Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 9 September 2025

Introduction

This publication summarises the responses received through public consultation on potential amendments to The Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021. The consultation ran between 31 March and 25 May 2025. This publication also includes the UK government’s response to that consultation.

Background

England’s peatlands are our largest terrestrial carbon store. They provide a home for rare wildlife, regulate our water supply, and provide a record of the past. However, over 80% of our peatlands are degraded, damaged, or dried out. We need to do more to restore our peatlands to their natural state so that they can provide these vital ecosystem services.

Burning is widely used as a management tool in upland habitats, including on peatlands. It is principally used to create new growth of vegetation (often heather) which is more palatable to livestock and grouse. It can also be used to mitigate the risk of wildfire.

However, repeated burning risks permanently altering the species composition and hydrology of peatland habitats. The evidence shows that burning damages these important ecosystems, and protecting peat from further damage is crucial to its restoration and recovery. In the uplands, protection is provided by The Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021, which were introduced to prevent unnecessary burning on peatlands.

Upland peatland habitats are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of burning. While winter burns tend to affect mainly surface vegetation rather than peat itself, rotational burning makes it difficult to restore blanket bog to its natural hydrology.

This change in hydrology prevents the variation of plant species typically found in healthy blanket bogs (known as indicator species). In favourable condition, peatland and blanket bogs generally support more than 6 plant indicator species, which may include a healthy balance of heather, cotton grasses, feather mosses, and Sphagnum species. In contrast, peatland that is burned may support as few as two indicator species, often with a dominance of heather or Molinia.

Whilst heather is a normal component of blanket bog vegetation, in an active bog it does not assume dominance. Too much heather will shade more sensitive vegetation and, due to its extensive root structure, will contribute to drying out the peat underneath, hampering the delivery of the full range of environmental benefits that these peatlands are capable of when in a healthy, natural state.

Damaged peatlands also release tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, rather than absorbing and storing it, undermining efforts to achieve our net zero mission. They are also more susceptible to the effects of wildfire, which can damage the peat itself and exacerbate carbon loss.

A further impact of large-scale burning of vegetation, including heather, is the release of smoke into the air. These smoke plumes can travel considerable distances, affecting air quality in surrounding communities. This smoke contains harmful pollutants, including types of particulate matter known as PM2.5 and PM10, PM2.5 is considered the most serious pollutant for human health, as its tiny particles can penetrate deep into the lungs, enter the bloodstream, and reach major organs. Exposure to PM2.5 is strongly associated with strokes, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and certain types of lung cancer.

Burning also negatively affects water quality by increasing dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and causing water discoloration due to the release of peat and other organic matter into watercourses. The changes in water quality can negatively affect aquatic ecosystems and the organisms that live in them. Removal of colour from water represents one of the major operational costs of any treatment plant and can run into millions of pounds per annum.

Burning is only one of several options available to land managers trying to manage heather on peatland. Overgrowth of woody heather can be managed through the restoration of wet bog. In its natural state, heather is naturally limited on peatland and is just one of many species present. Prior to peatland restoration, overgrowth of heather can also be managed by cutting. Burning should be considered a last resort, used only where no sustainable alternatives are available.

The government recognises that prescribed burning may be a necessary management tool in very limited circumstances, for example, where there is an evidenced wildfire risk and where no feasible alternatives exist. Currently, burning vegetation on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) that are also Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs) requires a licence if the peat depth exceeds 40cm.

We need to go further in protecting our peatlands for people, nature, and climate. Government will invest in peatland restoration throughout this parliament, including through the Countryside Stewardship and Landscape Recovery schemes. We must also promote sustainable land management in the uplands to put more peatlands on the road to recovery. Our consultation sought views on expanding protection to a broader area of upland peat, whilst maintaining an effective licensing scheme for when burning cannot be avoided.

Overview of responses

We received 1,743 responses via Citizen Space and 118 responses via email.

