FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Ecologists and environmental consultants
AI can help screen plans and projects and draft information for appropriate assessment, but the habitats regulations test is precautionary and easy to misstate. An assessment that applies it wrongly can leave a consent open to challenge.
Part of: AI in Ecologists and environmental consultants
In short
Under regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, a competent authority must make an appropriate assessment where a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a protected site, and may agree to it only after ascertaining that it will not adversely affect the site’s integrity. Ecologists prepare the information that supports that decision, including on issues such as nutrient or recreational pressure. AI tools can draft screening and assessment text, but they may soften the test or treat mitigation wrongly. Errors can expose consents to challenge and lead to claims.
Habitats regulations assessment work involves identifying relevant protected sites, their qualifying features and conservation objectives, screening for likely significant effects alone and in combination, and preparing information for appropriate assessment. Common issues include water quality, nutrient loading, recreational disturbance and air quality.
Consultants use AI tools to compile site information, summarise conservation objectives, draft screening matrices and write assessment narrative. These tasks are structured and repetitive, which makes them attractive for AI. They are also legally precise, which makes errors costly.
Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 requires a competent authority, before giving consent for a plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a protected site, to make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site. Under regulation 63(5) it may agree only after having ascertained that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.
The wording matters. "Having ascertained" that there will be no adverse effect is a different test from "no adverse effect is expected" or "effects are unlikely to be significant". The CIEEM Code requires accuracy and regard to published guidance (clause 4) and competence (clause 3); an ecologist using AI to draft HRA information must make sure the legal test is stated and applied correctly.
AI-drafted HRA material tends to fail in recognisable ways:
Illustrative scenario. A consultant uses an AI assistant to draft a shadow HRA for a residential scheme near a protected site sensitive to recreational pressure. The draft screens out in-combination effects with other allocated housing and describes residual effects as "unlikely to be significant". The authority adopts the reasoning and grants consent. A third party challenges the decision, arguing that the integrity test was not properly applied. The developer faces delay and costs and claims against the consultant.
The baseline for an HRA often comes from the same sources as the ecology chapter of an EIA and the desk study, so errors can spread across documents.
A developer’s claim that negligent HRA information caused delay or loss of a consent is a professional negligence claim, and PI commonly responds subject to the policy terms. Causation can be contested, since the competent authority makes the decision and a challenge may succeed or fail for reasons unrelated to the ecologist’s work. Defence costs in these claims can be significant, so check whether they erode the limit. See does ecologists’ PI cover AI errors.
Because the HRA test turns on precise language, controls should focus on law and judgement:
Apex arranges PI for ecologists and environmental consultants who prepare HRA information. A broker reviews your cover and how your policy treats AI-assisted assessment and legally sensitive advice. See the AI in ecology consultancy overview.
Under regulation 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, a competent authority may agree to a plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the protected site.
You can use it as a drafting aid, but you remain responsible for accuracy under the CIEEM Code. The statutory test, in-combination effects and site features need careful human review because small wording changes can alter the legal conclusion.
Where HRA information forms part of an EIA report, ISEP’s advice note says the report should state which tool was used, when and for what purpose. Where it is evidence in Planning Inspectorate casework, the Inspectorate’s guidance requires intentional AI use to be declared with the checks made.
The decision belongs to the competent authority. A developer who loses time or money may still claim against a consultant whose HRA information it says was negligent. Whether that claim succeeds depends on causation and the standard of the work.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
