This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Time for reform?
The current government is pushing for bold reform with the new Infrastructure and Planning Bill due to be published later in Spring. While the push for growth and investment in our overburdened infrastructure is welcomed, this raises important questions, including whether it is time for reform of the planning and EIA regulatory system.
With the current political discourse, you would be forgiven for thinking that environmental issues have been pitted against economic growth or held responsible as a barrier to economic development. Part 2 of this series challenges the presumption that economic growth and development, and nature conservation and protection are mutually exclusive. We examine whether the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in its current form, can be a vehicle to deliver the economic and societal needs of the country whilst also protecting and conserving our natural resources. Finally, we briefly explore the emerging concept of Environmental Outcome Reporting (EOR) and whether it will be the much-touted panacea to unlock growth.
Is EIA holding back development?
According to a study undertaken by Public Health England in 2017, only 0.1% of development applications in England fall under EIA regulations, applying only to large-scale projects. Yet, EIA is often blamed for slow development.
Rachel Reeves recently cited planning delays as a key factor in economic stagnation, with the government aiming to accelerate housing, renewable energy, and transport projects. Below we explore some of the issues causing delays in these sectors and whether the role of EIA and the planning system are contributing to the amount of time to secure approval, commence construction and deliver development and significant infrastructure.
Housing Crisis
With the UK facing a housing crisis, the UK Government has set mandatory local targets to help deliver 1.5 million homes. However, the Local Government Association reported that 1.1 million homes are already approved but have yet to be built. In 2024 Lewisham’s mayor stated:
“Across London, there are 186,000 planning applications… waiting for developers to start building… We’ve got this crisis in land banking, now it’s time to resolve it”
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has linked delays to the speculative economic model of house building and complex planning, recognising that developers often slow construction to maximise profits, with CMA’s 2024 report stating:
“Housebuilders’ incentives lead them to build more slowly than they could do, with the objective of maximising sale prices and keeping their stock of built and unsold homes to a minimum.”
This speculative model of housebuilding—the cyclical method of buying land and building homes without specific buyers, can inherently cause delays in post-permission construction in efforts to maintain and maximise returns. The report also acknowledges that developers’ profitability has been impacted by rising construction costs, inflation, interest rates, and increasingly stringent planning requirements, such as higher environmental standards. Moreover, Turner & Townsend’s 2024 Construction Market Survey also highlights rising costs as the biggest challenge, further worsened by Brexit, COVID-19, and the war in Ukraine. Worryingly, the BCIS industry forecasts predict continued cost increases.
So, whilst the CMA report highlights how planning inefficiencies, including under-resourced authorities, create uncertainty, and longer response times – it suggests that economic instability remains a considerable obstacle. Is it fair to blame planning and environmental legislation as the primary barriers to growth in this sector?
Transport
For Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), consent can be obtained via a Development Consent Order (DCO) or a Hybrid Bill. Other options to deliver other transport infrastructure include Transport and Works Act Orders (TWAO) or Highways Act Orders.
The Planning Act 2008 contained a provision for DCOs as a legal order to expedite NSIP approvals, granted by the Secretary of State. Hybrid Bills secure parliamentary approval, balancing public and private interests while ensuring democratic oversight.
Due to the size and scale of the NSIPs and their potential for significant environmental effects, most require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and an Environmental Statement (ES) to be submitted before approval—by the relevant Secretary of State for DCOs and Parliament under Standing Order 27A for Hybrid Bills.
Large-scale infrastructure projects such as these have potential wide-reaching social, environmental, and economic implications, making stakeholder consultation essential.
Example 1 & 2:
For HS2 Phase One, the EIA process began in early 2012, with the ES published 18 months later alongside the concept design and supporting documents in the Hybrid Bill laid before Parliament in November 2013. The scheme’s design evolved alongside the assessment, integrating emerging key EIA findings to optimise scale and cost efficiency.
The Bill then took 39 months—over twice the EIA duration—to pass through Parliament, including Committee Stages in both houses, before gaining Royal Assent in 2017. While the length of the parliamentary programme can be attributed to the time taken to gain Royal Assent, this crude analysis negates the consideration of the scheme’s scale (225km), number of petitioners, and affected properties, requiring a hearing by the Select Committee. During the Committee Stage in the Commons, five additional provisions introduced significant design changes, necessitating supplementary ES reports.
Similarly, the Crossrail Act took three years from publication in 2005 to Royal Assent in 2008.
Example 3: Heathrow Terminal 5
The Heathrow Terminal 5 expansion inquiry lasted 525 days (May 1995–March 1999), spanning over four years. It heard evidence from 734 witnesses and 300+ public members, with over 26,000 objections. Airport expansions highlight the balance between economic growth and environmental concerns. This also highlights the importance of the inquiry processes to ensure transparency, accountability, and public participation in decision-making and are therefore an important part of this balance.
Energy Security
Finally, beyond transport and housing, the UK’s cost of living crisis has been worsened by reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets. Last year, the Clean Power 2030 plan outlined government efforts to secure affordable energy, create new industries, and cut emissions.
The 2024 Regen report on local renewable planning highlighted key barriers: low policy priority, unclear guidelines, and insufficient community engagement. The government aims to “rewire the planning system” for clean power and has already lifted onshore wind restrictions. However, like housing, Regen found energy infrastructure constrained by underfunded planning departments.
