Consultation outcome

Environmental Outcomes Reports: a new approach to environmental assessment - government response

Updated 13 March 2026

Introduction

In March 2023, the previous government published Environmental Outcomes Reports: A new approach to environmental assessment. The consultation sought initial views on a proposed new system of environmental assessment to replace the current EU-derived processes of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

The consultation document posed a series of questions about government proposals covering the following areas:

• an outcomes-based approach
• what an Environmental Outcomes Report will cover
• when an Environmental Outcomes Report is required
• strengthening mitigation
• mainstreaming monitoring
• unlocking data
• reporting against performance
• next steps

Through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (“the Act”), the previous government secured powers to bring forward a new domestic framework to replace the current EIA and SEA environmental assessment regimes. This government intends to bring forward the necessary secondary legislation to introduce the new system of Environmental Outcomes Reports (EORs).

This government’s response to the consultation should be read alongside the accompanying Roadmap which sets out our intended approach to deliver EORs.

Consultation process and overview of responses

The public consultation ran for 12 weeks from March to June 2023. It was published on the department’s online consultation platform Citizen Space, as well as on GOV.UK. Responses were accepted online via Citizen Space and via email.

There were 278 responses to the consultation. The table below provides a breakdown of the general consultation responses by type of respondent. Not all respondents answered every question. All responses have been analysed and given full consideration in this government response. We are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond and share their experience, views and suggestions.

Table 1: respondents by category

Category of respondents	Number of responses
Arms Length Body and Statutory Consultee	12
Development industry	32
Interest group or voluntary organisation	22
Local Authority	99
Neighbourhood planning body, parish or town council	2
Non-governmental organisation	9
Other	11
Other private sector organisation	43
Individuals	23
Professional body, academic and trade association	25
Total	278

This document provides a summary of the consultation responses received and sets out how the government will take these responses into account as the work to implement EORs progresses. It does not attempt to capture every point made, nor does it cover comments on aspects of policy that fall outside the scope of the consultation.

All responses have been carefully considered. On Citizen Space some respondents selected - “not answered” or “no comments” which we excluded from percentage totals.

The government has had regard to its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 and the Environment Act 2021 during the preparation of these reforms.

An outcomes-based approach

Question 1

Do you support the principles that will guide the development of outcomes?

257 substantive responses were received in response to this question. 124 of these provided detailed comments. There was considerable support (64%) for the proposed principles to guide the development of outcomes.

Summary of detailed comments

• over half of responses called for further detail and consultation on the topic
• almost half of responses suggested the proposed list of core or common outcomes was too narrow
• nearly one-third of responses asked that a range of stakeholders/experts be involved in establishing outcomes
• over a quarter of responses showed concern or disagreement with the omission of human health or climate change specifically as outcomes/topics within EORs
• a quarter of responses recommended government consider how to address different scales (i.e. national and local) when considering outcomes

Question 2

Do you support the principles that indicators will have to meet?

Of the 278 substantive responses to this question, 73% supported the principles that indicators will have to meet. 243 of these provided detailed comments.

Summary of detailed comments

• over one-third commented that further detail, clarity and or guidance is required to consider the proposals fully
• nearly a quarter of responses voiced concern around the suitability and/or flexibility of using a national indicator set for different plan/programme/project types and/or geographical scales
• some responses voiced concern around the lack of robust, consistent and up-to-date environmental datasets
• there was some agreement that qualitative assessment will be required in certain circumstances or that not all indicators are quantifiable

Question 3

Are there any other criteria we should consider?

A total of 232 substantive responses were received in response to this question. 226 of these provided detailed comments.

Summary of detailed comments

• about a third of responses either raised at least one new consideration, indicator and/or outcome to those proposed in the consultation document. Responses covered a broad range of topics from transport to drinking water; the effects of domestic animals; to glint and glare and agricultural cross-compliance
• over a quarter questioned how population, social, health and/or wellbeing impacts would be considered, with health being mentioned the most frequently
• a small number of responses raised the issue of climate change with views varying between placing high importance on including climate change as an outcome through to suggestions that climate change should not be a standalone outcome but should be considered under each topic area
• another small number of responses called for government to ensure that impacts and/or outcomes are considered at the relevant scale

Proportionate reporting

Question 4

Would you welcome proportionate reporting against all outcomes as the default position?

