Wildfire Recognised in England’s National Planning Policy

Quick summary

• Wildfire is now explicitly recognised as a climate risk in England’s new National Planning Policy Framework.

• Local plans must take wildfire into account where it is a material risk to development.

• Applications now need proportionate mitigation: defendable space, firebreaks and lower fuel loads.

• MA members’ evidence shaped the final wording, though guidance must still close remaining gaps.

The Government has published a new National Planning Policy Framework, with wildfire now explicitly recognised as a climate risk that the planning system must address.

For MA members, this matters because wildfire will now have to be considered in future local plans and in relevant decisions about development near moorland.

Why the NPPF matters

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is one of the most influential documents in the English planning system. It sets out the Government’s national planning policies, shapes the local plans prepared by councils and National Park Authorities, and must be taken into account when relevant planning applications and appeals are decided.

It can affect what evidence authorities require, where development is located, how sites are designed and landscaped, and what mitigation may be needed. Although the NPPF does not determine every application or authorise particular land-management activities, explicitly recognising wildfire makes it much harder for the risk to be overlooked.

What does the new policy say?

The previous NPPF, published in December 2024, referred to flooding, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity, landscapes, overheating and drought, but it did not explicitly mention wildfire.

Wildfire was introduced into the Government’s subsequent consultation draft and has been retained and refined in the final framework.

For the first time, wildfire is expressly identified alongside flooding as a climate risk that development plans should take into account.

This reflects a key point in the MA’s submission: climate-adaptation policy must look beyond flooding and take wildfire risk seriously.

More significantly, development proposals should incorporate “proportionate measures” to mitigate wildfire where a particular risk exists. The policy says this risk may arise from the combined effects of:

• topography;

• prevailing wind direction; and

• proximity to heavily vegetated areas.

It also says mitigation should seek to limit fuel loads and create defendable spaces. The examples given include avoiding timber-panel fences and incorporating firebreaks into development layouts and planting schemes.

How will members see a change in practice?

The change will be felt through both local plans and individual planning decisions.

Local plans are prepared by local planning authorities - normally councils or, within National Parks, National Park Authorities. As new plans are prepared or existing plans reviewed, they must be consistent with national planning policy. In areas where wildfire is a material risk, those plans will now need to take it into account when establishing their development strategy and allocating land.

This could influence where development is permitted and how the risks arising from development close to moorland, heathland, woodland and other heavily vegetated areas are assessed.

The new policy also applies directly to relevant planning applications from the date of publication. Authorities do not have to wait until their local plan has been updated. 

Applicants may therefore be expected to show how wildfire risk has influenced the location, layout and landscaping of a proposal, and what proportionate mitigation will be provided and maintained.

For example, a housing or tourism development beside moorland might be asked to provide a site-specific wildfire risk assessment and management plan. This could cover defendable space, firebreaks, fuel-load management, emergency access, water supplies and responsibility for maintaining the measures.

Any work required on adjoining moorland would need to be on land controlled by the applicant or agreed with the landowner.

It also gives land managers and the Moorland Association a firmer basis on which to raise wildfire during local-plan consultations and when commenting on development proposals that could increase risk to neighbouring land or communities.

National Landscapes, formerly known as AONBs, are slightly different. National Landscape bodies prepare management plans, while local authorities prepare local plans and decide planning applications. We will encourage both to reflect the new recognition of wildfire when their plans are reviewed.

This does not mean an immediate change to the management or regulation of existing moorland, nor does the NPPF itself provide permission for burning, cutting or other vegetation management. The change is that wildfire and fuel loads are now expressly recognised as planning considerations where they are relevant to a development proposal.

What did the MA ask for - and did the Government listen?

In our consultation response, the Moorland Association supported the recognition of wildfire but argued that the policy needed to be practical, evidence-led and responsive to different local circumstances.

Drawing on members’ experience, we asked the Government to recognise topography, vegetation and fuel condition, prevailing winds, smoke, access and escape routes, water availability and the practical requirements of the emergency services.

We also argued that mitigation should be proportionate to the actual risk and supported by effective long-term management. Creating a firebreak on a plan is of little value if no one is responsible for maintaining it.

The final policy does not incorporate everything we proposed. Smoke, emergency access, water supplies, consultation with land managers and the long-term maintenance of mitigation measures will still need to be addressed through future guidance and local implementation.

The Government’s consultation response suggests that some of these points had an effect. It records calls for a proportionate, risk-based approach, better vegetation management and long-term maintenance, and says the policy was amended to clarify when wildfire mitigation should apply.

Wildfire was already in the consultation draft and other organisations also made representations, so the changes cannot be attributed to the MA alone. But several of the final refinements closely match points raised by the MA and its members.

Why members’ contributions matter

Thank you to all the members who read the consultation, shared examples and helped us develop our response.

The succession of government consultations can feel never-ending and exhausting. The connection between submitting evidence and securing a change in national policy is not always visible - and governments rarely identify which organisation was responsible for a particular amendment.

This shows why it is worth responding. Members’ practical experience allowed us to make a case rooted in what happens on the ground, and parts of that case are now reflected in national policy.

The NPPF will not solve wildfire risk on its own. Our next task is to ensure that the forthcoming guidance closes the remaining gaps and works in practice for land managers, communities and the emergency services.