A change of perspective?
Traditional economic models often prioritise growth over social equity and the environment. However, the government’s focus on renewable energy and sustainable transport shows recognition of global challenges like climate change and resource depletion, highlighting the role of sustainable investments in economic growth and securing success.
Can these issues be addressed by redefining our success factors such as reducing examination periods through better stakeholder engagement and environmental considerations? Studies suggest community financial models like cooperatives promote sustainability by involving stakeholders, supporting eco-friendly practices, and creating economic savings. These models show that economics and the environment aren’t mutually exclusive and that meaningful engagement can foster publicly supported solutions.
What’s the problem with EIA? Are we at risk of shooting the messenger?
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is vital for sustainable development, providing a transparent, objective evaluation of environmental effects. Rather than hindering progress, it informs decision-making by highlighting significant effects, allowing authorities to approve projects with full awareness of the effects and measures of a project to mitigate them.
It is important to note, that a project with significant effects can still proceed if the determining authority deems the benefits to outweigh the impacts or that mitigation is sufficient. Therefore, it is not the case that EIA itself represents a blocker to development. Moreover, and arguably, a poorly thought-out project, in the wrong location without adequate consideration of mitigation or engagement is more likely to fail on the development project’s merit or lack of. By delivering robust assessments and reliable data, EIA helps reduce delays, reduce the risk of legal challenges or have the evidence to rebut that challenge, enhance viability, and support sustainability.
Yet, no system is without its flaws. Below we examine two studies that have looked at the effectiveness of current EIA and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) practices in the UK. These two key reports have suggested improvements to EIA rather than full-scale reform or replacement.
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA, 2011)
IEMA, as the global professional body for environment and sustainability, identified within their 2011 report, several improvements to the EIA process relating to screening, scoping, assessment and outputs. The report included improvements to:
- Screening: improving consistency and quality to reduce the legal risks
- Scoping & Engagement: focusing the assessment on key issues through effective engagement
- Assessments: co-ordinating the iterative process that sees the assessment and refinement of the project’s design to enhance positive environmental effects
- EIA Outcomes and Outputs: ensuring clear communication of findings and that actual environmental impacts do not exceed predictions
Office for Environmental Protection (OEP, 2024)
The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), which is responsible for holding the government and other public authorities accountable for environmental protection, set out proposed changes for environmental law and enforcement. The main issues surrounding EIA practice have been reported to be data accessibility, post decision monitoring, evaluation and reporting, and access to the necessary expertise.
Crucially, the OEP found these issues arise from systemic issues surrounding capacity, skills and resourcing rather than EIA laws themselves.
An alternative: Environmental Outcome Reports – evolution or revolution?
A new consenting regime as mooted, could mark a significant departure from traditional and internationally accepted EIA and SEA frameworks. As presented in our first article of this series, a new buzzword concept “Environmental Outcomes” has crept into the discourse, which we understand is to focus on an outcome-based approach rather than procedures and effects of a project.
Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (2023)
The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act outlined proposals for the EOR system which the government later consulted upon. The system aims to simplify environmental assessments by focusing on measurable outcomes aligned with set indicators. Whilst the EOR consultation was vague on details, the EOR proposals were aimed at tackling the following challenges:
- duplication of information
- reducing the risk of legal challenges
- provide greater focus on critical environmental issues for a streamlined process
- issues with data
By removing comprehensive scoping exercises, EORs sought to drive statutory environmental targets while “simplifying” the process.
EOR (Environmental Outcome Reporting) under the current round of planning reform (2024 – to date)
The government remains equivocal on adopting previous EOR reforms. However, its Development and Nature Recovery (Dec 2024) paper suggests EOR will replace current environmental assessment systems:
“This shift to focusing on outcomes aligns with the ongoing work to implement Environmental Outcomes Reporting.”
Regulatory changes are expected, as reiterated in the Chancellor’s January speech. Given the government’s development focus, EIA and SEA regimes will likely be affected:
“We are reducing environmental requirements on developers when they pay into the nature restoration fund… so they can focus on getting things built and stop worrying about bats and newts.” – Reeves, 2025
The Development and Nature Recovery reform proposals include:
- Strategic Impact Assessment – Moving towards a broader strategic outcome approach
- State Responsibility – Shifting responsibility for strategic delivery to public delivery bodies such as Natural England
- Financial Contributions – Developers pay into a Nature Restoration Fund to deliver environmental outcomes rather than mitigating individual project impacts
If implemented, it could be the case that projects under a state-approved delivery plan may be able to bypass individual assessments, though exceptions may apply. Whether this system is truly novel and untested remains unclear. No definitive plans are understood to exist for EOR adoption in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, raising the possibility and complication of a two-tier system. Projects national spanning borders may face additional reporting burdens. Although as noted previously in Part 1 of our series, the UK remains bound by its international obligations, not least including the Rio Declaration, Espoo Convention and the Kyiv Protocol, therefore this change raises the important question of whether this new approach is going to be an efficient use of time and resource, speed up the process of development consent, and by association, growth.
Next Time…
In the next part of the series Tom and Evie will share their thoughts on what they envisage EOR could look like, its merits and criticisms, and continue to challenge the presumption that that economic growth and development are mutually exclusive.