237 respondents answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question. 68% said they would welcome proportionate reporting against all outcomes as the default position. 104 respondents provided detailed comments.

Summary of detailed comments

• one-third of responses called for government to provide guidance on how ‘proportionate reporting’ would be defined and what degree of evidence will be required to scope out environmental impacts
• over a quarter of responses raised concerns about the removal of a scoping stage, highlighting the important role it plays in engaging with statutory consultees
• over a quarter commented that further details and clarity would be required, highlighting that more information is needed about how this will work in practice or whether this could work effectively

Question 5

Would proportionate reporting be effective in reducing bureaucratic process, or could this simply result in more documentation?

There were 243 detailed responses to this question.

Summary of detailed comments

• over a third agreed that proportionate reporting would be effective in reducing bureaucratic process to some degree
• conversely, over a quarter disagreed, arguing that proportionate reporting could result in more documentation
• there was concern that removal of the scoping stage will eliminate engagement with statutory consultees and other communities at an early stage
• some respondents thought that the proportionate reporting process would lead to more documentation to justify the approach to the assessment and determine whether it is proportionate
• some responses noted that proportionate reporting could create greater standardisation of documentation, making different projects easier to compare against the same outcomes thereby reducing excessive reporting

Question 6

Given the issues set out above, and our desire to consider issues where they are most effectively addressed, how can government ensure that EORs support our efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change across all regimes?

224 detailed responses were received in response to this question.

Overall, responses showed support for the inclusion of climate change related matters to be within EORs, with measurement or assessment of carbon being the matter most commonly raised in responses. A wide range of views were shared about how climate change could play a role in EORs.

Summary of detailed comments

• about half of responses stated that EORs should include measurement of carbon in relation to development proposals, e.g., through carbon assessment
• over a third of responses considered that climate change should be considered where it impacts outcomes and/or indicators
• a quarter of responses said there should be an increased emphasis on adaptation to and/or mitigation of climate change through EORs
• nearly a quarter of responses said specific climate change indicators should be used
• about a fifth of respondents set out that project/plan baselines and targets should be consistent with government objectives and another fifth said EORs will require accessible, meaningful and clear data and guidance
• a small number of respondents set out that climate change matters should be set out in legislation or policy outside environmental assessment (e.g., Building Regs.)

What an Environmental Outcomes Report will cover

Question 7

Do you consider there is value in clarifying requirements regarding the consideration of reasonable alternatives?

239 detailed responses were received in response to this question. 77% supported clarifying requirements regarding the consideration of reasonable alternatives, with responses highlighting the potential benefits of clarity to stakeholders, specifically applicants and decision makers.

Summary of detailed comments

• some respondents set out that the greatest value was clarity to stakeholders - specifically applicants and decision makers - with some setting out that there would be a reduction in legal challenge as a result of improved certainty over what is expected
• some responses raised benefits that greater clarity would have for the legitimacy and integrity of the assessment process
• the importance of considering reasonable alternatives to arriving at the best (environmental) outcome was raised by some
• some respondents sought limits on what should or should not be considered a reasonable alternative
• over a quarter of responses stressed the need for such guidance and proposed items for inclusion in any guidance

Question 8

How can the government ensure that the consideration of alternatives is built into the early design stages of the development and design process?

There were 278 substantive responses to this question but no strong consensus of views. 229 of these provided detailed comments.

Summary of detailed comments

• over one-third of responses supported a required/mandatory stage which could be secured through secondary legislation or guidance
• there was some support for requiring early-stage consultation with stakeholders – whether that be subject matter experts, local planning authorities, local communities or otherwise
• some respondents noted that plans and projects are transitory, and an iterative process should be more clearly mandated, rather than restricting consideration of alternatives to a moment in time

When an Environmental Outcomes Report is required

Question 9

Do you support the principle of strengthening the screening process to minimise ambiguity?

