Time to Reform Natural England - Before the Damage Becomes Irreversible

This article first appeared in Shooting Times

There’s a quiet but critical conversation unfolding in Westminster right now: should Natural England be reformed, or scrapped entirely? For many in the countryside - gamekeepers, conservationists, farmers, and landowners alike - it’s a question long overdue. The question isn’t whether something should change. It’s whether we can afford not to.

The case for reform is not ideological, it’s practical. Natural England, set up to provide science-based advice on the environment, has drifted into a realm of abstraction and absolutism. It no longer seems to weigh outcomes or practicality. Its recent decisions suggest a regulator unmoored from cost, consequence, or even common sense.

No Room for Nuance

Take, for instance, the HS2 “bat tunnel” - a case that has become symbolic of everything wrong with the agency’s approach. Faced with potential disturbance to a local bat population, Natural England reportedly insisted that not a single bat be lost. The result? A gold-plated, £100 million tunnel constructed through ancient woodland - an enormously expensive, complex, and still unproven solution. No balance. No middle ground. Just the most extreme, costly answer possible.

Unfortunately, that same logic now appears to be driving Natural England’s position on gamebird releases near protected sites. Land managers are being hamstrung by inflexible restrictions that take no account of scale, site conditions, or mitigation. Instead of proportionate, evidence-based regulation, we’re seeing a one-size-fits-all ban driven more by optics than outcomes.

The consequences aren’t academic. In upland areas, the future of the hen harrier - one of our most iconic birds of prey - is being jeopardised not by landowners, but by the regulator itself. The Moorland Association has developed a credible, costed plan to bring hen harriers back to favourable conservation status in England.

But that plan was rejected - not over any major flaw, but because Natural England decided it could only accept a plan that included unlimited cost and complexity - just because it could.

If Not This, Then What?

At this point, you might reasonably ask: if Natural England goes, what replaces it? Environmental advice to government is essential. But the real question is whether a new agency could do the job better. Frankly, it’s hard to imagine one doing it worse. A blank slate might just offer the chance to build something that works with rural communities, not against them.

Still, abolition is a nuclear option. Reform is the more likely and responsible path - but reform must be meaningful. One simple, sensible proposal would be to reintroduce the principle of BATNEEC: Best Available Technique Not Entailing Excessive Cost.

Once used in environmental regulation, BATNEEC ensured that the environmental benefits of any measure had to be weighed against the cost of achieving them. It created space for innovation, balance, and negotiation - the very things that are currently missing.

Reinstating BATNEEC in Natural England’s decision-making would force the agency to act more like a responsible regulator and less like an unelected campaign group. It would prevent the sort of policy drift that leads to £100 million tunnels and blanket bans based on opinion, not data. Crucially, it would ensure that land managers - the people actually doing the conservation - are not burdened with impossible or unaffordable demands.

A regulator that doesn’t consider cost will always choose the most extreme option. But in an era of tight public finances, this is simply unsustainable. How long can we tolerate a public body operating without any financial boundaries? It’s little wonder the Treasury may be looking at Natural England in the upcoming Spending Review. Don’t be surprised if the National Audit Office, or even the Reform Party, starts asking uncomfortable questions soon.

Science or Opinion?

Consider this: Natural England itself admitted its heather burning review was based on “opinion”, not rigorous science. Meanwhile, its efforts to block burning have been linked to an estimated £350 million in wildfire damage this year alone. That’s not just poor judgement - that’s failure with a price tag.

This is not a call for environmental deregulation. It’s a plea for environmental sense. The countryside deserves a regulator that understands balance, respects evidence, and takes cost seriously. Reforming Natural England isn’t about weakening our commitment to nature - it’s about strengthening it by making sure our policies actually work, on the ground, in the real world. It's time for reform - and the clock is ticking.

Keep Updated With Our FREE Newsletter

📧 Keep updated on all moorland issues - sign up for our regular free newsletter.

Sign Up Free