Extension of the Habitats Regulations to Ramsar Sites in England: Law, Policy, and Practical Consequences

Introduction

Wetlands of international importance designated under the 1971 Ramsar Convention (known as Ramsar sites) have historically occupied an unusual position within English planning and environmental law. Although internationally significant, Ramsar sites have not previously been subject to the statutory protection regime afforded to European sites under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the Habitats Regulations”).

Instead, their protection has depended on government planning policy, most recently the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which has long required decision-makers to treat Ramsar sites as if they were equivalent to Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs).

However, this position has now fundamentally changed. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (“the 2025 Act”), brought into force (in relevant part) on 21 May 2026, introduces a direct statutory extension of the Habitats Regulations regime to Ramsar sites in England. This represents a significant realignment of law and practice.

This blog will argue that the reform is less a procedural innovation than a formalisation of the existing practice but one which materially recalibrates the litigation risk, removes policy-level flexibility, and embeds Ramsar protection within the strict, precautionary structure of EU-derived habitats jurisprudence.

The previous position: a policy-based regime

Prior to the 2025 Act, Ramsar sites were not included within the definition of European sites for the purposes of environmental assessment under Part 6 of the Habitats Regulations. Consequently, there was no statutory requirement for appropriate assessment under regulation 63(1) in relation to a Ramsar site, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in C G Fry and Son Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Somerset Council [2025] UKSC 35 (“C G Fry”) under Issue 1 in that appeal.

Instead, protection of Ramsar sites in England was sought through the NPPF, requiring equivalent treatment to ‘habitats sites’ and at Paragraph 181 local planning authorities to direct development away from the most environmentally sensitive locations, guidance issued by Natural England, and judicial enforcement of policy compliance. This gave rise to what practitioners commonly described as a ‘shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment’ (HRA), established in policy rather than law.

However, this was challenged in the C G Fry case (above). In this case, the appellant, an SME building company, was granted outline planning permission in December 2015. In August 2020, Natural England published their note advising local authorities to scrutinise with rigour any developments which may have an effect on Ramsar sites. The appellant then sought to discharge irrelevant conditions to which the LPA argued they now required an appropriate assessment and an all clear from Ramsar impact before the conditions could be discharged. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s first ground of appeal and concluded that appropriate assessments could be required at the discharge stage. However, the Court allowed the second ground relying on orthodox planning law that the developer has the right to rely on outline planning permission and therefore when considering discharge the authority is limited to matters fairly connected to that subject matters which, in this case, the Ramsar site was not connected to the conditions being discharged.

Consequently, the decision in C G Fry meant that Ramsar sites are not protected by the Habitats Regulations as a matter of law where outline planning permission conditions are being discharged, or at all.

The Legislative Change: Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025

Bringing Ramsar Sites within the Habitats Regulations

Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the 2025 Act amends the Habitats Regulations to extend the environmental assessment and protection provisions within Part 6 (‘Assessment of plans and projects’) to Ramsar sites in England.

These provisions were commenced by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/549), which brought the relevant amendments into force on 21 May 2026. The Explanatory Note to these Regulations confirm that the amendments “extend the protection in Part 6 of those Regulations to Ramsar sites in England” and “introduce a statutory requirement for Ramsar sites to be treated in the same manner as European sites when carrying out assessments”.

Key Amendments

The legislative amendments operate by systematically inserting Ramsar sites in England into the operative provisions of the Habitats Regulations, including:

• Defining “national Ramsar site series”, Ramsar Convention” and “Ramsar site” (regulation 3(1));
• Inserting a new requirement by which competent authorities must undertake an appropriate assessment where a plan or project situated wholly in England is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (regulation 63(1A);
• Extending the test by which consent or permission may only be given once the authority has ascertained that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the Ramsar site (regulation 63(5));
• Extending the imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) derogation regime to Ramsar sites (regulation 64);
• Extending the obligation to secure compensatory measures where a project proceeds despite a negative assessment to maintain the coherence of the Ramsar network (regulation 68(2));
• The requirement for appropriate assessment is also extended to land use plans and development plan documents affecting Ramsar sites in England (regulation 105).
• Additional controls ensure that permitted development and other consents cannot proceed without appropriate assessment where Ramsar impacts arise.

In short, the amendments replicate the structure of the existing Habitats Regulations Assessment regime, but now expressly apply it to Ramsar sites in England (only).

Transitional provisions

The commencement regulations introduce important transitional provisions. By virtue of regulation 4, the legislative amendments to the Habitats Regulations do not apply to projects authorised by:

• Planning permission granted before 17 August 2020 (regulation 4(1)(a)); or
• Certain general consents granted before the commencement date of 21 May 2026 (regulation 4(1)(b)).

Further provision is made to define precisely when planning permission is granted (regulation 4(2)) by various statutory means.
This reflects a familiar legislative approach: protecting existing consents from the retrospective application of more stringent environmental controls. The choice of date in regulation 4(1)(a) (i.e., 17 August 2020) was not arbitrary.

That date is widely understood to be the point at which Natural England’s nutrient neutrality advice began to take affect across a number of catchments. From that point onwards competent authorities were on clear notice that Habitats Regulations Assessments could no longer screen out certain effects (notably nutrients) without detailed scrutiny and the practical application of regulation 63 became materially more stringent, particularly in relation to water quality impacts. In other words, it marks the beginning of the modern, more rigorous HRA landscape that developers and authorities have had to navigate.

This aspect of the transitional provisions gives effect to the Supreme Court’s judgment in C G Fry under Issue 2 in that appeal.

Practical implications

The practical implications of this legislative reform are likely to be more legal than procedural. The shift is perhaps best understood in three dimensions. First, justiciability, failures to protect Ramsar sites in line with the Habitats Regulations will amount to a public law error of law rather than a policy unlawfulness. Second, the intensity of review will not take into account higher standards of “no reasonable scientific doubt” directly. Third, there will be a constraint on discretion whereby the flexibility of the NPPF is replaced by a binary structure of regulations.

In most cases, decision-makers were already undertaking shadow Habitats Regulations Assessments for Ramsar sites as a matter of policy, as if they were the statutory ‘competent authority’ under regulation 63(1).

However, that requirement is now underpinned by the statutory duty within regulation 63(1A), which applies to a plan or project wholly within England which is likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects).

The effect of this change is that a failure to undertake an appropriate assessment, or an error in its execution, will amount to a breach of statutory duty under regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations, rather than simply a failure to comply with the NPPF. Competent authorities no longer retain the discretion to grant consent or permission in the absence of an appropriate assessment, or where adverse effects to the integrity of Ramsar site cannot be excluded.

This legislative change materially increases litigation risk. The full body of Habitats Regulations jurisprudence, particularly the precautionary principle and the requirement to exclude adverse effects on site integrity beyond reasonable scientific doubt, now applies as a matter of law to Ramsar sites. Decision-makers can no longer rely on flexibility inherent in policy-based judgment; the regime is now strict, structured, and legally enforceable. Judicial review grounds will now include a failure to carry out appropriate assessment, unlawful screening, inadequacy of evidence base and failure to secure mitigation at the correct stage whilst remedies may be more likely to include quashing orders.

Finally, the implications are particularly significant for plan-making and permitted development regimes, where the amendments ensure that no consent can lawfully be given without proper assessment where significant effects are likely. For practitioners, the key point is that Ramsar site issues must now be treated identically to SAC/SPA issues in both advice and decision-making, with corresponding care taken to ensure legal compliance at every stage.