Tom Wells, head of Environmental Planning South at ITPEnergised, part of SLR, examines the pros and cons of Environmental Outcome Reports
Part six of the UK Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) introduces a significant shift in environmental policy by replacing Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) with Environmental Outcome Reports (EORs).
EORs are intended to address the perceived shortcomings of SEA and EIA, with the government’s consultation on EORs, which closed in June 2023, specifically referencing inefficiency, duplication, risk aversion, loss of focus, and issues with data. Essentially, the intention is to speed up the delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure and remove the perceived burden of environmental assessment in its current form – both in terms of costs and time.
The consultation met with a mixed – though largely negative – reaction from the industry, so the question is whether Environmnetal Outcome Reports will deliver better, faster decisions on plans and projects or whether a different approach would work better?
Starting from scratch
The motivation for introducing EORs could be linked to the fact that EIAs and SEAs are EU-derived, with the government seeking to implement a new domestic framework for environmental assessments following Brexit.
Whilst most in the industry would agree that the existing regimes lead to inefficiencies and that documents like Environmental Statements often stray from their primary purpose as decision-making tools, it is counter-intuitive to suggest that an entirely new regime would inherently reduce risk aversion.
Existing regimes benefit from 20-plus years’ of learning, experience and importantly, case law. A new system would be untested and is likely to result in numerous legal challenges to different aspects of the process, as has been seen in the past with EIA and SEA. This is likely to drive risk aversion for planning applicants, their technical consultant teams and those within competent authorities, as delays in legal challenges have serious cost and programme implications.
The introduction of EORs would require detailed regulations to outline the process – something barely addressed in the consultation document. Additionally, it would require the development of separate statutory instrument(s) for each environmental outcome, along with accompanying guidance documents for practitioners. This would take a lot of time, effort and resources on behalf of the industry, which could be better spent improving on the existing system.
A loss of holistic assessment
A recurring theme in many of the consultation responses is the concern that EORs would only focus on environmental outcomes, potentially excluding the assessment of social impacts, climate change and greenhouse gases (GHGs) altogether.
This raises the question of whether it is more effective to assess these interrelated factors within a single regime, which could better inform design and consider alternatives.
Removing these issues from EORs will necessitate three separate reports in place of a single, comprehensive report, diminishing its effectiveness as a decision-making tool.
Lack of engagement and absence of evidence
A substantial criticism of the approach to these reforms was the lack of consultation or collaboration with academics, industry bodies and specialists ahead of the consultation document being released.
Whilst the consultation contained some quotations on problems with SEA and EIA from “users”, none are attributed to any organisation or individual, nor is any information provided on the form of engagement that took place or which “developers, consenting authorities and environmental specialists” were invited to help steer the proposed reforms.
The consultation document is sorely missing evidence-based research to substantiate its claims and findings around the benefits that will be delivered by EORs. The lack of information on the quality and scope of outcomes raises further questions, with experience of using outcomes in other assessments, e.g. the Water Framework Directive, indicating that outcome-based targets are routinely missed.
If introduced, Environmental Outcome Reports are highly likely to slow down the delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure in the short to medium term, without clear evidence that they would deliver better environmental outcomes in the long term.
Greater investment of resources in the existing system may reap greater rewards
Whilst the commitment to improving environmental outcomes, enhancing monitoring and enforcement, and digitalising planning and environmental data is to be applauded, there appears to be reluctance to address fundamental issues within the existing system. Notably, there is a lack of increased funding for local authorities, regulators and statutory consultees which is essential for effective engagement with applicants and each other.
A change in regime without increased funding for skills and training is likely to perpetuate the need to use consultants as “competent experts” (assuming such requirements remain), whose interests are not always best served by seeking to reduce the scope and length of environmental assessments.
Whilst the existing environmental assessment regimes have their flaws, it would be more beneficial for the government to invest time and public funds into improving the existing EIA process. With a general election taking place in just a few short weeks it will be interesting to see if the next administration shares this perspective or continues with the proposed reforms. There are other changes to the planning system that could have a far more significant impact on delivering the sustainable housing and infrastructure that society so desperately needs.
