BNG Should Start with Format
In Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), the format of spatial data is often overlooked, yet it’s one of the most important factors in ensuring assessments are accurate, auditable, and usable beyond the planning application itself. Right now, applicants can submit anything from raw GIS data to a polished habitat map, or even a PDF with highlighter scribbles. While it’s not for me to say what will be accepted, the lack of consistency creates a real challenge for Local Planning Authorities (LPAs). When submissions follow different formats, it takes longer to process them, and it becomes harder to reuse the data in repositories for responsible bodies or Local Environmental Record Centres.
The FRIDAS checklist starts with Format for a reason. It’s the first step in making sure habitat data is structured, spatially referenced, and ready for analysis. If the format is wrong, even the most ecologically rich dataset can become unusable. It might break biodiversity unit calculations, misalign with planning boundaries, or introduce errors in habitat classification. It can also prevent integration with national datasets or monitoring systems, which are increasingly important as BNG matures.
The FRIDAS GIS Data Standards recommend using formats like GeoPackage, ESRI Shapefile, or GeoJSON, all with the EPSG:27700 British National Grid coordinate system. These formats are compatible with the Biodiversity Metric calculators and can be easily shared between consultants, LPAs, and statutory bodies. They also support logical layer structuring, clear naming conventions, and packaging into a single archive for submission.
One common issue I’ve seen is the use of Google Earth or Google Maps for habitat mapping. These platforms are familiar and free, but they’re not designed for ecological data. The imagery is often stitched together from multiple sources, which can lead to misaligned features, distorted scales, and inaccurate boundaries. Even when used for desk-based surveys, the limitations of these platforms can undermine the credibility of the data. A polygon drawn on Google Earth might look fine visually, but it won’t hold up under spatial analysis or metric calculations.
That said, I understand that not everyone has access to GIS software or in-house expertise. Google Earth is free and easy to use, and for many, it feels like the only option. But QGIS is also free, and it’s a powerful alternative that supports all the formats and standards required for BNG. There are plenty of freelance GIS professionals who specialise in both QGIS and Esri systems, and they can support habitat mapping at a reasonable cost. Investing in proper format and structure upfront can save time, money, and frustration later in the planning process.
BNG is about improving biodiversity, but that goal depends on the integrity of the data behind it. Format isn’t just a technical requirement, it’s a strategic enabler. If we want BNG to be credible, repeatable, and scalable, we need to start with the basics. And that means getting the format right.
