By John Holmes, Director of Strategy
On 5 September, Defra announced strengthened legislation on burning on peat. The new legislation came into force this week, with the new burning season commencing on Wednesday. We welcome the strengthened legislation which will help restore and rewet peatlands. When in a healthy state, peatlands provide multiple benefits - absorbing carbon, regulating our water supply, creating a home for wildlife and providing a record of the past. Wet, restored peatlands can also be more resilient to wildfires, as explained by our Chief Scientist, Sallie Bailey, in her blog ‘Wildfires: Nature’s role in resisting the spark’.
To inform the amended regulations, Defra undertook a full public consultation process, receiving a total of 1,743 responses. A summary report of the consultation results has been produced. The government’s response to the consultation is also included on these pages.
Through Natural England’s capacity as landowner (of National Nature Reserves) and statutory adviser to government on the natural environment, we submitted a formal response to the consultation. Our answers to some of the main consultation questions are set out below.
Consultation question: Do you agree with the proposal to change the boundaries of the Regulations to LFA to protect more upland peatlands?
Natural England response: Our comprehensive Evidence Review on ‘The effects of managed burning on upland peatland biodiversity, carbon and water’ (NEER115, 2025) concludes that managed burning can influence characteristic peatland flora and fauna, water chemistry and the functions of carbon cycling and water regulation. Natural England agrees that extending the boundaries to all upland areas, using the LFA, will bring further protection to peatland habitats at an ecosystem scale – regardless of their status as a protected site (SSSI and/or SAC/SPA). It will also extend protection to historic environment features beyond those found within protected sites. We agree that burning should be seen as a last resort, on those sites where other means of vegetation management (where such management is proven necessary), are not feasible or appropriate. Our view is that blanket bog and other peatland habitats should require little to no long-term management if they are in good ecological condition.
Our 2023 Review on The Impacts of Vegetation Cutting on Peatlands and Heathlands (NEER028) identified that although the practice of cutting vegetation is becoming more widespread, relatively little is known about its effects. In addition, there are known incidences of damage and disturbance to finite archaeological remains and it may cause peat compaction. We would therefore caution against promoting cutting as a universally suitable alternative to burning.
Although we support these proposals in providing greater protection for upland peat, there are areas of lowland peat (including areas of 30cm or more in depth) that are routinely burned.
Consultation question: Do you agree with the proposed change of the prohibition of burning on peat over 40cm deep topeat over 30cm deep?
Natural England response: Our Definition of Favourable Conservation Status for Blanket Bog (March 2025), used as evidence to support this consultation question, provides a full explanation behind the 30cm definition. In summary, evidence to justify a definition of peat of 30cm or more (which supports blanket bog habitat) is widely adopted across Europe. This depth is based on ecological factors rather than the previous post-war 40cm definition (used in the 2021 regs) which was based on the exploitation potential of peat. Peat forms wherever waterlogging prevents complete decomposition of dead plant matter. As such, any accumulation of such waterlogged material can be classed as ‘peat’. A thickness of 30cm or more is also recognised as a useful threshold for blanket bog plant species. We agree that – by lowering the regulatory threshold to include peat deeper than 30cm – this will increase the amount of peat and associated habitats protected from burning and enable their hydrological function to be restored. Once restored to a healthy functioning state, peatland habitats will make a vital contribution to the Government’s Net Zero and EIP targets – storing carbon, improving water quality and helping protect communities from flooding.
For simplicity for those interpreting and applying the regulations, we suggest wording of ‘30cm or deeper’ rather than ‘over 30cm deep’.
Consultation question: Under what ground(s) would you be most likely to apply for a licence to burn?
Natural England response: Ceasing burning on peatlands is necessary to restore condition and maximise the full suite of ecosystem services provided by a naturally functioning habitat. Natural England is only likely to consider a licence application on land it owns (National Nature Reserves) under the ground (a). This will only be in situations where there is evidence that, having considered all other alternative management interventions, it will accelerate habitat restoration efforts. In such cases we would also need to conclude that the burn is directly connected with or necessary for the management of the habitat for which the site has been designated.
Consultation question: Do you have concerns about the impacts of burning on the environment?
Natural England response: The evidence reviewed in NEER155 indicated a range of impacts of burning, broadly relating to:
- A move away from characteristic species composition of upland peatland vegetation and faunal assemblages
- Changes to natural functions of carbon cycling and water regulation
- The potential for managed burns to provide an ignition source for wildfire
It also found evidence to indicate that the burning season overlaps with the first egg-laying of some moorland birds. A gradual advancement of mean egg laying dates may also be further influenced by climate change. We therefore suggest moving the end date back to 31 March (as in Wales) or align with Countryside Stewardship’s mandatory prescription for CUP3 (P441). This uses a 5th March date, after which operations with potential to disturb birds are prohibited.
Evidence (e.g. ADAS, 2011, Yorkshire Moorlands Assessment Project (2010)) also shows that burning on peat can cause upstanding stone archaeological features to shatter and become unstable. In addition, subsurface burning can affect buried archaeology and paleoecology. Vehicle access in an emergency (e.g. wildfire response) is another potential cause of archaeological damage. We recommend that amended regulations include reference to the historic environment, in line with the [Heather and Grass Management] Code.
In the last burning season we received several letters from members of the public concerned about the air pollution impacts of moorland burning. Many upland areas that are routinely burned fall within nationally designated protected landscapes – where the visual effects of geometric burning plots and plumes of smoke can impact on their special qualities.
Consultation question: Have you been impacted in any way (positive or negative) by the use of burning as a land management method?
Natural England response: Natural England is responsible for advising on and enabling the good management of the very best wildlife sites. At present, burning is listed as a ‘Pressure’ (a recorded activity that is having a detrimental impact) on 25 Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Extended Regulation may decrease the number of burning pressures on our protected sites. Burning has negative effects on the hydrology of blanket peat and areas subject to burning are at risk of not recovering good structure and function.
2 comments
Comment by peter regan posted on
Burning should be banned,it’s only done for grouse shooting for an elite few. It’s not a contributor to the rural
Economy.That is a tired myth perpetuated by the elite few.
Comment by George Winn Darley posted on
Burning is done primarily to provide a wildfire resilient landscape not for grouse shooting. Wildfire is the biggest threat to peat and its unique dormant seed legacy. Any management which ignores that is doomed to ultimate failure.