How do the Habitats Regulations protect our most important wildlife sites?

Last updated: 17 November 2025

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (and offshore equivalent) – often referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations’ or ‘Habs Regs’ – are a very powerful piece of legislation that help to protect our most important sites and species from harm. 

The regulations help implement two European Directives – the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. Originating nearly 30 years ago to transpose the Habitats Directive into domestic law, they have been amended and updated several times since. They remain in force and have now been amended to reflect the fact that the UK has left the European Union (EU).  

There are different sets of Habitats Regulations that apply in each of the individual UK countries and across all of the UK waters, but the different regulations’ purpose and approach is the same across all areas.  

The Habitats Regulations play a number of important roles in respect of our rarest and most vulnerable sites and species, with their key role being the protection regime they place around the following sites, which form the highest tier of wildlife designation in the UK:  
 

• Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – sites designated due to their international importance for birds 

• Special Areas for Conservation (SACs) – sites designated in recognition of their international importance for other wildlife  

• Ramsar Wetland Sites – wetland sites of international importance, designated through the Ramsar Convention (under policy in each of the UK countries, Ramsar sites are treated the same as SPAs and SACs in terms of protection under the Habitats Regulations)   

SPAs and SACs have high level ‘conservation objectives’ agreed for them, with some also having more detailed ‘supplementary advice.’ Conservation objectives are essentially high-level targets to maintain or achieve favourable conservation status for the habitats and/or species that they are designated for. These objectives are an important guide in the assessment of proposals that could harm these protected sites and their species/features.  

Under the Habitats Regulations, any plans or projects that could impact on the protected site and/or its qualifying interests (ie, the species or habitats listed in the site’s reasons for designation or ‘citation’) must go through a rigorous assessment process. A plan or project includes development plans, planning applications, Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and a multitude of other plans, strategies, licences, consents and permissions.  

In a nutshell, if something requiring permission comes forward that could affect one of these types of designated sites and/or its qualifying interests – either directly, indirectly, alone or collectively with other plans or proposed projects – then the Habitats Regulations impact assessment process must be followed. 

The Habitats Regulations take a stepwise approach to the assessment of plans or projects that could harm SPAs, SACs and/or Ramsar sites. The process of assessment is often referred to as a ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment.’ This is a general term that can be used to describe assessments including all three steps in the process or those ending at step one or two.  

The Habitats Regulations Assessment process can be summarised as follows: 

The screening or ‘likely significant effects’ test is the first filter that flags for further assessment of any plan or project that could harm an SPA, SAC and/or Ramsar site and/or its interest features. It is sometimes described as a ‘coarse filter’ as it takes a broad approach to identifying schemes that could result in harm, looking at the possible effects of a scheme on its own or ‘in-combination’ (ie cumulatively or otherwise jointly) with other proposals.  

Importantly, no mitigation measures can be taken into account at this screening stage. So schemes with measures already identified to address their impacts must still be subject to further, more detailed assessment, including assessment of the suitability and adequacy of the mitigation being proposed. 

The information required for the ‘appropriate assessment’ is gathered by the applicant including assessing in detail the potential impacts on the designated site and its features and crucially any impacts to the achievement of the site’s conservation objectives. It’s helpful if the applicant discusses the assessment with the relevant statutory nature conservation body in advance but this is not always required.  

After the main assessment information is gathered, mitigation measures are considered and evidence provided of how they may reduce the risk of adverse effects on the site and its features.  

The actual formal assessment is ’carried out’ by the ‘competent authority’; in the case of a planning application this is usually the local planning authority. They will use the necessary information provided by the applicant and take advice from the relevant statutory nature conservation bodies. However, it is normal for the applicant to provide a ‘shadow’ (or in other words a draft) Habitats Regulations Assessment for the competent authority.  

After taking account of the best available evidence and any proposed measures to avoid or mitigate harm (mitigation measures), it will be decided whether there is potential for ‘adverse effects on the integrity’ of the SPA, SAC and/or Ramsar site. If adverse effects cannot be ruled out then consent can only be granted if further stringent tests (Step three) can be satisfied. More information about the ‘integrity test,’ which lies at the heart of the appropriate assessment, can be found online, for example here. 

The aim of the final stage in the process, known as the ‘derogation tests’, is to identify those proposals which must go ahead, despite the harm they are likely to cause to one or more of the highest tiers of UK wildlife sites. 

This is when there are no less damaging alternative solutions (such as locating the development elsewhere, alternative ways to fulfil the public need etc) and the proposal is of urgent and overriding importance to the public at a national level (such as health and safety).  

It is the need that justifies the harm, but the applicant must nevertheless provide ecological compensation for that harm to the SPA, SAC and/or Ramsar site. This is often by creating new habitat, away from the source of damage with management requirements to replace/recreate the protected site that will be lost, so the habitats and/or species affected are protected overall. 

The Habitats Regulations purposely sets a high bar for these exception cases, and the justification for them must be approved by the relevant UK country government. Schemes that are most likely to be able to pass these strict tests include urgently needed major infrastructure developments, such as important flood or coastal protection schemes protecting large numbers of properties, or essential energy developments. Schemes with only localised or short-term public benefits are unlikely to pass the derogation tests. 

• Is the assessment based on the best scientific knowledge? For example, is the data being used (eg, survey information about the location, numbers etc of the species or habitats affected) complete and up to date? Is the evidence being used to support any judgements about likely impacts (or absence of impacts) to the species or habitats reliable? If, following the appropriate assessment (step two) reasonable scientific doubt remains that there could be an impact, the proposal should not be allowed to go ahead (unless it passes the strict derogation tests – step three). 
   

• Has the assessment looked at all aspects of the proposal that could affect the special interests of the site, individually or together with other proposals? In particular, check that the assessment also considers any ‘indirect’ effects, such as the effects of noise or artificial lighting, or changes to water levels, as well as direct impacts to the habitats within the protected sites. The Habitats Regulations also require the assessment of possible combined effects, such as cumulative effects of disturbance to sensitive species or habitats and habitat loss, as well as potential in-combination impacts when the development is considered along with other proposals or activities in the area. The term ‘death by a thousand cuts’ is often used to describe the cumulative effects of many small impacts that may not be significant individually but together can amount to serious harm.  
   

• Does the assessment consider the impacts in light of the conservation objectives of the site? Every SPA and SAC has a set of conservation objectives (and in some cases additional, more detailed supplementary advice) and Ramsar sites have detailed commentary within their listing documents which set out the site’s specific ecological needs in order to conserve its interest features. These conservation objectives must be considered at all stages in the assessment process, to identify the sensitivities and vulnerabilities of the species or habitats for which the site is designated. This can help to evaluate the significance of potential impacts on the overall site integrity. Conservation objectives for SPAs and SACs can be found on the relevant UK country statutory nature conservation bodies’ designated sites database. You can find links to these here, and for Ramsar sites here. 
   

• Is it clear how any mitigation measures will be delivered and their effectiveness? Will they be in place in time and for the duration of the potential impacts? Any measures necessary to protect the designated sites from harm arising from the proposed plan or project should be secured (via a planning condition or legal agreement) for the duration of the impact. They must also come into effect in time to avoid the predicted harm. In the case of a temporary disturbance, such as new cable being laid, that could be a matter of days or weeks. Whereas in the case of more permanent impacts, such as recreational disturbance arising from new housing, the measures need to be in place permanently (or in other words ‘in perpetuity’). Remember also that mitigation measures must not be considered until step two of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (the appropriate assessment). 

 Habitats regulations assessments: protecting a European site - GOV.UK

Managing Natura 2000 Sites – EU Guidance