Court of Appeal Refuses Permission in Judicial Review - Where This Leaves Us

✅ Key Takeaway: Despite losing the judicial review on the 2025 heather burning regulations, the Moorland Association urges members to apply for burning licences to gather evidence proving the system is practically unworkable.

Members will be disappointed to hear that the Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal in our judicial review challenge to the 2025 heather burning regulations. This means the judicial review cannot now proceed any further.

This is not the outcome we wanted. We brought the case because we believed the Government’s approach to heather burning, wildfire risk and peatland management was legally flawed, practically damaging and environmentally short-sighted. We remain of that view.

The Court did not say that the wildfire concerns raised by the Moorland Association, land managers, fire services and others were trivial or irrelevant.

On the contrary, the ruling records the very matters we have been pressing throughout: increased wildfire risk, the potential burden on fire and rescue services, carbon release from severe wildfires, public health impacts, environmental damage, crop and machinery losses, and the costs imposed on those who manage the land.

However, the Court concluded that these issues had been raised through the consultation process and that Defra had done enough, in legal terms, to show that it had considered them. The Court also placed significant weight on the fact that the regulations do not impose an outright ban, because land managers can still apply for licences in certain circumstances.

That point now becomes crucial

If the Government and the courts say the licence regime is the answer, then the licence regime must be made to work. It cannot be a theoretical escape route which exists on paper but fails in practice. It cannot be so slow, complex, narrow or uncertain that responsible land managers simply cannot use it.

We are therefore deeply grateful to all those members and supporters who have stood behind the Association throughout this process. We are especially grateful to those who have already been willing and able to make licence applications, often at considerable time, cost and frustration.

We now need more practical evidence than ever

We are asking members to help us build that evidence base. Where a licence application is appropriate, please consider making one - and please document the process carefully.

This is about demonstrating, through serious and well-evidenced cases, whether the system works in the real world. We need to know how long applications take, what information is requested, what costs are incurred, what practical obstacles arise, and what outcomes are reached.

That evidence will be vital in showing MPs, Peers, Defra and Natural England whether the current system is genuinely workable in practice.

The next stage is not in the courtroom but in Parliament, in Government, and in the public debate about how environmental regulation is working in practice. Through practical examples, we must now demonstrate that environmental regulation in the UK is becoming too slow, complex and disconnected from real-world land management.

Every delay, refusal, inconsistency or impractical requirement helps build the case for reform.

Our objective remains the same: to secure a balanced, evidence-based approach to moorland management which protects peat, biodiversity, rural livelihoods and the public from the growing threat of wildfire.

This case has shown how difficult it is to challenge environmental regulation once it has been made, even where those most affected warned clearly about practical consequences. But it has also helped put those consequences on the record.

The judgment confirms that Defra’s defence depends heavily on the licence regime being a real and practical route for necessary burning.

We must now test that proposition in practice - and show Parliament the results

The Moorland Association will continue to support members, gather evidence, and use that evidence in our engagement with MPs, Peers, Defra and Natural England as we press for a regulatory system that is proportionate, practical and grounded in real-world land management.

The UK urgently needs environmental regulation that delivers outcomes, not bureaucracy; reduces risk, rather than displacing it; and works with those who manage the land, not against them.

Thank you again to every member, estate, adviser and supporter who has helped us get this far. The legal route may have closed, but the argument is far from over.