The number of responses received by stakeholder type is shown in Table 1. The majority of responses were from members of the public. The online consultation allowed respondents to indicate they were completing the consultation in multiple capacities. To aid analysis, we assigned a single role per respondent, with a professional role taking priority over being a member of the public.

The first column of Table 1 indicates the capacity in which people responded to the consultation, while the second column lists the number of responses received from each group.

Table 1: Responses received to the consultation by stakeholder type

Capacity in which responded to the consultation	Number of responses received
Member of the public	1,435
Land manager (farmer, private or estate)	124
Landowner	99
Organisation	69
Other	52
Landowner and land manager	46
Land manager	15
Land manager (charity or non-governmental organisation)	12
Public body	8
Not answered – unknown	1
Total	1,861

This consultation received organised responses originating from 4 campaigns. Table 2 summarises the campaigns around the consultation and their influence on the responses received.

The first column of Table 2 indicates the campaign organisation, followed by columns showing the organisation’s viewpoint, advice to supporters, and number of responses associated with the campaign.

Table 2: Summary of Campaign Influence on Responses

Campaign organisation	Viewpoint	Advice to supporters	Number of campaign responses
Wild Justice	Strongly opposed to burning on peatland and grouse shooting.	Encouraged supporters to respond to the consultation and provided suggested text on their website critical of grouse shooting.	160 online responses clearly influenced by the group’s suggested phrasing.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)	Supportive of further regulation of moorland burning for peatland protection.	Added a page to their website setting out a supportive view of the proposals, encouraging supporters to “add your voice and make sure these vital ecosystems get the protections they need.”	72 mentions of the RSPB in consultation responses.
Moorland Association	Opposed to the changes proposed in the consultation on the grounds of wildfire risk, called for a pause to the consultation.	Added a page to their website criticising the proposals alongside a draft response. Encouraged supporters to provide information about the impact of the proposals as well as case studies.	45 mentions of the Moorland Association in consultation responses.
Moorlands for Climate and Nature	Strongly opposed to burning on peatland and grouse shooting.	Added a page to their website with a template response calling for a complete ban on grouse shooting.	37 template email responses received.

A list of organisations who responded to the consultation in writing is set out in Annex A.

Methodology

The consultation was published on the online digital platform Citizen Space which recorded responses through an online questionnaire. Responses were also received via email, some of which were identified as part of organised campaigns.

The consultation consisted of 19 questions: 17 were closed-ended, each allowing respondents to provide additional information, and 2 were open-ended. All responses received within the consultation deadline were counted and the views presented were included in the analysis.

Four campaigns to generate responses to the consultation were identified. These originated from the Moorland Association, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Wild Justice, and Moorlands for Climate and Nature. These responses were included in our overall analysis.

Additionally, several organisations responded to the consultation. These are listed in Annex A. Some organisations were umbrella groups whose responses represented the collective views of their member organisations. These responses counted as a single view in the analysis. However, their members also responded separately in some cases, and these were included as separate responses.

To gain a clearer understanding of the perspectives represented, respondents were invited to indicate all categories that applied to them. These categories included:

• landowner
• land manager – farmer, private or estate
• land manager – environmental non-governmental organisation (eNGO) or charity
• member of the public
• organisation
• public body
• other

As we received consultation responses in a variety of forms, some responses addressed the consultation questions more directly than others. Our analysis considered all responses in relation to the consultation questions and corresponding themes.

Headline messages

We are grateful to stakeholders for taking the time to provide detailed feedback on our proposals. Many respondents expressed strongly held views, both supporting and opposing the proposals.

There was broad support for the proposals amongst consultation respondents. Proponents of the amendments argued for their necessity, emphasising the importance of protecting peatlands and the ecosystem services they provide.

A minority of respondents opposed the proposals, primarily those who identified themselves as land managers. Those opposing the amendments raised concerns about a perceived increase in wildfire risk due to vegetation not being managed through burning.

A minority of respondents felt the questions in Part B, concerning the application process for a licence, were relevant to them. Some respondents raised concerns about the complexity and length of the licensing process and the prospects of an application being successful.