244 detailed responses were received in response to this question, 48% were generally supportive of proposals to strengthen the screening process.

Summary of detailed comments

• support was based on perceived efficiency gains related to the removal of the costs and delays to decision-making associated with existing screening processes
• respondents also thought less ambiguity would lead to a reduction in the likelihood of legal challenge, often cited as a problem with the existing system
• there were concerns that a one size fits all system isn’t optimal and is unlikely to be effective, with a degree of discretion being preferred
• some respondents suggested that screening decisions will still need to be underpinned by professional judgement, and as such some level of ambiguity is inevitable. In a similar vein, others called for the establishment of an arbiter for borderline cases

Question 10

Do you consider that proximity or impact pathway to a sensitive area or a protected species could be a better starting point for determining whether a plan or project might require an environmental assessment under Category 2 than simple size thresholds?

229 detailed responses were received in response to this question, 51% answered ‘yes’, supporting moving away from simple size thresholds with 36% answering no. 

Summary of detailed comments

Of the supportive responses:

• many agreed that size is an overly simplistic way of assessing potential environmental impact and supported a change towards use of proximity or impact pathways
• others considered protected species/areas should be the starting point or focus of screening processes

Of the unsupportive responses:

• nearly a quarter suggested that screening criteria should include additional factors such as size thresholds, proximity to sensitivities, type and characteristics of the project etc. Some raised concerns that impact pathways on their own would lead to more projects being screened in
• others argued that proximity is not a constant variable, with the distance threshold needing to change depending on local factors or the by-products of the development. Several suggested this proposal added more ambiguity to the process, conflicting with the overall aims of the reforms to streamline assessment

Question 11

If yes, how could this work in practice? What sort of initial information would be required?

198 detailed responses were received to this question.

Summary of detailed comments

Respondents offered a range of ideas and suggestions for how a change in screening criteria could work in practice, including:

• the lack of accessible baseline data was seen as a barrier to improving the screening process
• support for a baseline national assessment informing subsequent local screening assessments
• suggestions to retain a size element to assessments even in the event of a transition. Many sought clarification of how parameters and thresholds would be used with reference to the type of sensitive site or species to be considered
• others asked that government prepare a framework or model process explaining how to navigate the screening stage - including requests for templates and checklists

Strengthening mitigation

Question 12

How can we address issues of ineffective mitigation?

231 detailed responses were received in response to this question. 69% broadly accepted the need for more effective mitigation of adverse impacts of development, albeit with conditions.

Summary of detailed comments

• over half of respondents stressed the need for robust monitoring criteria from the outset; identifying which body is liable for checking compliance; continually monitoring; and sharing data to show the success of the prescribed mitigation
• almost half felt that local authorities should be empowered to secure robust enforcement of compliance by developers. Respondents considered the enforcement toolbox should be extended beyond planning conditions
• over one-third underlined that monitoring needs high-level expertise, and clarity about who is to carry out the monitoring and with what resources
• one-third emphasised the need for increased resource to allow for improved approaches to monitoring, as well as greater capacity and capability for carrying out the monitoring itself, any necessary enforcement and post-development audits
• for others, resourcing and enforcement were the main constraints to any attempts to improve ineffective mitigation
• many emphasised that local authorities would need considerable additional resources to effectively operate and enforce

Practical concerns included:

• the body gaining planning permission may not construct or occupy the site
• failure of mitigation might be caused by a third party
• how mitigation could be required for permitted development
• how to address cumulative harms from projects which are individually beneficial
• conflict if local politics comes into play
• how scientific input would be used in deciding how to measure impacts and mitigation results, and whether a particular negative outcome could be accepted

Question 13

Is an adaptive approach a good way of dealing with uncertainty?

A total of 216 respondents answered yes/no to this question. 70% of respondents answered ‘yes’, agreeing that an adaptive approach could be a good way of dealing with uncertainty. 95 of these provided detailed comments.

