The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 – often called the ‘Habitats Regulations’ or ‘Habs Regs’ – form the highest level of wildlife designation in the UK protecting our rarest and most vulnerable sites and species.  

Designated sites protected under the Habitats Regulations come in three types:  

• Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – internationally important sites for birds
• Special Areas for Conservation (SACs) - internationally important sites for other wildlife (that aren’t birds)
• Ramsar Sites – internationally important wetland sites 

In our three counties, we’re lucky enough to have:  

12 SACs:

• Aston Rowant (South Oxon/ Bucks)
• Burnham Beeches (Soh Bucks)
• Chiltern Beechwoods (South Oxon/ Bucks)
• Cothill Fen (Oxon)
• Hackpen Hill (Oxon)
• Hartslock Wood (Oxon)
• Kennet and Lambourn Floodplain (West Berks)
• Kennet Valley Alderwoods (West Berk)
• Little Wittenham Nature Reserve (Oxon)
• Oxford Meadows (Oxon)
• River Lambourn (West Berks)
• Windsor Forest and Great Park (East Berks) 

And two SPAs: 

• Thames Basin Heaths (South East Berks)
• South West London Waterbodies (East Berks) 

All Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) have a ‘qualifying feature’ which is the species or habitats that are listed in the site’s reasons for being designated. These are species and/or habitats that are in danger of being lost completely and that we have a particular responsibility to conserve.  

For example, the Thames Basin Heath SPA is an internationally important habitat for the rare and under threat the Dartford warbler, nightjar, and woodlark, these species are the SPA’s ‘qualifying feature’.  

Habs Regs provide a protection system for these designated sites.  

Any plans that could harm one of these sites, or the qualifying species or habitat listed as the reason for the site being designated, must go through a thorough Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).   

This assessment includes three steps: 

1. Screening – This means looking broadly for any significant damage or harm that be done by the proposal, either by itself or in combination with other nearby planned proposals that may have already been approved.
2. Assessment – a more detailed look at the potential damage or harm and suggested ways to reduce the risk. The ‘how’ must be backed up by evidence.  

If harm to the site is impossible to avoid, the proposal must go through the derogation test.

3. Derogation – Put simply the need must justify the harm. The proposal is urgent and of overriding importance to the public and that there is no less damaging solution. Even if the proposal is then approved the applicant must provide compensation which is using recreating the habitat somewhere else. 

Habitats Regulations purposely make it so only the plans that are the least harmful overall are approved because the sites designated under this legislation are of such international value to wildlife. Therefore, development should be planned in locations where it wouldn’t damage Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation. These are our highest level of protected sites for wildlife and for good reason.  

It’s difficult to find the total area of how much land is protected by the Habs Regs but given ALL types of statutorily designated (meaning legally protected) wildlife sites make up only 8% of the UK it’s likely to be a pretty small percentage of the UK’s land.  

In a speech on 1 December 2025, the Prime Minister said he agreed with all recommendations in the Fingleton Review and also asked the Business Secretary to apply them to sectors beyond nuclear in the upcoming Industrial Strategy.  

These recommendations include making significant amendments to the Habitat Regulations which would allow developers to skip the assessment process and go straight to compensation without even knowing the exact details of the damage being done and the impact it will have. This payment would not be specific to the needs of those species and habitats harmed but instead go into a Nature Restoration Fund. It would also get rid of the need for ‘like for like’ compensation meaning the habitats created wouldn’t have to be the same and therefore those populations of specific rare species that need specific conditions would have lost their habitat and have no alternative that works making the compensation pointless.  

The Habitats Regulations recommendations are based on faulty evidence, as set out by Somerset Wildlife Trust and Green Alliance. There is a real risk that these errors could lead put some of our best nature areas at unnecessary risk.

The duty on public bodies to protect our National Parks and National Landscapes could be scrapped 

Another recommendation in the report, suggests removing the duty on public bodies to protect our National Parks and National Landscapes. The Chilterns, the Cotswolds and the North Wessex Downs National Landscapes fall within our patch. In 2023, a new strengthened duty recommended by National Landscapes Association came into force in English National Landscapes. This changed ‘have regard’ to all ‘relevant authorities’ (generally, those with a public function), ‘must seek to further the purposes’ of the designated landscape for National Landscapes to catalyse organisations to work together to protect and improve these nationally valuable and some of our most treasured places. However, after so little time to reach its potential, this could be lost if reverted to the rather weak ‘have regard’.  

Our right to challenge Government on environmental decisions under threat  

The UK, alongside 46 other countries, committed to the Aarhus Convention; an international treaty created to empower citizens and charities in environmental matters. One of the key parts of this was access to justice which is achieved through a cost cap to judicial review. However, another concerning recommendation in the report is to change or in some cases even remove the cost cap, breaching the Aarhus Convention, and pricing out communities and charities from challenging Government decisions in court. 

For example, Sussex Wildlife Trust successfully challenged and stopped dredged sediment from being dumped in a protected marine area in East Sussex, you can read the full story here: A Victory for Nature: Sussex Wildlife Trust’s Judicial Review Success

If this goes ahead, people will suffer as well as wildlife 

The recommendations in the review will make natural spaces less safe from development and more vulnerable to damage and loss. These spaces might be close to where you live, or special landscapes that you visit and care about. The UK has already lost more biodiversity than any other country over the last few decades. 

The risk of environmental damage through these recommendations will also have significant knock-on impacts for economic stability, which affects everyone through the cost of living. Allowing the natural world to be neglected in this way will only benefit a handful of developers who can cut costs by bending the rules in future. 

In the last year, the UK Government has specifically targeted nature and wildlife, calling spiders and bats and newts 'blockers' and deliberately getting rid of legal safeguards and policies that are supposed to help nature recover. 

This goes against all evidence, and the public's views that nature is necessary to everyone. Evidence shows a healthy environment underpins our economy and our wellbeing, and that building with nature in mind does help to ensure development is high quality and sustainable. 

The evidence is clear that the Habitats Regulations are the most effective UK nature conservation laws. Researchers have found that bird species strictly protected by the Habs Regs fared significantly better than sites not protected by the regulations. 

Defra’s own reviews found the Habitats Regulations were fit-for-purpose. The Defra review concluded that ‘in the large majority of cases the implementation of the Directives is working well, allowing both development of key infrastructure and ensuring that a high level of environmental protection is maintained.’ 

This was echoed by The Red Tape Initiative 2018 report  which highlighted the importance of these regulations for business and the need to improve implementation of these regulations. Providing more certain and consistent protection for important nature sites results in better environmental outcomes and provide more certainty, consistency and resource efficiency for those all involved in the system including developers.    

Instead of destroying habitats, we need to be restoring them. Restored habitats store carbon to help us reach net zero, help safeguard food production by increasing pollination and soil health, provide cool spots in overheated landscapes and absorb much of the force of flooding. 

If Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) give the green light for the harmful Fingleton Review recommendations, it makes a second damaging Planning Bill inevitable. This will slam the door on nature’s recovery and make net zero even harder to achieve. 

However, these are currently not policy or law, they are only proposals. 

Now is our chance to stop these damaging proposals and protect the Habitats Regulations, our National Parks and our right to access justice.  

Sign our action to Ministers: 

Take Fingleton Review Campaign Action Here 

Help us spread the word

We have created some pictures that you can use on your own social media accounts along with some suggested text to help share this campaign with your friends and followers.

Download our resources