The proposed regulatory changes were perceived to introduce new economic and operational challenges for stakeholders. A majority of respondents who currently use burning as a management tool indicated readiness to apply for necessary licences, despite the business changes they will need to make.

Respondents expressed concerns about the negative impacts of burning, and prevalent themes included environmental harm and the nuisance and human health impact of smoke.

Summary of responses to questions

Part A – Proposed amendments to the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021

A1. Proposal to change the boundaries of the regulations to Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) to protect more upland peatlands

There was broad support for changing the boundary of the regulations to Less Favoured Areas, with the majority of respondents in favour of the proposals. A range of reasons were given for this support, the most common being that the change will protect or improve the ecosystem services that peatlands provide. A small minority of respondents in favour of the proposals felt they do not go far enough. Of the small minority of those who did not support the proposals, the most common reasons provided were around the risk of wildfire.

A2. Proposal to remove protection from those SSSIs that fall outside of LFAs

Respondents generally opposed the proposal to remove protection from SSSI-designated peatlands that fall outside of the Less Favoured Areas. Some respondents called for consistent and expanded protective measures to be applied to all peatlands, including those situated outside of LFAs.

A3. Proposed change of the prohibition of burning on peat ‘over 40cm deep’ to peat ‘over 30cm deep’

A majority of respondents supported changing the threshold for prohibiting burning on peatlands from peat depths over 40cm to peat depths over 30cm. Respondents provided a range of reasons for supporting the proposal. Many believed that it would extend protection to a greater area of peatland, enhance conservation efforts, support carbon abatement, and promote ecosystem health. Others highlighted the potential to reduce air pollution and improve human health. Overall, these respondents viewed the proposal as a positive and necessary step toward stronger environmental protection and climate change mitigation.

However, some respondents felt that the proposal did not go far enough and called for a complete ban on burning on peatland, regardless of peat depth. These respondents often cited the potential for broader environmental benefits, alignment with international conservation standards, and the simplification of enforcement without any depth-based exemptions. Several respondents expressed concerns about the practical challenges involved in mapping and policing peat depth.

A minority of respondents opposed the proposal, often citing concerns that changing the burning prohibition could complicate land management and increase wildfire risk due to increased fuel loads from vegetation that cannot be managed through burning.

A4. Grounds to apply for a licence under the regulations.

The consultation invited respondents to answer the question: “Under what circumstances would you be most likely to apply for a licence to burn?”.

The majority of respondents stated that they would not apply for a licence to burn, with many expressing that they were opposed to burning altogether. These respondents felt that burning should only be used as a last resort when other methods have proved ineffective. Respondents also emphasised the need for robust and strict licensing regulations to prevent any exploitation of potential loopholes.

Respondents who said they would apply for a licence to burn heather and grass cited reducing wildfire risk as the primary reason. These respondents felt that prescribed burning could reduce the risk of large-scale wildfires by creating fire breaks. Some respondents emphasised the role of prescribed burning as a means of managing vegetation, promoting new growth, and maintaining diverse habitats beneficial to wildlife.

A5. Exclusion of grounds for a licence in areas where vegetation is inaccessible to mechanical cutting

The majority of respondents supported the removal of ground (d), which permits the granting of burning licences ‘because the specified vegetation is inaccessible to mechanical cutting equipment and any other method of management is impracticable’.

Respondents expressed concerns that ground (d) could provide an opportunity to bypass regulations intended to protect peatlands and biodiversity, risking negative impacts on the environment. Respondents also mentioned the importance of protecting habitats such as older heather stands, as mature vegetation can support a diverse range of species and should be conserved rather than burned.

Some respondents who supported the removal of ground (d) advocated for alternative management techniques such as rewetting for enhancing biodiversity and mitigating wildfire risks.

