The Worst Averted — But still a backward step for National Parks and nature

Published: 13 March 2026

The Government has today published its response to the Fingleton Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce Review.

Fingleton included an extremely damaging recommendation to remove the Protected Landscapes duty or significantly weaken it (changing the requirement on public bodies to ‘seek to further’ these places, to ‘have regard’). The case was baseless to begin with — drawn from a blog rather than evidence and we fought hard against it.  

The good news is: the government has not adopted Fingleton’s most extreme proposals. They have stepped back from the most damaging elements of the review – including proposals that would have completely scrapped the Protected Landscapes duty and undermined the Habitats regulations, both of which are vital in protecting nature. That matters. It shows they recognised that going “full Fingleton” would have been indefensible, unworkable, and incompatible with longstanding commitments to protect and enhance these landscapes. 

However, the package announced today still represents a real weakening of protections which puts National Parks and National Landscapes at risk.  

The government has said it will legislate to constrain the Protected Landscapes Duty: 

“Our National Parks and National Landscapes are our most iconic and inspiring places and play a critical role in delivering our national priorities for nature recovery and access for all. The government recognises that developers and planning authorities may be unclear on the expectations for complying with the Protected Landscapes duty, and that in some cases this has led to extended negotiation around compensatory payments. 

To address this uncertainty, we will legislate to clarify that developers of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects are not required to pay financial compensation in order to comply with the Protected Landscapes Duty. Relevant authorities must still seek to further the purposes of Protected Landscapes, meaning that landscape and nature considerations and better environmental outcomes remain an important consideration for development in these special places.” 

How the Protected Landscape Duty currently works 

All public bodies must “seek to further” the purposes of Protected Landscapes. In simple planning terms, they must ensure: 

1. projects are designed to conserves or enhances the landscape. 
2. If the design, causes harm to the landscape, look at alternative options that do less damage. 
3. If alternatives aren’t possible, change the design to reduce the harm (this is called mitigation). 
4. As a last resort, provide compensation — restoring nature elsewhere or funding improvements — to make up for the harm. 

It’s important to note: this process, including compensation, isn’t written into the law. It comes from a long-established planning mitigation hierarchy, used in Protected Landscapes and beyond, which is embedded in Defra’s guidance on the duty. Crucially, when the system works properly, there should be no need for compensation at all.  

What the government is proposing today 

The government wants to change the law so that compensation will no longer be required for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). This change is only proposed for NSIPs, so the duty applies as stands for all other public bodies. By definition, NSIPs are the largest developments (nuclear plants, major road schemes, airports, or large energy infrastructure); therefore, the very decisions with the biggest consequences are the ones being exempted. 

It’s not clear how the government will take this forward, and what the effect would be.  

Does it mean developers must work harder on design and mitigation so harm is avoided and compensation is not required? Or does it mean the biggest and most damaging developments have a free pass over our most precious places?  

Adding unprecedented complexities to legislation creates uncertainty that could have perverse consequences undermining the nation’s most precious places.  

Why stepping back from Fingleton still isn’t enough 

We welcome the fact that Ministers have rejected Fingleton’s most radical recommendations. That is an important and positive shift, and it reflects the strength of evidence and public concern raised in recent months. 

But the nuance required should have been set out in enhanced guidance, and by working closely with developers and Protected Landscape bodies early in the process to ensure they understand exactly what the duty means.  

By choosing to legislate, government is creating a chilling effect that risks undermining efforts to make National Parks and National Landscapes greener, wilder, and better managed for nature and people. 

What happens next? 

Government have not yet set out how they will implement any changes in law to take forward their announcement today. 

It would be absolutely indefensible to amend the duty in primary legislation: unnecessary, unevidenced and unsupported. But there is an opportunity here. Any parliamentary time should be better spent strengthening Protected Landscapes legislation, taking forward Ministerial promises to embed nature recovery and modernise governance. The government does have power to make secondary regulations to set out how different public bodies and sectors should apply the duty. We have long called for government to make these regulations to encourage action for wilder National Parks and National Landscapes, and we will seize this opportunity to work with government to minimise harm and maximise opportunities to strengthen National Parks.   

We will also work closely with Defra, National Parks England and the National Landscapes Association to help developers and all public bodies understand the duty, and ensure consistency and improved implementation, making suggestions to improve guidance. 

We are in a nature crisis. The Government acknowledge that this poses unprecedented risk to our national security and prosperity. We must move forward. It’s time to be strengthening National Park protections, not weakening them.