Building Trust in BNG Data with a Seal of Approval
As Biodiversity Net Gain becomes more established in the planning system, the quality of the spatial data submitted alongside planning applications is becoming harder to ignore. Even though BNG now carries legal weight, there’s still no formal mechanism to check whether the GIS data behind these assessments is accurate, complete, or even usable.
And that’s a real problem. Poor-quality data can skew calculations, lead to incorrect habitat baselines, and ultimately drive planning decisions based on unreliable information. For local planning authorities who are already stretched thin, checking inconsistent and sometimes confusing GIS files adds a layer of unnecessary complexity to an already pressured process.
One idea to help is a simple seal of approval for BNG data. This wouldn’t be a certification in the traditional sense, but more of a clear signal that the spatial data submitted has been checked and meets a basic, recognised standard for quality, structure, and traceability.
At its core, it could be based on a checklist-style validation process, like the FRIDAS framework. Each dataset would be reviewed against six key criteria: Format, Red Line Boundary, Identification, Data/Metadata, Attributes, and Slope. These categories aren’t random. They reflect the most common problems we’ve seen in BNG data, based on real submissions and feedback from planners.
To meet the seal of approval, a dataset might need to show:
Correct file format and projection, using standard GIS types like GeoPackage or EPSG:27700
A consistent red line boundary that matches Land Registry data and is used across all layers
Accurate habitat mapping, using UKHab classification and free from overlaps or gaps
Clear metadata, including dates, survey methods, and data lineage
Structured attribute tables that match the Biodiversity Metric and existing QGIS templates
Slope data included where relevant, to support more ecologically realistic assessments
This isn’t about demanding perfection. It’s about clarity and consistency. The aim is to reduce ambiguity and give planners some reassurance that the data they’re working with has been properly prepared.
In practice, the seal could take the form of a simple summary sheet. It could be automatically or semi-automatically generated and submitted alongside the ecology report. Over time, it could even be built into planning portals or BNG registers, helping authorities filter or prioritise applications that come with validated data.
There’s also potential for this to become a third-party service. Ecological consultancies or GIS specialists could offer FRIDAS-compliant data as part of their workflow. This would help smaller teams who don’t have in-house GIS skills and would create a clearer market for quality-assured spatial data.
The idea isn’t to add more paperwork. It’s about building confidence in the data that drives biodiversity decisions. A seal of approval gives planners a level of trust, reduces the likelihood of back-and-forths, and helps ensure that net gain is being delivered on reliable foundations.
As BNG continues to evolve, we need to move past bare minimum compliance and start agreeing on what “good” looks like. A seal of approval could be one small but important step in getting there.
Making this seal work in practice will mean offering routes to adoption. Organisations could receive training and approval to use the FRIDAS trademark when producing compliant data, or take up licensing to develop their own validation and authentication tools. EcoSpatial can also provide access to ready-made authentication tools for those who prefer to integrate FRIDAS checks directly into their workflows. By giving ecological consultants, planning authorities, and technology providers different ways to engage, the seal can move from an idea to a practical standard that supports better biodiversity outcomes.