Of the minority of respondents who opposed the proposal, some expressed concerns that removing ground (d) could lead to increased wildfires by making it harder to manage vegetation and to create fire breaks. Respondents also stated that removing the ground could increase land management challenges, since there are some areas where vegetation is genuinely inaccessible to mechanical equipment.

A small number of respondents also supported retaining ground (d) due to concerns that mechanical cutting could cause more damage to archaeological features than prescribed burning.

A6. Adding ‘research’ as a ground to apply for a licence under the regulations

The majority of respondents supported the proposal to add research as a ground for licence applications under the regulations. These respondents stated that the proposal would advance knowledge about peatland management.

Respondents emphasised the need for this research to be genuine, peer-reviewed, and transparently conducted, with some suggesting that research should only be conducted by trusted and recognised institutions.

Of the minority of respondents who opposed adding a research ground, some expressed concerns that granting licences for the purposes of research could become a loophole for continuing damaging burning practices. Some respondents also doubted the need for burning for research, citing existing evidence on the negative impacts of burning on peatlands.

A7. Mandatory compliance with the Heather and Grass Management Code

Most respondents supported the proposal to make adherence to the Heather and Grass Management Code compulsory rather than advisable. Supporters believed mandatory regulations are necessary to ensure strict adherence and improve environmental protection. They argued that advisory codes are often unheeded.

Of the small minority of respondents who did not support the proposal, reasons given included concerns around increased bureaucracy. Some were wary of agreeing to the code being compulsory without first seeing its content.

A8. Mandatory prescribed fire and wildfire training

The majority of respondents supported the proposal to make it a requirement for all practitioners to carry out an accredited training course prior to carrying out a prescribed burn. A common reason given was that the proposal could prevent uncontrolled fires, as many respondents noted that out-of-control burns often occur due to a lack of training.

A small number of respondents did not support the need for prescribed fire training or felt this should apply to supervising practitioners only. Some respondents who opposed the proposal felt formal training was unnecessary or inferior to the traditional knowledge and practical experience of land managers.

Part B – The application process

B1. Awareness of the regulations and what they cover

Respondents expressed varying levels of awareness about heather and grass burning regulations, with some lacking detailed knowledge, particularly those less directly affected by the proposals.

Some respondents called for a tightening of the regulations, stating that burning degrades ecosystems, contributes to carbon emissions, and causes negative health impacts. Other respondents gave general criticism of regulatory process, with some seeing it as complex and not always effective, slowing down land management and increasing costs.

B2. Accessing the licence application form and guidance

Respondents were divided in their awareness of how to access the guidance and application form to apply for a heather and grass burning licence from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

Some respondents said that the application forms and guidance were easily accessible online through the Defra website or the government’s GOV.UK portal. Others did not know exactly where to access the form but felt that they could find the information if needed through a simple online search.

However, some respondents expressed concerns that the process could be unclear or inaccessible, especially for those less familiar with using digital tools.

B3. Experience of applying for a licence

Only a small number of respondents stated that they had ever attempted or considered making an application for a heather and grass burning licence, with most respondents saying that this was not relevant to them. This reflects the large proportion of respondents who are members of the public. Respondents were asked for details of their experience, and some stated that their applications had been rejected, or that they had found the process difficult or lengthy.

B4. Reasons for not proceeding with an application

Respondents were asked whether they had attempted or considered applying for a licence but did not ultimately do so, and what had prevented them. A minority of people responded to this question. Some of the reasons given included the perceived length and complexity of the process, and a lack of confidence in being granted a licence.

B5. Combined restoration and wildfire mitigation plan template

The consultation asked respondents whether they would find it helpful to have a combined restoration and wildfire mitigation plan template.

For the most part, respondents felt this question was not applicable to them. Around a quarter of those who responded felt a combined restoration and wildfire mitigation plan would be helpful, and supporters felt this could simplify the application process. A small number of respondents felt a combined template would not be helpful due to the variability of moorland environments.

