Section 25 Update: NE Partially Upholds MA Complaint as Wildfire Application Takes 38 Days
Quick summary
Natural England partially upheld the MA’s complaint, accepting its July response failed to explain how to apply.
Three Peak District Section 25 applications received negative decisions; one took 38 days to decide.
PDNPA now asks the Planning Inspectorate to dismiss the appeal because the immediate fire risk has passed.
The MA is pressing for clear rules, timely decisions and an effective review route for urgent disputes.
Natural England has partially upheld the Moorland Association’s complaint about information provided on wildfire access restrictions. Meanwhile, three applications in the Peak District have received negative decisions, and the appeal faces dismissal because the immediate danger has passed. Members still need clear answers about how to obtain timely protection.
Are owners and managers receiving complete and consistent information from all the authorities responsible for these decisions, including National Park Authorities? The experience of this summer shows why that question is important.
What Natural England accepted
During the summer, the MA published practical guidance on requesting temporary fire-prevention restrictions under Section 25 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. We also asked Natural England how individual applications would be assessed, what weight local evidence would receive and how quickly urgent decisions would be made.
In its final complaint response, dated 6 October, Natural England partially upheld our complaint. It accepted that its response of 23 July had not explained:
how a person with a legal interest in land could apply
the information and evidence that could be considered
the circumstances in which an authority could act without waiting for an application
Natural England also acknowledged shortcomings in its subsequent explanations and complaint handling. It apologised and committed to improving future responses.
It considered that subsequent correspondence had addressed the principal information gaps. Its review did not determine the disputed interpretation of Section 25, the Fire Severity Index or the relevant guidance, which it regarded as outside its complaints procedure.
The service failures have therefore been acknowledged, but the practical question remains: can owners and managers obtain a properly evidenced decision while protection is still needed?
The MA asked before applications were made
These concerns preceded the refusals. The MA began seeking clarification from the Peak District National Park Authority on 27 July. We asked whether an individual application could be considered where exceptional local conditions arose before the Fire Severity Index reached Level 5.
PDNPA initially replied that an individual application would merely duplicate its existing arrangements. Subsequent correspondence acknowledged that the scope of its powers required legal advice. The Authority ultimately received and determined individual applications.
That represents useful progress. Owners should, however, be able to identify the available process without weeks of correspondence during dangerous fire conditions.
Three applications - and a 38-day wait
Three applications in the Peak District received negative decisions. The experience therefore extends beyond a single applicant. One application, now the subject of an appeal, illustrates the timescale:
11 August: the original application was submitted.
18 August: PDNPA first supplied its OACC1 application form.
21 August: a site visit took place.
18 September: the application was refused - 38 days after submission.
19 October: PDNPA asks the Planning Inspectorate to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the immediate fire risk has passed (it has since rained) and so no meaningful remedy remains available.
The request sought an immediate restriction on CROW access for no more than 31 days from the date it was imposed, ending earlier if the exceptional conditions ceased. It also asked the Authority to consider a lesser or modified restriction following urgent discussion with the applicant.
This chronology demonstrates the difficulty of seeking urgent protection through a process taking more than a month, when fire conditions can change within hours or days.
What evidence is enough?
With neighbouring moors burning during the period in question, members can reasonably ask what further evidence was required.
A nearby fire does not automatically establish that restrictions are necessary on another moor. It does require a clear explanation of how that warning was assessed alongside conditions on the land concerned.
What weight was given to recent fires, vegetation conditions, ignition risks and firefighting capacity? What additional evidence would have changed the decision?
If independent technical evidence, moisture measurements or detailed mapping are expected, applicants need to know that before dangerous conditions arise. They should also be able to distinguish requirements imposed by legislation, approved guidance and administrative practice.
An urgent application should not become a process of discovering previously unexplained requirements.
National Parks recognise the growing risk
The UK National Parks’ own wildfire position statement acknowledges that more fire-resilient habitats can take many years to develop. During that transition, it says, fuel loads will increase and additional fire-risk mitigation will be needed.
The statement also recognises that increasing visitor numbers can raise ignition risks. It identifies recreation and access as areas where National Park Authorities can contribute to prevention.
These are welcome acknowledgements. They make a workable process for considering temporary access restrictions more important. If the need for mitigation is increasing, owners and managers should be able to obtain timely decisions on proportionate measures to reduce ignition risk.
The question is how those national commitments translate into decisions on the ground.
Peak District National Park now wants the appeal dismissed
In its submission to the Planning Inspectorate dated 19 October, PDNPA asks for the appeal to be dismissed before further costs are incurred.
Both parties accept that an immediate restriction responding to August’s conditions would no longer be appropriate. The disagreement concerns whether the Inspector can still require an arrangement allowing restrictions to take effect when specified conditions arise in future.
PDNPA acknowledges that the original application requested modified and outline alternatives. However, it argues that sufficiently detailed activation criteria were not provided and cannot now be introduced through the appeal.
The Authority therefore says that no meaningful remedy remains available and describes continuing the appeal as a waste of public resources. It maintains that its original decision was justified.
The Inspector has not yet ruled on whether the appeal can proceed or whether the original refusal was justified.
Protection must work while it is needed
This exposes a serious practical problem. A land manager applies during dangerous fire conditions. A decision takes weeks. When the appeal is considered, the conditions have passed - and that becomes the argument for ending proceedings without examining whether the original decision was justified.
How can an urgent refusal be effectively challenged? How can lessons be established before comparable conditions return?
The passing of the immediate danger does not remove the need for answers.
What the Government’s wildfire summit should address
This is precisely the kind of practical problem the Prime Minister’s wildfire summit should address, alongside fuel management, firefighting capacity and public awareness.
Authorities must assess whether restrictions are necessary and proportionate. The administration should enable that assessment quickly enough for preventative action to serve its purpose.
The MA is pressing for three practical improvements:
Clear rules: publish the governing guidance and evidence requirements in one accessible place, explaining how exceptional local conditions will be assessed.
Timely decisions: establish an urgent process measured in hours or days where circumstances require it, with clear responsibility for handling applications.
Effective review: provide a route capable of resolving urgent disputes before the immediate risk has passed.
Public access is important, as is protecting visitors, firefighters, rural communities and the landscapes people come to enjoy. Temporary, targeted restrictions can contribute to that protection where conditions justify them. Section 25 restrictions concern CROW access rights; they do not automatically close public footpaths or bridleways.
The MA will continue pressing for workable arrangements and will update members when the Inspector reaches a decision.
If a land manager identifies an acute and exceptional wildfire risk tomorrow, can they find the rules, submit the required evidence and obtain a decision in time to prevent a fire?
