NEER155: Update on Natural England’s Refusal to Respond

✅ KEY TAKEAWAY (2 March 2026): Natural England’s Correspondence Unit initially refused to engage with our request for records supporting the “rigorous peer review” assurance, citing an “ongoing judicial review”. Later the same day, Natural England’s Chief of Staff apologised for that reply “in error”, confirmed our correspondence is not related to the JR, and indicated a substantive response is being prepared. We have asked Natural England to confirm formally that it withdraws the “no response / logged for information only” position and to provide the evidence/records underpinning the “rigorous peer review” claim.

BLOG UPDATED (17.50pm, 2 March 2026): Following the Correspondence Unit email reproduced below, Natural England’s Chief of Staff (Chief Executive’s Office) wrote to apologise for the earlier reply “in error”, confirmed our letter is not related to any judicial review, and stated that a response to our earlier correspondence is being prepared.

We have replied asking Natural England to confirm that it withdraws the “no response / logged for information only” position and to provide a substantive response addressing (i) the basis of the “rigorous peer review” assurance and (ii) what records are held to support it.

---

Members will have seen our earlier blog post “Burning Report: How Rigorous Was Peer Review?”, which sets out our concerns about the documented basis for the public assurance of “rigorous peer review” in relation to Natural England’s evidence review on heather burning (NEER155).

Today (2nd March 2026), Natural England's Correspondence Unit responded - refusing to address our concerns, citing an “ongoing judicial review”. Later the same day, the Chief Executive’s Office apologised and confirmed the earlier reply was sent in error.

Natural England’s response (reproduced in full below):

Subject: NEER155 - Letter of concern and supporting annexes (Your Ref: ER155) (NE Ref: BC2026/02086)

Dear Mr Andrew Gilruth,

Thank you for your enquiry to Marian Spain on 18 February 2026.

Following my investigations, I can confirm that there is an ongoing judicial review relating to your enquiry. As a result, we are unable to respond to your concerns and therefore all information relating to this will come from the conclusion of the judicial review.

Any further contact regarding this matter will be logged for information only and we will not be providing a response.

Kind Regards,

Amanda Hartley

Natural England Correspondence Unit

The MA has responded

We have written directly to Natural England’s Chief Executive because the correspondence unit responded from a “do not reply” email address and indicated it will not engage further, which makes it impossible to clarify the points raised.

Our letter asks Natural England to confirm:

1. Which judicial review is being referred to (case reference and parties), and on what basis it is said to prevent Natural England from answering the administrative matters raised in our 18 February letter, and

2. Whether Natural England is refusing to answer the specific non-litigation assurance points raised (including clarification of the basis on which NEER155 was described as having “rigorous peer review”, and what records exist to support that assurance), or whether it is willing to respond to those matters now.

If Natural England maintains that it will not respond, we have requested a written explanation of the policy/legal basis relied upon and confirmation of the appropriate route for review/complaint.

(For the avoidance of doubt: this update concerns transparency and evidence assurance. It is not commentary on the merits of any live proceedings.)

What happens next

We will update members when NE provides its substantive response (or if it maintains any refusal on specific points).

Stay Updated

📧 Keep updated on all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.