B6. Applying for a licence

The consultation invited respondents to indicate who, in their specific context, would be responsible for submitting a licence application. As with previous questions in Part B, this question was only considered relevant to a small number of respondents. The most frequently selected role option was ‘Other’, followed by ‘Estate Manager or Landowner’.

Part C – Economic impacts

This section examines the potential economic impacts of the proposed regulatory amendments on users and interested parties eligible for licences. Respondents were first asked whether they use burning as a land management practice. Those who indicated that they do were guided through a series of specific questions about the practice.

Respondents who do not use burning were directed to the next section of the consultation. Respondents who indicated that they use burning were asked to provide details about the locations and nature of their burning practices. The consultation then explored how proposed regulatory changes might affect their operations, with questions focusing on necessary adjustments, cost estimates, ability to adapt without burning, and interest in licensing.

Summary of feedback received

A minority of respondents answered the questions in Part C of the consultation. Some used this question to make general comments in favour of or against the practice of moorland burning.

Most respondents felt it would be necessary to adjust their land management practices because of the proposed changes to the regulations. Respondents reported that there would likely be additional costs and administrative burdens linked to carrying out peat depth surveys, obtaining licences, and conducting alternative methods, such as cutting. Responses mentioned the need to acquire additional cutting machinery and hire more staff to manage vegetation without burning and stated that these changes would increase their workload.

The overall feedback from respondents regarding the costs associated with the regulatory changes varied, though some respondents highlighted potentially significant financial implications. Respondents predicted that the regulatory changes would result in significant additional expenses, particularly in labour, equipment, and administration.

Most respondents expressed a willingness to apply for a licence, if the area protected under the regulations was expanded. A minority showed openness to eliminating burning completely.

Part D – Further questions

D1. Concerns about the impact of burning on the environment

The majority of respondents to this question stated that they had concerns about the impact of burning on the environment. Respondents reported concerns about the negative impact of moorland burning on air quality, carbon storage, and biodiversity. The most common concern reported was the impact of moorland burning on wildlife habitats. Respondents were also concerned about carbon emissions from degradation of peatland caused by burning.

A small minority of respondents stated that moorland burning is important for reducing the risk of wildfire, or that burning has other positive impacts.

D2. Impact of burning as a land management method

The consultation asked respondents if they have been impacted in any way (positive or negative) by burning as a land management method. Most people who responded to this question cited negative impacts, and a prominent theme was the nuisance and human health impact of smoke from burning. Other respondents were concerned about environmental degradation caused by burning, with some respondents emphasising that these environmental and climate impacts affect everyone.

A small number of respondents felt that burning has a positive impact when used as a tool for wildfire risk and biodiversity improvement.

Government response

Overview

Following a comprehensive review of the consultation responses, the government plans to introduce most of the proposed changes to the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 to increase protections for peatlands. These amendments include:

i. changing the prohibition on burning from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) that are also Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protected Areas (SPAs) to areas designated as Less Favoured Areas (LFAs)

ii. changing the definition of ’deep peat’ from peat with a depth of more than 40cm to peat with a depth of more than 30cm

iii. updating the licensing scheme to remove a licensing ground around inaccessibility, and including a new ground around applications for research or educational purposes

iv. strengthened safeguards for heritage, including archaeological features

Once implemented, these changes will increase the total area of deep peat protected from 246,156 hectares to over 676,000 hectares. The effect of this will be that burning will be banned on all upland blanket bog habitats unless a licence is granted by the Secretary of State.

To support applicants for licences, we will introduce revised guidance and an interactive application form. We will also be making updates to the licensing system. Our aim is to streamline the process by reducing complexity and improving how we work with consultees.

The government will publish the Heather and Grass Management Code in the autumn, but we will not enforce compliance through the regulations. This reflects feedback from the consultation that the Code should be published and understood before enforcement decisions are made. We will therefore aim to ensure compliance with the Code through the licensing system.

Additionally, applicants will usually be expected to complete or have already completed accredited fire training as a condition for licence approval, though this will not be a blanket requirement for all licences.