Summary of detailed comments

• nearly a quarter wanted government to provide further details on how an adaptive approach would work in practice
• respondents recognised that an adaptive approach could have considerable benefits. Over one-third thought an adaptive approach could help with issues related to longer term mitigation and uncertain risks and help address the inflexibility of current mitigation
• almost a quarter agreed that adaptive management would require a stronger monitoring and enforcement process - there is currently no requirement on the developer to remedy the situation if promised mitigation fails
• nearly one-third were concerned that an adaptive approach could lead to uncertainty over future project costs, which could impact on project viability
• nearly a quarter stated that an adaptive approach would not provide sufficient certainty at the start of the design phase of a project
• there was support for the provision of timescales for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation measures and for seeking to use adaptive measures
• many thought this approach would require an increase in resources for both Local Authorities and statutory consultees to prevent delays
• some responses sought to understand the liability for any adaptive works in a legacy situation such as if a developer had finished construction, left the site and the relevant areas transferred to a third party

Question 14

Could it work in practice? What would be the challenges in implementation?

220 detailed responses were received to this question. 42% were in favour of implementing adaptive management.

Summary of detailed comments

• roughly half of responses provided suggestions without being explicitly positive or negative in nature
• about a third of respondents raised the lack of resources for authorities and other public bodies to implement minimal monitoring and enforcement
• a quarter highlighted the potential for high financial costs and requested clarity over long term liabilities, particularly if developments were sold
• other concerns were raised that the costs will ultimately be borne by the consumers, or the wrong party made liable if the enforcement occurs after the completion of the scheme

Some respondents recognise that monitoring and enforcement is key to the successful implementation of the adaptive approach.

Mainstreaming monitoring

Question 15

Would you support a more formal and robust approach to monitoring?

239 answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’, with 93% of responses either answering ‘yes’ or providing further comments which gave a clear indication of support. 235 respondents provided detailed comments in response to this question.

Summary of detailed comments

• very strong support for more formal and robust monitoring
• over half of respondents commented that a formal approach to monitoring would require additional resourcing and funding for Local Planning Authorities and Statutory Consultees
• over a third of responses commented that clear guidance will be needed on roles and responsibilities, timeframes, and how monitoring will work at different scales
• almost a quarter of responses commented that an accessible centralised data system, including findings from monitoring processes, should be developed and used to inform future assessments
• almost a quarter commented that monitoring must be proportionate to the impacts and not create unnecessary burden on developers

Question 16

How can the government use monitoring to incentivise better assessment practice?

213 detailed responses were received in response to this question.

Summary of detailed comments

• nearly a quarter supported the publication of monitoring results/monitoring data, which could incentivise better assessment results
• publication was seen as an essential part of a desirable feedback loop whereby data captured through monitoring is reviewed regularly and subsequently used to inform guidance
• some responses called for sanctions where expectations fall short. This could either take a financial form (e.g., fines, which could themselves fund an enforcement pot) or a legal one (i.e., serving a relevant notice)
• others felt evidencing the value of monitoring as a way of collecting data would serve as an incentive in itself

Question 17

How can the government best ensure the ongoing costs of monitoring are met?

218 substantive comments were received in response to this question. 163 of these provided detailed comments.

Summary of detailed comments

• two approaches to monitoring costs emerged in responses: over half suggested this should be borne by developers and under a quarter suggested a role for government in meeting monitoring costs
• many answers suggested some level of both, with a common suggestion being that applicants/developers meet the costs of monitoring project level EOR, whilst government fund monitoring of plan level EOR
• there was strong support for developers to pay for monitoring as part of their development costs, as they do currently. The ‘polluter pays’ principle was regularly cited
• there were several suggestions for different forms of government funded monitoring - ranging from directly providing funds to LPAs to carry out the monitoring to ringfencing budgets within departments to undertake monitoring at the strategic, national scale
• some highlighted that there is a need for more resources, both in terms of staff and finances at local planning authorities if additional monitoring is required and guidance
• some also considered that new legal powers would be required to allow Local Planning Authorities to charge a proportionate monitoring fee and enforce around this process

Question 18

How should the government address issues such as post-decision costs and liabilities?

