness categories for habitats that do not fully meet Open Mosaic Habitat criteria.

5.    New exemptions will cover temporary permissions of five years or less, schemes primarily delivering biodiversity enhancement, and upgrades to parks, playing fields and public gardens.

6.    The self-build and custom build exemption will be removed.

Key legislative changes, including the 0.2 ha exemption and hierarchy amendments, are expected before 31 July 2026 via secondary legislation, with further updates to follow later in the year.

The proposed changes around BNG for NSIPs are:

1.    BNG will apply to NSIP applications submitted on or after 2 November 2026, delayed from May 2026.

2.    The 10% uplift in biodiversity requirement remains unchanged.

3.    A new “BNG boundary” will replace full order limits, meaning only habitats actually affected (temporarily or permanently) will be included in the baseline. This will  reduce the scope of the existing requirements, particularly for linear schemes.

4.    Developers may deliver gains on-site or off-site initially, with statutory credits used only as a last resort.

5.    The temporary loss exemption for low and very low distinctiveness habitats will extend from two to five years, better aligning with NSIP development timescales.

How could the changes affect your business?

BNG is already applicable to most development types and it is a requirement to submit a biodiversity metric with most planning applications where exemptions don't apply. 

The changes seek to simplify the process and seek to exclude smaller developments in a more blanket manner than currently applies. 

What steps should you take?

Developers should be building BNG into site design as early as possible, engaging planning consultants and ecologists from the outset.

With the change in hierarchy, landowners may see more uptake in selling biodiversity units for habitat banks to developers.

Major infrastructure developers should begin integrating biodiversity metrics into scheme developments for when the BNG requirements are expanded to include NSIPs. 

Read the full response to the consultation.