The following sections set out the government’s response to the consultation feedback, and further details about the planned amendments.

Evidence used in decision making

The use of burning on peatlands remains a source of debate, and the consultation responses we have received indicate the strength of feeling around both peatland protection and the use of prescribed burning as a management tool.

Defra relies on good quality evidence to inform its decision-making and policy design. Over the last decade a number of scientific papers have been published on this topic. New scientific evidence, subject to appropriate academic rigour, has been assessed within the context of the cumulative evidence base.

The report ‘An evidence review update on the effects of managed burning on upland peatland biodiversity, carbon and water (NEER155)’ published by Natural England in March of 2025 has built on its 2013 review (NEER004) by incorporating 102 new studies on the effects of burning on peatlands. The report specifically compared findings from studies published post the release of NEER004 with those included in this original review.

While a number of evidence gaps have now been filled, the overall findings and conclusions are consistent with those of the 2013 review. This review remains the most comprehensive evidence review available and concludes that burning, especially repeated burning, results in a departure from the typical structure of these habitats and can impact how they function.

Defra continues to monitor the growing evidence on this topic and is actively involved, along with Natural England, in an advisory capacity with a long-term research programme assessing long-term impacts of different heather management strategies (rotational burning, mechanical cutting, and no management) on peatland ecosystem services.

The boundaries of the regulations

Summary: We will use Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) to define the regulated area for the regulations, extending protections to a larger area of upland peat.

Currently, a licence is required to burn vegetation on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) that are also Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs) if the peat depth exceeds 40cm.

There was broad support in the responses we received for extending burning protections to Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) – a much larger total area. Respondents felt that increasing the area protected by the regulations would have a positive impact on the ecosystem services that peatlands provide.

However, respondents also expressed strong feelings about the need to protect all SSSI-designated peatlands. Understandably, respondents were concerned about the prospect of protection being removed from sites that are important for nature.

However, the LFA designation covers all upland deep peat where the damaging practice of rotational burning occurs. For those peatlands which do fall outside of LFAs, rotational burning is not a significant issue. In addition, SSSIs benefit from existing protections from burning, such as Natural England’s consenting system, which remains unchanged by amendments to the regulations.

Therefore, we will amend the regulations so that a licence is required to burn vegetation on LFAs, which will significantly strengthen environmental protections for upland peat.

Peat depth and prohibition of burning

Summary: Changing the burning prohibition to peat depths of 30cm will provide increased protection for peatlands, while remaining practical and enforceable.

The proposal to change the definition of ‘deep peat’ so that protections include peat depths of more than 30cm rather than more than 40cm, is grounded in updated scientific understanding and practical implementation considerations. Burning can cause damage to peat at any depth, but research indicates that peatlands with a depth of 30cm are able to support vital blanket bog habitats.

Therefore, we have decided to change the regulatory threshold to include peat deeper than 30cm. This will expand protections to a greater area, increasing the likelihood of these ecosystems delivering the substantial environmental benefits associated with healthy peatlands.

The majority of responses showed support for our proposal to change the definition of “deep peat”. Respondents felt that the proposal would provide greater protection to peatlands and the environment, improve ecosystem health, and reduce negative impacts of burning on air quality and human health.

Respondents who opposed the proposal raised concerns that changing the burning prohibition could complicate land management or heighten wildfire risk due to increased fuel loads. However, prescribed burning will remain permitted in justified cases, including reducing the risk of wildfire, under the licensing grounds.

Other respondents felt that the proposal did not go far enough and called for a complete ban on burning on peatland, regardless of peat depth. However, peat shallower than 30cm is hard to reliably identify, as soil and mineral composition becomes more variable. Expanding protections to all peat depths would therefore be challenging to enforce, increasing the risk of legal disputes, and creating liability issues for land managers.

Wildfire

Summary: We will expand protections for upland peat to boost long-term wildfire resilience, while continuing efforts to reduce wildfire risks.

