Are Protected Landscape Plans Fit for the Future?
- Rob Beeson
- 3 hours ago
- 3 min read
The Moorland Association recently conducted a rigorous assessment of eight upcoming or published National Landscape and National Park Management Plans. Our scoring looks at whether each plan is ready for consultation, not at the merits of its proposed actions within them.
We did this because consultation only works if the draft is clear, deliverable and measurable - otherwise stakeholders are forced to comment in the dark.
Every plan was scored out of 100 points based on its level of completion (status/safeguards, delivery owners & funding, and monitoring with triggers) using these criteria as a consultation-readiness test (i.e. how complete and decision-safe the draft is, not whether we agree with its aims) and checked against a strict list of drafting ‘red flags’ (phrases that commonly create ambiguity, policy-creep risk, or unfunded/ownerless commitments) which are usually quick to fix.
The overall result? Unfortunately, while the plans are full of high environmental ambitions, all eight currently lack the vital funding details, operational realism and safeguards needed to work on the ground.
None of the drafts have passed our basic readiness checks for public consultation. By ‘readiness’ we mean: clear status/safeguards, a credible delivery model (who/when/how funded), and auditable links between risks and actions. Against our basic readiness threshold (status/safeguards, delivery owners and funding, and monitoring with triggers), no draft currently meets the pass mark.
Why We Scored the Plans
Management plans shape the future of our rural communities, our environment, and our local economies. When these plans are vague, they create confusion and place unfair burdens on the farmers, gamekeepers, and estate managers who are actually expected to do the heavy lifting.
To bring clarity to the process, we developed a standardized 100-point scoring system. We assessed each plan on how well it addressed operational realities - like who pays for the work and who is responsible for doing it. We also scanned every document for critical "red flags," such as hidden rule-making or a lack of basic safety strategies.
Our purpose is improvement, not point-scoring. To develop a pre-consultation ‘get it right first time’ review to help authors tighten delivery, governance and risk management before publication.
The Results: How the Plans Ranked
Click on each plan to see our assessment:
The Most Common "Red Flags"
When we stripped away the technical jargon, we found the same recurring issues across almost all the documents. In every case, we want authors to add the missing ‘how’: a delivery architecture (who owns what, by when), clear funding assumptions, and monitoring metrics with trigger-points for review.
1. High Aspirations, No Instructions
We found phrases like "encourage and support" used hundreds of times. While this sounds positive, a plan cannot just be a wish-list. Without clear delivery routes, named partners, and defined funding, these promises cannot be put into action.
2. Wildfire treated as peripheral, not operational
Despite climate change increasing the risk of devastating wildfires, most plans treated this public safety threat as a minor footnote. A fit-for-purpose plan must include practical strategies for managing fuel loads (like controlled burning or cutting), maintaining access tracks, and mapping water points for fire crews.
3. Overlooking the On-the-Ground Experts
Many plans discussed grand visions for nature recovery but completely failed to mention the essential workforce required to achieve them. Gamekeepers, farmers, and contractors are the people with the skills and machinery to deliver these goals. A successful plan must recognize them as vital delivery partners, rather than ignoring them.
4. "Policy Creep" and Hidden Rules
A major red flag was the use of restrictive language that sounded like strict new legal rules, without the proper legal backing or testing. We are strongly advocating that every plan includes a "no new tests or presumptions" clause to ensure these documents are used as helpful frameworks, not weaponized against land managers.
What Happens Next?
Our goal is not simply to point out flaws, but to help get these plans right the first time. By highlighting the gaps before the plans go to widespread public consultation, we hope to save everyone time and ensure the final documents are clear, workable, and fair for the people who manage our beautiful upland landscapes.
Stay Updated
📧 Keep updated on all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.
