May 2026

Habitats Regulations consultation on revisions to guidance to better facilitate delivery of development

DEFRA has published updated draft guidance on the preparation of Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRAs) and is seeking views through a consultation exercise. DEFRA states that:

“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.”

The change in approach between the current guidance and the proposed updated draft is marked, with the new guidance seeking, where possible, to place increased emphasis on proportionality and on the level of precaution appropriate to the application of assessment thresholds. Examples include:

• Solutions-based approach: Competent authorities should work with applicants constructively to find a way to allow plans and projects; consider opportunities to use innovative approaches where these have potential to resolve issues more effectively.
• Focus: Competent authorities should make judgements based on the facts of the individual situation and the ecological condition of the site’s features (the focus is on the site’s conservation objectives); decide whether it is necessary to consult the public on the HRA.
• Strategic approach: Applicants should use strategic mitigation schemes where possible.

In particular, the updated draft guidance for Competent Authorities draws more heavily from case law and seeks to narrow the scope of assessment as far as possible by focusing only on what is required and by reducing repetition through the re-use of relevant existing assessments. Examples include:

• Avoiding duplication 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 .
• Case law: For an effect to be likely there needs to be more than a hypothetical risk. There must be credible evidence that the risk is real. This means that there does not need to be zero probability of an effect for it to be ruled out.
• Proportionality: Where competent authorities can demonstrate that, because of the very small size of the likely impact, there would be no credible risk of a significant effect even in combination.
• Expert judgement rather than endless surveys: Competent authorities should use their expert judgement to reach these conclusions where it provides sufficient certainty, without needing more detailed information such as surveys or modelling.
• Focused in-combination assessment: When considering in-combination effects, a Competent Authority is not required to consider every proposed plan and project that is likely to affect the site that is being assessed.
• Conclusions: A conclusion of no adverse effect does not have to be established with absolute certainty. It involves a judgement by the competent authority, based on the evidence available. To be satisfied beyond reasonable scientific doubt, the competent authority does not always have to assess the reasonable worst case scenario, and it is not necessary for there to be no risk.

We await the outcome of the consultation with interest. If the draft guidance is adopted largely in its current form, it is likely to assist applicants in the preparation of HRAs and Competent Authorities in the assessment of their findings.

Follow Aspect Ecology on LinkedIn for all our latest news LinkedIn Page.