192 substantive comments were received in response to this question. 178 of these provided detailed comments.

Summary of detailed comments

• of the responses, two-thirds said that developers should be responsible for post-decision costs and liabilities
• nearly one-third suggested that this could be achieved via upfront payments such as bonds, which can be redeemed after a certain, agreed, period has passed
• there was some support for the idea of a levy (similar to Community Infrastructure Levy) or that funds from planning application fee increases could be used

Unlocking data

Question 19

Do you support the principle of environmental data being made publicly available for future use?

240 detailed responses were received to this question. Of those, 94% supported the principle of environmental data being made publicly available for future use.

Summary of detailed comments

• over a quarter of responses supported the principle that information/data submitted through a planning application should be publicly available for future reuse - this was seen as necessary to reduce development costs and improve effectiveness of the planning system
• nearly a quarter of responses supported the principle of standardising data for public use
• to make environmental data public, respondents highlighted the need for a centralised government data hub to ensure data is accessible, validated and managed, so that it is accurate and reliable
• some were concerned that the environmental data used in assessments is complex, should be simplified to allow the data to be accessible to the public, without detailed instructions or explanation
• some proposed that data collected from previous assessments could establish a baseline to inform future assessments which was seen as valuable in supporting the assessment process, and the approach to mitigation and monitoring
• some highlighted that some sensitive data e.g., protected species should not be made publicly available as it could conflict with other legislation

Question 20

What are the current barriers to sharing data more easily?

281 substantive comments were received in response to this question. 222 of these provided detailed comments.

Summary of detailed comments

• half of the responses indicated that copyright issues and the availability of data was a barrier to sharing data, recommending that the process should take into consideration who can access the data and any copyright costs that may play a part
• about a third of responses suggested the government progress more standardised ways of sharing data to remove the barriers above
• a lack of knowledge about where the required data is available or held and the workings of the assessment process was cited as a barrier in about a third of responses

Question 21

What data would you prioritise for the creation of standards to support environmental assessment?

185 detailed comments were received in response to this question.

Summary of detailed comments

Responses to this question included suggestions for data standards relating to factors within the environmental assessment process. Many also included suggestions for the format of data, how standards should be set and how data should be processed and accessed.

Responses suggesting data types:

• over a third of responses set out that data standards should align with existing national or local reporting objectives, targets and monitoring requirements. Suggestions included aligning standards with the Environmental Improvement Plan, Local Nature Recovery Strategies, Biodiversity Net Gain or best practice guidance
• nearly a third of responses stated that data used to inform preparation of environmental statements, environmental assessment baselines or data demonstrating the proposed EOR outcomes would benefit from being standardised
• nearly a third sought standardisation of data relating to habitats, protected sites/species including their status and designations
• over a quarter sought prioritisation of biodiversity data standards.
• less than a quarter stated priority should be given to standardising data on water, air or soil quality and cultural heritage/archaeology
• a small number of responses suggested standardising data for landscape, resource capacity (e.g., water), carbon (including emissions), flooding and climate change should be prioritised

Other suggestions relating to data standardisation:

• a quarter of responses set out that real time data should be made available and received by a national or local data hub
• nearly a quarter of responses stated that geospatial data should be prioritised for standardisation
• other suggestions included prioritising standards in monitoring data and/or data showing mitigation performance as well as standards setting procedural or professional standards
• a small number of responses stated that data standards should be consulted on and/or endorsed by expert groups (including eNGOs)

Reporting against performance

Question 22

Would you support reporting on the performance of a plan or project against the achievement of outcomes?

231 substantive comments were received in response to this question. 93% said they would support reporting on the performance of a plan or project against the achievement of outcomes. 93 of these provided detailed comments.

