Environmental statements - unfriendly giants

31st January 2012

Related Topics

Related tags

  • EU ,
  • Management ,
  • Property ,
  • Construction



Andrew Saunders and Nicola Hartley describe what has made environmental statements so cumbersome and what can be done to improve them

Environmental statements have become unwieldy, unmanageable and unreadable. They passed the point of compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations a long time ago and do considerably more than describe the three elements they are required to, namely:

  • the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected;
  • the likely significant effects of the development on the environment; and
  • the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.

Often they include detailed descriptions of consultations, the background to and justification for the project, planning policy reviews, geological risk assessments, safety assessments, draft site waste management plans and convoluted assessments dealing with effects which aren't significant. But why has this happened?

In our view the reasons include:

  • the multitude of, sometimes conflicting, topic-based guidance and advice;
  • coordinators and specialists who slavishly follow guidance even when it is inappropriate;
  • legal teams requiring scheme development details to be included to demonstrate the iterative process;
  • legal precedents resulting in the need to err on the side of caution;
  • a large number of consultee responses and requirements - particularly for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs);
  • peer reviewers requesting additional detail rather than suggesting streamlining;
  • clients using the environmental statement as a reporting mechanism for all other project information;
  • the decision to report the assessment of multiple scenarios to allow flexibility in the application;
  • a lack of focus on significant effects; and
  • the provision of large amounts of generic text.

The inclusion of such elements is unhelpful for members of the public wanting to understand the impact of a project on them and their properties. Gaining an understanding the totality of the effects of development is particularly difficult unless a well presented cumulative effects assessment has been provided. Furthermore, environmental statements can be prohibitively expensive and difficult to download.

In completing a review of 100 UK environmental statements produced in 2010, IEMA found the main text of an average statement was more than 350-pages long, with those for NSIPs almost double that. In our own review of a selection of environmental statements currently with the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) for examination, we found the average cost of buying a statement was £260 and the average length 4,200 pages (see table).

Review of environment statements lodged with IPC

Number of pages




Non-technical summary




Main statement volume




Entire statement




Not only do environmental statements produced for NSIPs comply with discipline-specific advice they also have to comply with IPC advice notes and wide-ranging consultee requests. Arguably they represent the latest situation in terms of environmental statement reporting in England and Wales, with the likelihood of these practices filtering down to non-IPC project statements making them even longer.

IEMA's research also reports that practitioners do not have sufficient time to write concise statements with some commenting they view the non-technical statement as being aimed at a public audience rather than the environment statement itself.

In view of time pressures, resource constraints, the need for efficiency and to make environmental statements more readable, there are a number of options available to EIA practitioners to help reduce the size of statements while improving their quality, including:

  • Education - better training on how to improve reporting, streamlining statements and focusing content on the requirements of the EIA Regulations.
  • Scoping - clearly justifying at the scoping stage why effects can be scoped out and if requests for additional assessments are made carefully consider whether those effects are significant. Practitioners should revert back to the Regulations when being asked to include non-significant aspects and reporting.
  • Study area size - keeping a focus on the area most likely to be significantly affected. Large study areas can make presenting significant effects close to the project footprint difficult.
  • Reporting potential effects - considering whether it is necessary to present potential effects in the absence of mitigation when the mitigation is an inherent part of the scheme.
  • Cumulative effects - improving consideration and presentation of cumulative effects on individual receptors.
  • Summary tables, mapping and reports - using tools to better summarise effects on key receptors or scheme mitigation. These may be summary tables or graphics to represent cumulative effects on individual receptors, as recommended in the European Commission's Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (see diagram below).

So, what is a reasonable size for the environmental statement of a large project? We suggest 400-pages for the main volume, with diagrams and figures used to support the statement and explain the findings of the EIA. While there might not be a one-size-fits-all answer it's clear that there needs some bolder and pragmatic decision-making during the environmental statement preparation process if we are to reduce the burden placed on consultees, decision makers, the public and practitioners.

This article was written as a contribution to the EIA Quality Mark's commitment to improving EIA practice.

Andrew Saunders is director of environmental services at Hyder Consulting and Nicola Hartley is a principal environmental consultant.


Subscribe to IEMA's newsletters to receive timely articles, expert opinions, event announcements, and much more, directly in your inbox.

Transform articles

New guidance maps out journey to digital environmental assessment

IEMA’s Impact Assessment Network is delighted to have published A Roadmap to Digital Environmental Assessment.

2nd April 2024

Read more

Lisa Pool on how IEMA is shaping a sustainable future with impact assessment

27th November 2023

Read more

IEMA responded in September to the UK government’s consultation on the details of the operational reforms it is looking to make to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) consenting process as put forward in the NSIP reform action plan (February 2023).

24th November 2023

Read more

Members of IEMA’s Impact Assessment Network Steering Group have published the 17th edition of the Impact Assessment Outlook Journal, which provides a series of thought pieces on the policy and practice of habitats regulations assessment (HRA).

26th September 2023

Read more

In July, we published the long-awaited update and replacement of one of IEMA’s first published impact assessment guidance documents from 1993, Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic.

1st August 2023

Read more

Are we losing sight of its intended purpose and what does the future hold for EIA? Jo Beech, Tiziana Bartolini and Jessamy Funnell report.

15th June 2023

Read more

Luke Barrows and Alfie Byron-Grange look at the barriers to adoption of digital environmental impacts assessments

1st June 2023

Read more

Susan Evans and Helen North consider how Environmental Statements can be more accessible and understandable

1st June 2023

Read more

Media enquires

Looking for an expert to speak at an event or comment on an item in the news?

Find an expert

IEMA Cookie Notice

Clicking the ‘Accept all’ button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies. Our website uses necessary cookies which are required in order to make our website work. In addition to these, we use analytics and third-party cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. To control which cookies are set, click ‘Settings’. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our website and how to change your cookie settings please view our cookie policy.

Manage cookie settings

Our use of cookies

You can learn more detailed information in our cookie policy.

Some cookies are essential, but non-essential cookies help us to improve the experience on our site by providing insights into how the site is being used. To maintain privacy management, this relies on cookie identifiers. Resetting or deleting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.

Essential cookies

These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. They include, for example, cookies that enable you to log into secure areas of our website.

Analytics cookies

These cookies allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors to our website and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works.

Advertising cookies

These cookies allow us to tailor advertising to you based on your interests. If you do not accept these cookies, you will still see adverts, but these will be more generic.

Save and close