Briefing Note: Moorland Management Restrictions and the Requirement for a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
- Rob Beeson
- 2 days ago
- 2 min read
MA members have been requesting clarification on when Natural England (NE) must undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). Particularly in relation to when it is imposing new or more restrictive moorland management requirements, such as heather-cutting conditions, on designated sites.
Download this Briefing Note (PDF) or continue reading:
1. Are SSSI consents and HRAs the same thing?
No, they are different.
Management of an SSSI is governed primarily by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
In contrast, an HRA arises under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
SSSI consent alone does not remove or replace the HRA requirement.
The relevant legal test is not whether the land is an SSSI, but whether:
the land is an SPA, SAC or Ramsar site, or
is functionally linked to such a site, and
the authority is approving or imposing a ‘plan or project’ that may have a likely significant effect.
2. When must Natural England carry out an HRA?
Natural England must carry out (or ensure the carrying out of) an HRA where:
1. The moor is designated as:
a Special Protection Area (SPA) (eg for hen harrier, golden plover or merlin), or
a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (eg blanket bog), or
is functionally linked to an SPA
and
2. NE is:
approving a new Moorland Habitat Plan, or
imposing materially new or stricter management prescriptions (eg no-cut areas, percentage of heather thresholds, blanket cutting prohibitions).
A revised Stewardship agreement or Moorland Habitat Plan meaningfully constrains land
management it can constitute a ‘plan or project’ for HRA purposes.
3. Does blanket bog restoration override bird features?
No. Where a site is designated for both habitat and bird features, NE must:
assess impacts on all qualifying features,
avoid prioritising blanket bog objectives at the expense of SPA bird interest, and
rely on objective evidence, not policy preference.
A management regime that:
substantially reduces heather availability,
alters vegetation structure over large areas,
or limits predator control or grouse productivity, may have implications for SPA bird populations, and those effects must be assessed.
Failure to do so risks:
• a legally defective HRA, or
• unlawfully proceeding without an HRA at all.
4. Do ‘Voluntary’ schemes avoid the need for an HRA?
No. While NE sometimes argues that agri-environment schemes are voluntary, this position is increasingly weak where:
agreements replace existing schemes.
participation is economically compelled (eg loss of BPS).
prescriptions are rigid, site-specific, and enforceable.
Courts have recognised that agri-environment schemes can amount to plans or projects where they determine long-term land use on protected sites.
5. Key implications for MA Members
If NE is:
tightening land management restrictions (e.g. heather cutting)
using standardised or lawyer-drafted wording
removing field officer discretion
and doing so without a transparent HRA covering bird features then there is a strong basis for concern.
At a minimum, MA members are entitled to ask:
whether an HRA has been undertaken and request a copy,
which site features were assessed, and
what evidence underpins the conclusion that the other interests (e.g. birds) will not be adversely affected.
Stay Updated
📧 Keep updated on all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.