Summary of detailed comments

• a third of responses supported reporting on and/or monitoring of performance of a plan or projects because they considered it would be the only way or identifying with certainty which plans or projects are performing/underperforming against specified environmental outcomes
• about a third of comments set out that additional resourcing would be essential to assist local authorities to transition to Environmental Outcomes Reports (EOR) and/or to maintain EOR, including support with any additional monitoring
• over a quarter stated that reporting on the performance of a plan or project against the achievement of outcomes appeared positive, but further details were required
• some comments said that there should be a database and/or there should be a methodology set out for collation and reporting of data that uses data standards

Question 23

What are the opportunities and challenges in reporting on the achievement of outcomes?

220 detailed comments were received in response to this question, with respondents setting out a range of views on opportunities and challenges in reporting on the achievement of outcomes.

Summary of detailed comments

• over a third of respondents set out that additional/adequate resourcing would be essential to assist local authorities to transition to/maintain EORs, including support with any additional monitoring
• over a quarter stated that database/reporting should be consistent, with a methodology set out for the collation and reporting of data and the use of data standards
• some highlighted the importance of transparency for the purposes of reporting on EORs
• some commented that reporting on the achievement of EORs would make it hard to assess long-term environmental outcomes in the short term
• concerns were raised by some around how outcome reporting will be integrated with other planning processes such as plan-making to ensure smooth operation and duplication, as well as how it will interact with other reforms to the planning system
• agreeing a workable and consistent set of reporting criteria and/or outcomes being realistic and measurable was highlighted by some as was the potential for creating a positive feedback loop that continues to inform the process

Question 24

Once regulations are laid, what length of transition do you consider is appropriate for your regime?

171 substantive comments were received in response to this question. 82% of those who responded to this question expressed support for a 2-year transition period. 171 of these provided detailed comments.

Summary of detailed comments

• about a third of respondents called for different transition periods depending on regime or project. The predominant reason for this was a desire to avoid projects that had already begun an SEA/EIA having to start again
• fewer than a quarter of respondents were supportive of a 1-year transition
• some respondents would like further guidance to be published well in advance of a transition, some want further consultation or piloting, and some seek sufficient time/resource to be given to upskill and educate those involved in the new process. These were often given as reasons for a longer transition period

Next steps

Question 25

What new skills or additional support would be required to support the implementation of Environmental Outcomes Reports?

224 detailed comments were received in response to this question.

Summary of detailed comments

• over half of responses cited the need for additional resources and funding so authorities can employ or retain more staff to facilitate the transition to EORs across the regulatory landscape
• government guidance was seen as another key requirement, featuring in over half of responses including suggestions for prototype or sample EORs to demonstrate how the new process is intended to work
• a dedicated training programme was also strongly supported including (but not limited to): legal competence; landscape; archaeology; renewable energy and digital skills
• the creation of a central government support body to answer queries and provide support and/or act as an escalation route was also suggested by some respondents This was seen as particularly useful for local authorities who lack internal expertise

Question 26

The government would be grateful for your comments on any impacts of the proposals in this document and how they might impact on eliminating discrimination, advancing equality and fostering good relations.

92 detailed comments were received in response to this question.

Summary of detailed comments

This question aimed to identify any equalities issues with the consultation and responses highlighted the following themes:

• about a third of responses proposed scope of EORs is too narrow, excluding important features of the EIA/SEA. The two main issues seen to be missing were due consideration for health and social factors. Without consideration of these matters, there could be a disproportionate impact on denser, urban communities which can be more ethnically diverse
• some respondents raised concerns that the technical nature of EORs means there is a minimum level of time/skills/capital required to engage, which favours more affluent areas with access to resources
• some responses raised concerns with public participation, arguing there was not sufficient space in the proposal for the public to input into the process. One response raised age as a possible concern, suggesting that younger generations are not being sufficiently consulted and therefore not reached all parts of society
• one respondent requested that the government returns to providing documents accessibly in PDF rather than, or in addition to, HTML format. They stated that HTML format is particularly inaccessible

Government response

This response considers representations made to the consultation ‘Environmental Outcomes Report: a new approach to environmental assessment’, which closed on 9 June 2023. We are publishing this now to support the programme set out in the Environmental Outcome Reports Roadmap published alongside this initial response.

