Environmental Outcomes Reports: the proposed EIA replacement

Environmental outcomes reports are the framework set out in Part 6 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to replace environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment in England with an assessment measured against government-set outcomes. As at 15 September 2026 the framework remains a set of enabling powers. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 still govern EIA development, and any scheme being scoped now should be scoped to those Regulations.

Treat this as a watching brief with one design consequence: build an evidence base that can be reported against outcomes as well as against effects.

What the 2023 Act provides for

Part 6 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations requiring an environmental outcomes report for specified consents and plans. The outcomes themselves would be set in regulations, with reports assessing the extent to which a proposal delivers or works against them, and with a duty on the decision-maker to have regard to the report.

The Act also provides powers on monitoring, on remedies where outcomes are not delivered, and on a non-regression principle intended to stop the new regime weakening environmental protection compared with the arrangements it replaces.

None of this bites until regulations are made. Powers in the 2023 Act have been switched on in stages through separate regulations, so the position has to be checked rather than assumed. The relevant government consultation, Environmental Outcomes Reports: a new approach to environmental assessment, was published in 2023 and covered the principles, the outcomes approach and the proposed scope.

How an outcomes based system would differ from EIA

EIA asks what the likely significant effects of a project on the environment are, describes them, and requires mitigation of the harmful ones. An outcomes based system asks whether the proposal delivers against stated outcomes, and by how much.

The practical differences would show up in four places.

Two things would probably survive in recognisable form. The underlying technical work, the ecology surveys, the air quality modelling, the noise measurements, the traffic counts, would still be needed, because outcomes cannot be measured without data. And the requirement for competent experts would remain, because a report on habitat condition is only as good as the ecologist who produced it.

What the 2017 Regulations still require today

Nothing in the 2023 Act changes the current duty. Schedule 1 development requires EIA in every case. Schedule 2 development requires screening where it exceeds the applicable threshold or falls within a sensitive area, with the selection criteria in Schedule 3 applied to the decision.

Where EIA is required, the Environmental Statement must be prepared by competent experts and must include the information specified in the Regulations, including reasonable alternatives studied and the main reasons for the option chosen. An Environmental Impact Assessment draft is a starting point for that expert team and never a substitute for it. The determination period for EIA development is 16 weeks rather than 13.

Screening and scoping opinions remain worth requesting in writing. A screening opinion that says EIA is not required is a document a third party may later challenge, and the reasoning matters.

A scoping opinion does more work than people expect. It fixes the topics, the study areas and the assessment methods with the authority and its consultees, so the argument at determination is about findings rather than about method. Where the opinion omits a topic an objector later raises, the record of what was agreed is the defence. Ask for the opinion early enough that the survey programme can follow it, because a topic added at scoping in October may need a survey window that opens in April.

Transitional arrangements and what is unclear

The Act contemplates transitional provision, and the shape of it is one of the open questions. The issues practitioners will want answered when regulations appear are these: whether a scheme with an accepted scoping opinion under the 2017 Regulations may continue under them, whether a screening direction survives the switch, how the new outcomes map onto the topics an existing environmental statement already covers, and whether plan-making and project consent move at the same time.

None of that can be stated now. Anyone who tells you the transitional rules with confidence is guessing, and the honest position is that the detail lives in regulations that have not been made.

What this means for scoping a major scheme now

Scope to the 2017 Regulations, because they are the law. Then make three adjustments that cost little and pay off either way.

Record baseline data in a form that can be reported as a quantity rather than only as a judgement. Habitat units under the statutory metric, tonnes of carbon, dwellings within a stated distance of a bus stop, and percentage tree canopy cover are all quantities. Effect significance ratings are not.

Keep the monitoring proposals real. The 2023 Act's monitoring and remedies powers point towards a system that checks whether what was promised happened, and a scheme with a credible monitoring plan is better placed under either regime. That thinking already runs through mandatory biodiversity net gain, where a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment has to be followed by a 30 year management and monitoring commitment.

And separate the data from the interpretation in the document structure, so a chapter can be re-presented against outcomes without redoing the survey work.

Where the reform sits against other changes

Environmental outcomes reports are one strand in a wider programme that includes National Development Management Policies, plan-making reform and the changes to habitats regulations assessment that sit behind nutrient neutrality. Those strands move at different speeds, and a scheme in a nutrient catchment is affected today by rules explained in the guidance on where the nutrient neutrality requirement comes from.

Watching what is brought into force, rather than what is announced, is the discipline. A written ministerial statement signals intent; a statutory instrument changes the law. The planning law updates timeline is where PlanScope tracks reform news, and the authoritative record of what has been brought into force is on legislation.gov.uk.

Future proofing an evidence base

Five habits make an evidence base portable between regimes.

1. Quantify the baseline wherever a recognised metric exists, and name the metric and its version.
2. State the survey date, method and standard for every dataset, so it can be re-used or refreshed without ambiguity.
3. Hold the raw data as well as the figures reproduced in the chapter.
4. Write mitigation as commitments with a responsible party and a date, rather than as intentions.
5. Set out monitoring with a trigger and a remedy, because that is the direction of travel in the Act.

An evidence base built that way answers the 2017 Regulations today and would need re-presenting rather than rebuilding if the outcomes regime arrives.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. For specialist technical reports, qualified professional input may be required. This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.