Some responses to the consultation raised concerns that our policy proposals would increase the risk of damaging wildfires in upland environments. These respondents argued that prescribed burns are needed to reduce heather fuel load and decrease the risk of wildfire events occurring.

However, burning on peatland encourages heather growth. As heather’s deep roots dry out peat and form woody, flammable material, this practice increases long term vulnerability to wildfires. There is also evidence that escaped prescribed burns cause a proportion of wildfires. For more information, please see Natural England’s evidence review on the effects of managed burning on upland peatland biodiversity, carbon, and water.

Peatland restoration is the most effective, sustainable, and long-term solution for reducing the fuel load on degraded peatlands. Removing the causes of degradation (such as drainage) will see the reestablishment of blanket bog vegetation like Sphagnum mosses. This vegetation naturally suppresses heather and is more fire-resistant. Funding is available through agri-environment schemes to move towards these more sustainable methods of upland land management.

We acknowledge that restoring peatland to a naturally wet state takes time. During this transition, flammable vegetation may still need to be removed – ideally through cutting, or, in cases where this is not feasible, burning. This will be managed through the licensing system and can still be permitted with these expanded protections. We are also making updates to the licensing system – reducing complexity and enhancing coordination to make the process faster, more efficient, and easier to navigate.

Therefore, we will proceed with our proposals to expand the protections for upland peat, taking a longer-term view that restoring our peatlands will increase their resilience to the impacts of wildfire. In the shorter-term we will continue to work with National Fire Chiefs Council, landowners, land managers and other government departments to mitigate the risk of wildfire on peat.

Licensing

Summary: To improve the licensing system for prescribed burning, we will remove ground (d), add a new ground ‘for research or educational purposes’, and amend ground (a) to include reference to the ‘historic environment’. We will proceed to implement resources to support applicants and mitigate delays.

Defra recognises that burning may sometimes be a necessary tool in upland management, in circumstances where more sustainable methods are not feasible, and there is no practicable alternative.

Under the current regulations a person may apply for a licence under the following grounds:

(a) for the conservation, enhancement, or management of the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations

(b) for the safety of any person

(c) to reduce the risk of wildfire 

(d) because the specified vegetation is inaccessible to mechanical cutting equipment and any other method of management is impracticable

We consulted on proposed changes to the licensing system, including amendments to these grounds.

Proposal to remove ground (d) provision

In the consultation we requested views on a proposal to remove ground (d) for licensing. Most respondents were in favour of removing the ground, emphasising the importance of protecting peatlands by using alternative methods.

However, some raised concerns about the potential consequences of removing ground (d), including increased risk of wildfires and situations where the use of heavy cutting machinery would be unsafe - such as in areas containing unexploded ordnance. However, the removal of ground (d) would not necessarily prohibit burning in these areas, as burning can still be licensed if there is a valid, well-evidenced reason.

The government recognises the need for a licensing system which permits burning in such cases and is confident that these cases would still be covered by ground (b) for the safety of any person, or (c) to reduce the risk of wildfire. Burning can still be licensed if applicants can justify the need for vegetation management, not just why burning is the preferred method. We consider ground (d) to be unsuitable as a standalone ground to apply under the regulations.

Proposal to add a new ground: for research or educational purposes

We consulted on the inclusion of research as a permissible ground for applications under the regulations, to ensure that we can increase the evidence base where necessary. Approximately two-thirds of respondents supported this proposal including several academics. Respondents tended to favour the addition of this ground for educational purposes and so that research can be conducted in important areas.

Adding this new ground will enable research in areas that remain underexplored and where existing evidence is currently limited. For instance, research is needed to better understand the role of burning in managing Molinia, wildfire, and controlling tick populations, all of which were highlighted in the consultation as priority areas for further investigation. This new ground will also cover education, which will enable fire and rescue services to apply for its use for live fire training.

Some respondents raised concerns that this ground could be used as a loophole. To prevent any misuse, we will maintain high standards for approving any research applications. Applications will need to show a strong justification for why the work must take place on deep peat and in Less Favoured Areas (LFAs).