The government is ambitious in its proposals to simplify and streamline environmental assessment. This is an entirely new approach, which we are working hard to develop so that we can reduce the delays associated with assessment and improve the effectiveness of assessment in protecting the environment. As we develop and test our proposed reforms, we will be able to share more detail. 

We are encouraged by the support for the principles that will underpin the development of outcomes. As we progress with the development of the new system, we will work with experts and users to develop a robust set of metrics through which we can measure performance against the government’s environmental objectives.

It is our aim to make sure outcomes are fit for purpose at the strategic and local scale. We will work with users, and across government, to ensure impacts at all scales are properly considered, and to ensure that environmental protection is fully integrated across scales and regimes. By taking an outcomes-based approach, we will be able to reframe assessment while ensuring that all likely significant effects of development are assessed.

We have noted the potential benefits of a more proportionate approach to reporting, such as streamlining  the scoping stage and simplifying screening; greater standardisation, improving comparability of projects and reducing the reporting burden. These benefits reinforce the government’s aim to clarify, streamline and improve the efficacy of environmental assessment.

Climate change

We will explore ways in which climate change could be represented in the process in a meaningful way. Government will consider options, seeking not to duplicate other provisions. We will also consider the interaction with national planning policy, any other new requirements set out in wider planning reform and whether it may be appropriate for EORs to include a climate change-focused outcome

Mitigation and monitoring

The overall ambition of the new system of EORs is to simplify and streamline the assessment process as well as to enable tangible improvements in our natural environment and ensure resilience to climate change. We will consider how to deliver effective mitigation assessment and monitoring measures that deliver for nature and support development coming forward. We note that long term monitoring can also place a burden on Local Authorities and will consider how to address this through reforms.

Data

Responses are clear that there are significant benefits to be secured through delivering robust environmental data within the planning system. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 provides powers to implement planning data standards, which can apply to environmental data that is used as part of the planning system, including environmental assessment. Setting mandatory data standards has the potential to improve the consistency and quality of data and will ensure better data is available to support future sustainable development.

Our priority for environmental data is to ensure that relevant information is available and accessible and robust. Relevant environmental data should be properly maintained and made available to support not only the delivery of housing and infrastructure, but also the creation of new platforms and software driven by this data.

Guidance

The government recognises the significant changes that these reforms will introduce to the system. To support users, and to drive proportionality into the system, we will prepare guidance and templates to support the new EOR framework.

We plan to develop and test prototypes, templates and case studies as we progress to implementation.

Managing the transition

The government notes the strength of the support for a two-year transition period. As we progress with our policy development and engagement with the sector, we will continue to consider the most appropriate approach to transition. We will introduce EOR regulations for the environmental assessment of projects under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning Act 2008 as well as EOR regulations for the environmental assessment of plans/programmes. However, we note that a holistic view across multiple regimes could bring benefits in terms of alignment, consolidation and resourcing.

Equalities impacts

We acknowledge concerns some respondents have about matters such as health that are not explicitly proposed as outcomes and are looking at how these can best be considered within Environmental Outcome Reports. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 defines Environmental Protection as including the ‘protection of people from the effects of human activity on the natural environment, cultural heritage and the landscape;’ and environmental protection will be at the heart of the development of specified outcomes that drive assessment via EORs.

The government will continue to consider how best to ensure accessibility and equalities issues are considered and addressed throughout the process (noting the specific requirements related to the Public Sector Equality Duty etc.).

Next steps and further consultation

The responses provided in this consultation will continue to be considered in the further development of proposed EOR regulations and guidance  including in setting any specified outcomes and data standards. In line with the consultation duties in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the government will publish a consultation on proposed EOR regulations. As part of that process  further details will be provided in respect of how any responses have informed detailed development of proposals. Such further consultation will provide a further opportunity for stakeholders to engage on the substantive proposals, including on the proposals in the Fingleton Response on nuclear development, before those regulations are made.