MA Publishes Draft Bowland Response - Consultation Closes 2nd March

✅ KEY TAKEAWAY: Review the MA’s draft response and submit feedback to the Forest of Bowland consultation by 2nd March. Shaping policy now is critical to prevent damaging precedents for upland management.

As promised, the Moorland Association has today published its first draft response to the Forest of Bowland National Landscape Management Plan (2026–2031) consultation.

This draft is intended to assist members who:

• Wish to make their own submission; or

• Are well placed to provide examples, evidence or operational insight to strengthen the MA’s final response.

The consultation on the North Pennines National Landscape Management Plan (2026–2031) closed on 10th February. Thank you to everyone who submitted their own response or contributed material to support the MA’s submission. Your input makes a tangible difference.

Why These Management Plans Matter

National Landscape (formerly AONB) Management Plans are non-statutory documents, but they are far from insignificant.

They matter because they:

• Frame how public bodies interpret their strengthened Section 85 duty to “seek to further” the purposes of designation.

• Are routinely cited in planning decisions and regulatory discussions.

• Influence Natural England, Environment Agency and local authority approaches.

• Shape funding priorities, including agri-environment schemes and restoration grants.

• Establish narrative assumptions about land management which can harden over time.

In short, although they do not create new law, they can influence how existing law is interpreted and applied.

It is therefore essential that these plans are:

• Evidence-led

• Management-neutral

• Clear about their non-statutory status

• Realistic about funding and delivery

• Conscious of public safety implications

Ambiguity at this stage can lead to unintended consequences later.

Quick Links

• Forest of Bowland National Landscape Management Plan (2026–2031)

• The MA Draft Response

• Online Consultation Form

Summary of the MA’s Concerns on the Draft Bowland Plan

The Moorland Association supports the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty. However, we have identified several areas of concern in the draft Bowland plan.

1. Recognition of Active Land Management

The open moorland character of Bowland is not accidental. It is sustained through:

• Grazing and farming systems

• Moorland management

• Predator control

• Track and access maintenance

• Hydrological and peatland interventions

The draft Vision and Outcomes do not sufficiently acknowledge that ecological condition and landscape character are products of active, skilled management. Resilience does not arise from management withdrawal by default.

2. Financial Realism and Delivery Capacity

The draft Plan sets ambitious peatland, hydrological and habitat objectives but does not clearly:

• Identify realistic funding pathways;

• Address transitional costs;

• Recognise the scale of private investment currently underpinning upland stewardship;

• Assess the delivery risk if existing income streams are weakened before alternatives are secured.

Environmental ambition must be matched by delivery realism. Without economically viable land management, stewardship capacity declines.

3. Climate Adaptation and Wildfire Risk

The Plan references climate resilience but does not sufficiently:

• Recognise wildfire as a strategic upland climate risk;

• Address fuel continuity during periods of transition;

• Clarify how emergency access will be maintained where hydrological change is proposed;

• Define responsibilities for wildfire mitigation across agencies.

Hotter, drier summers are established projections. Fuel management and operational access are public safety issues. Climate resilience must include wildfire resilience.

4. Governance and Regulatory Clarity

We have sought clarity that the Plan:

• Is explicitly non-statutory;

• Does not create new regulatory tests or presumptions;

• Does not pre-empt national policy development or licensing regimes;

• Does not drift into regulatory creep through interpretation.

Clear boundaries protect both land managers and public authorities.

5. Legal Robustness and In-Combination Effects

The Bowland National Landscape overlaps with:

• Local Development Plans

• Local Nature Recovery Strategies

• Peatland and water management initiatives

• Agri-environment schemes

• Ongoing national regulatory reform

Where strategic plans influence downstream decisions, it is important that potential in-combination effects are transparently considered. Clarity at plan level strengthens confidence for all delivery partners.

Who Should Respond?

You do not have to live or work in Bowland to respond.

You may:

• Be a visitor who values how the landscape is currently managed.

• Manage land elsewhere and recognise similar policy patterns emerging.

• Have experience of how management withdrawal, fuel accumulation or funding uncertainty has played out in other upland areas.

Drawing parallels from elsewhere can be just as important as commenting on Bowland directly.

These plans often set precedents. Language and approaches adopted in one National Landscape frequently reappear in others.

Your experience (whether local or comparative) is relevant.

Why Individual Responses Matter

Even where the MA submits a detailed response, individual member submissions are important because they:

• Demonstrate breadth of concern

• Provide local operational examples

• Highlight practical delivery realities

• Reinforce that these issues are grounded in lived management experience

A submission does not need to be lengthy. A short, factual response explaining:

• What you manage (or your interest in the area)

• What works on your ground

• What would create operational difficulty

• What delivery risks you foresee

… is valuable.

If You Have Time

If you are able to respond before 2nd March, we encourage you to do so.

If you are not in a position to submit individually but can provide examples or evidence - particularly relating to:

• Wildfire risk

• Peatland management experience

• Infrastructure or access implications

• Funding and transition concerns

Please do share these with us by sending to agilruth@moorlandassociation.org.

We Will Keep You Updated

We will:

• Finalise and submit the MA’s formal response

• Monitor how both Bowland and North Pennines plans progress

• Keep members informed of any regulatory or operational implications

These Management Plans shape the tone and interpretation of upland policy for the next five years.

It is far easier to shape them at consultation stage than to unwind their consequences later.

Thank you again to all who have already engaged - and to those who are considering responding to Bowland before 2nd March.