Amending ground (a)

Ground (a) currently allows people to apply for a licence ‘for the conservation, enhancement, or management of the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations’.

However, responses to the consultation emphasised the need to broaden the ground to cover archaeological issues. The consultation highlighted the damage that can be caused by heavy cutting machinery to archaeological sites where heather needs to be removed. We will amend ground (a) to read ‘for the conservation, enhancement, or management of the natural or historic environment for the benefit of present and future generations.

Application process

The consultation sought feedback on individuals’ experiences with the licence application process for burning under the grounds specified in the regulations. Responses emphasised the need for improvements, particularly through the clarification of requirements.

Through engagement with stakeholders and using insights from the consultation, we will introduce revised guidance and an interactive application form, aiming to increase clarity. This will include mandatory fields, alongside the provision of template plans, which will support in mitigating delays and clarifying which documents and information will be necessary when applying.

The regulations are owned by Defra, and decisions on licences will be taken by the Secretary of State, who in some cases may seek advice from a number of relevant consultees, including Natural England and the fire and rescue services, where appropriate. We are making updates to the licensing system, aimed at reducing complexity and improving coordination between the consultees to make the process simpler and faster.

Good practice and safety requirements

Summary: The Heather and Grass Management Code will be published in the autumn. Rather than mandating compliance to the code and uptake of fire safety training through the regulations, we will aim to ensure compliance through the licensing system.

To ensure safety and reduce the risk of uncontrolled fires, it is important that those carrying out prescribed burns have a high level of competency. In the consultation, we asked whether it should be mandatory to comply with the revised Heather and Grass Management Code, and for practitioners to have completed an accredited fire safety course.

The Heather and Grass Burning Code

The archived Heather and Grass Burning Code (2007) provides good practice guidance to support practitioners to burn safely and responsibly, where this is necessary. Although this guidance was recognised by many organisations, it was a voluntary code with no obligation to follow. Defra will soon publish the Heather and Grass Management Code, a revised document updating and replacing the now archived 2007 guidance.

Our consultation proposal was that practitioners should have to adhere to the Code when acting on any licence granted under the regulations. This would ensure prescribed burns are carried out in accordance with good practice recognised by the sector.

Consultation responses expressed strong support for making the Code mandatory. Respondents felt that prescribed burning should be strictly regulated due to the inherent risks presented by the activity. A minority of respondents felt that the Code would introduce unnecessary complications for land managers.

Some respondents stated that the Heather and Grass Management Code should be made public before decisions are made about its enforcement. We recognise the value of ensuring compliance with the Code once it is available and widely understood. We will ensure that any licences issued require compliance with the Code once it is published. 

Fire training for moorland land managers

In Scotland, it is mandatory for anyone intending to burn under licence to complete an accredited course covering relevant guidance and safe fire application techniques. In our consultation, we asked whether such a requirement should be introduced in England.

Most respondents supported the idea of practitioners completing an accredited training course. A minority of respondents felt there should not be such a requirement, or that it should extend only to supervising practitioners. There was clear support for training to improve safety and reduce the risk of wildfire, so we will encourage uptake of this training through the licensing system.

Annex A – List of organisations who responded to the consultation

• British Association for Shooting and Conservation
• Chester Zoo
• Country Land and Business Association
• Dartmoor Commoner’s Council
• Environment Agency
• Forestry Commission
• Friend of Carrington Moss
• International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Peatland Programme
• National Fire Chiefs Council
• National Sheep Association
• New Forest Association
• North Yorkshire Council
• Northumberland Fire & Rescue Service
• Northumberland National Park
• Rewilding Britain
• Tenant Farmers Association
• The British Lichen Society
• The Countryside Alliance
• The Heather Trust
• The Moorland Association
• The National Farmers’ Union
• The Wildlife Trusts
• Wild Moors
• Wildlife and Countryside Link