Moorland Association Submission to the Public Accounts Committee Inquiry on Environmental Regulation 2026 - A Summary

Andrew Gilruth
12 hours ago
3 min read

✅ KEY TAKEAWAY: The Moorland Association demands a radical regulatory reset, replacing failed centralised control with Statutory Local Environment Boards to empower land managers, slash bureaucracy, and finally deliver national environmental targets.

The Moorland Association (MA) submitted evidence to the Public Accounts Committee’s 2026 inquiry into environmental regulation because the current system is failing to deliver environmental improvement while imposing increasing cost, delay and uncertainty on land managers.

Download our submission

Download our submission, expanded to include examples

Our members manage over one million acres of upland landscapes, much of it legally designated and subject to multiple overlapping regulatory regimes. Despite this, Parliament, the National Audit Office and the Office for Environmental Protection all confirm that key environmental targets are being missed.

Our submission makes clear this is not a call for more regulation, but a warning that the existing regulatory model is structurally outdated and no longer delivers value for money, environmental outcomes or fairness.

What we say is going wrong

National regulators both control decisions and judge success. However, they face little accountability when outcomes fail. When targets are missed, pressure falls on land managers rather than on the system itself.

This proposal is rooted in members’ lived experience of delay, duplication, remote decision-making and rising costs under the current system.

The current environmental regulation model is:

Over-centralised - decisions taken remotely, often without site knowledge.
Duplicative - multiple bodies regulating the same activity.
Process-heavy - compliance is valued over outcomes.
Slow and risk-averse - delaying routine management.
Costly - consultants, delays and legal uncertainty.

What we are suggesting should happen

We propose a system reset, based on governance models already used successfully in other major public services in the UK and internationally. Environmental regulation is now an outlier, still dominated by centralised control despite repeated delivery failure.

For example, in education, central government sets outcomes and standards, but delivery is devolved to academy trusts and local governing bodies. In healthcare, national policy and funding are set centrally, but decisions are taken locally, bringing together professionals, local authorities and budgets.

In each case, power is delegated, not duplicated. Budgets follow responsibility. Delivery is locally informed but nationally accountable.

What we are proposing?

Statutory Local Environment Boards would take on existing licensing, consent and delivery powers currently exercised by national bodies. These Boards would:

Hold licensing and consent powers.
Control delivery budgets for nature recovery and climate adaptation.
Make place-based land management decisions.

This is about moving existing powers, not creating new ones. In practical terms, this means decisions affecting land management would be taken locally, by people with site knowledge, using the same powers that currently sit with national bodies.

Democratic, land-based representation

As in other countries, including Norway:

Boards would comprise elected landholding representatives and the local authority
members would be chosen locally, not appointed centrally
those responsible for delivery would have a formal decision-making role

Paid participation - not an unpaid burden

As with established practice in education, healthcare and other statutory boards:

Board members would be properly remunerated for their time and expertise.
Funding would come from existing regulatory budgets, not new charges.
This recognises land management as a professional public service role.

Direct accountability to Defra

National standards, statutory targets and legal accountability would remain with Defra. Local Boards would be accountable for delivery, not exposed to additional liability. In summary:

1. Local Boards would report directly to Defra on outcomes.

2. They would operate within national standards and targets.

3. They would be accountable for delivery rather than process.

Natural England and Environment Agency - advisers only

To remove duplication and delay while retaining technical rigour they would:

Provide science, advice and assurance.
Support delivery with evidence.
No longer issue or veto local licences or consents.

Why this matters

If the current trajectory continues, members face rising regulatory burden, increasing delay and uncertainty, and tighter controls layered onto a failing system. This is a practical, delivery-led proposal focused on achieving better environmental outcomes with lower cost and greater accountability.

We are proposing a replacement of the current delivery model, not an addition to it. This will simplify regulation by relocating existing powers to where delivery actually happens. We are not proposing: