HRA guidance consultation

Overview

This consultation seeks views on changes to the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Guidance. 

Defra are intending to update the current HRA guidance (published online: Habitats regulations assessments: protecting a European site - GOV.UK ). The aim of making these updates is to provide improved guidance which is clearer and more usable, focusing especially on areas where applicants and decision makers face uncertainty, and to encourage the efficient application of the regulations. 

These updates form part of the Government’s wider ambition to improve the effectiveness of the planning system, support timely decision-making and enable sustainable development and growth, while maintaining strong environmental protections. 

Evidence from the Corry Review, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) report on environmental assessment regimes and the Habitats Regulations Post Implementation Review (PIR) has suggested that the current HRA guidance contributes to uncertainty, delays and overly precautionary decisions.  

We have engaged stakeholders previously on updates to HRA guidance and have used this earlier feedback to progress drafting. This consultation will gather further evidence and practical examples to assess whether this updated guidance reduces uncertainty, delay or misunderstandings in the HRA process. We are also testing whether the draft guidance addresses these issues in line with the Corry Review findings and the Habitats Regulations PIR. 

Who will be affected by these proposals? 

The updated guidance will be particularly relevant for competent authorities and HRA ‘applicants’, meaning anybody proposing a plan or project, including developers, property owners, public bodies and statutory undertakers. The updated guidance will support applicants to understand how decisions will be taken and what is required during the HRA process. The updated guidance is intended to address issues raised previously by stakeholders - including uncertainty, delays and overly precautionary decisions, by providing clearer advice to users on the legal requirements of HRA. The updated guidance will also be used by regulators to support them in applying the regulations efficiently. 

The current guidance we are updating applies to the terrestrial and inshore areas only. However, the HRA process is broadly the same across inshore and offshore regions. We therefore propose updating the guidance to also apply to offshore areas beyond 12 nautical miles at a later stage and when possible, and we welcome views from respondents with experience in the offshore. Separate work is underway specifically to address derogations and compensation for offshore wind plans and projects as part of the Offshore Wind Environmental Improvement Package. 

How to respond 

The consultation period will commence on 7 April 2026 and will be open for responses for a period of 6 weeks. The consultation period will close at 23:59 on 19 May 2026. 

We will ask you several specific questions throughout this consultation. If you have any other views on the subjects covered by this consultation which have not been addressed, you are welcome to provide us with these views in the open text box at the end of your response.

You can read the full updated draft Habitats Regulations Assessment guidance (PDF); it is also attached to the final question page. We are particularly interested in views on key sections. To support focused engagement, relevant extracts from the updated draft guidance are provided underneath the heading for each question. 

Using and sharing your information   

How we use your personal data is set out in the consultation and call for evidence exercise privacy notice which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defras-consultations-and-call-for-evidence-exercises-privacy-notice  

Other Information

This consultation is being conducted in line with the Cabinet Office “Consultation Principles” and be found at: Microsoft Word - Consultation Principles (1).docx (publishing.service.gov.uk)’ 

Potential Impact of the Guidance

The following hypothetical examples illustrate how the updated guidance could affect the application of the HRA process in practice: 

Case Study 1: Small Housing Development  

A small housing proposal several kilometres from a Habitats Site was delayed for months because the HRA included theoretical risks rather than only real ones. Although there was no credible evidence of potential impact, the applicant was asked to provide further evidence in the form of additional surveys.  

If it had followed the updated guidance, the local planning authority and applicant would have focused on real risks, used available thresholds to demonstrate the effects could not be significant alone or in combination with other plans and projects, and made better use of existing evidence for example reusing parts of a relevant existing HRA.   

This would have meant the project could be screened out of the HRA much faster, without risk of harm to the Habitats Site.  

Case Study 2: Wastewater Treatment Upgrade  

An applicant needed to upgrade a wastewater treatment works to improve water quality. The project required an appropriate assessment. The Competent Authority wanted to have absolute certainty that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of a Habitats Site and requested that the applicant provide additional evidence.   

The new guidance makes clear that absolute certainty is not required, sets out what evidence is appropriate at each stage and encourages early engagement to avoid duplication.  

This would have allowed the applicant to provide the evidence more efficiently. It could have satisfied the Competent Authority beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there would be no adverse effect on site integrity, without requiring absolute certainty. This would mean the appropriate assessment was completed more efficiently, enabling an environmentally beneficial project sooner. 

Case Study 3: Windfarm Development 

A windfarm faced delays because different regulators took different views on whether compensatory measures need to exactly replicate what is damaged by the project even though the Habitats Regulations require only that measures are taken to ensure the overall coherence of the site network is protected.   

The updated guidance clarifies that compensation does not need to exactly replicate what is damaged by a plan or project if alternative measures ensure the same ecological outcome for the network.  

This would have enabled the regulators to reach a consensus sooner and supported the timely delivery of nationally important energy infrastructure.  

Examples of activities not needed under the updated guidance 

The guidance explains where Competent Authorities do not need to carry out actions that they may have thought were required. This includes:  

• In certain circumstances a Competent Authority does not have to prepare a new HRA but rather can re-use a previous HRA   

• A Competent Authority is not required to assess any implications of a plan or project that it would be more appropriate for another Competent Authority to assess  

• When considering likely significant effects, a Competent Authority is not required to consider hypothetical risks, only real risks  

• When considering likely significant effects in combination with other plans and projects, a Competent Authority is not required to consider every proposed plan and project that is likely to affect the site that is being assessed   

• A Competent Authority does not have to consider effects if it can be demonstrated the likely impact of the effect is so minor, there would be no credible risk of a significant effect even in combination 

• A Competent Authority does not have to consider evidence provided by an applicant if it is excessive or irrelevant