Writing a non-technical summary that matches the chapters

A non-technical summary is a statutory part of an Environmental Statement, not a marketing document. Schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 requires the statement to include a summary of the information it provides, in non-technical language, and the reason is practical: most of the people who read an Environmental Statement read only this. Councillors, neighbours, parish councils and journalists take their understanding of the scheme from it.

Write it last, write it yourself rather than asking each chapter author for a paragraph, and keep it honest about what remains after mitigation. A summary that reads more comfortably than the chapters it summarises is the one that causes trouble at committee.

What the Regulations require of the summary

The requirement is for a summary of the information in the statement, expressed in non-technical language. That means every topic assessed, not a selection, and the conclusions as reached rather than as the applicant would prefer them.

Three things follow. The summary has to cover the description of the development, the alternatives considered, the baseline, the likely effects assessed, the mitigation and the residual position. It has to be capable of being read on its own, because that is how it is used. And it forms part of the statement, so a summary that misrepresents a chapter is a defect in the statement itself.

It also has to be available separately. Where the authority publicises an Environmental Impact Assessment application, the summary is the document most often downloaded, and it should work as a standalone file with its own front cover, contents and figure numbering.

Writing for a reader with no technical background

Assume an interested reader with no planning or engineering training. Not a stupid reader. An intelligent one who does not know what a receptor is.

Practical rules that work:

• replace discipline jargon with the plain word, and where a technical term is unavoidable, define it once in the sentence where it first appears
• give quantities in units people use, and add a comparison where it helps understanding
• name places as local people name them, not as the chapters reference them
• avoid the passive where a subject exists, so the reader knows who will do what
• keep sentences short enough to be read aloud

Two habits to drop. Do not reproduce the significance matrix terminology without explaining it, because "moderate adverse, not significant" means nothing outside the profession. And do not use the summary to argue the planning case. That belongs in the planning statement.

A worked test: give the draft to someone with no involvement in the scheme and ask them what the main effects on the area will be. If they cannot tell you in two sentences, the summary has failed, whatever its word count.

Covering every topic without padding

Each chapter needs a proportionate section, and proportionate does not mean equal. A chapter concluding no material effect needs a short paragraph. A chapter concluding effects that remain after mitigation needs more.

Resist the urge to equalise the sections. A summary that gives the same space to utilities as to landscape tells the reader nothing about what matters, and a reader who cannot find the important material assumes it is being hidden.

Where a chapter deals with something unfamiliar, a sentence of context helps. Accessibility and inclusion material is a good example, since the terminology is specialised and the consequences are easy to state plainly, as our note on access and inclusion evidence shows.

Reporting effects that remain after mitigation

This is the part that gets softened, and the part a consultee checks first.

State the residual effect, who experiences it, when, and for how long. A construction noise effect on twelve dwellings for eight months is a different proposition from a permanent landscape effect, and the summary should make the difference obvious.

Use the chapters' own conclusions. Where the Noise Impact Assessment concludes an effect remains at particular properties, say so and identify them in the way the chapter does. Where the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concludes that views from a particular footpath change substantially, say that rather than referring to a change in visual amenity.

And explain mitigation as what will physically happen. "A three metre earth bund planted with native hedgerow along the eastern boundary, in place before the first unit is occupied" tells the reader far more than "landscape mitigation will be implemented".

Where an effect cannot be mitigated, say so. A summary that implies everything has been solved invites a reader to go looking for what was left out, and they will find it.

Figures that belong in a summary

A small, well-chosen figure set does more than the text. The usual selection:

1. A site location plan at a scale that shows the nearest settlements.
2. The proposed layout, simplified, with the main elements labelled in plain words.
3. One or two visualisations from publicly accessible viewpoints, with the viewpoint marked on a plan.
4. A construction phasing diagram where the programme matters to neighbours.
5. A single plan showing the main mitigation measures.

Keep the figures legible at the size they will print. Summaries are read on phones and on paper agendas, so a plan designed for A1 is useless. Caption every figure in the same plain language as the text.

Leave out the technical figures. Noise contour plots, air quality isopleths and zone of theoretical visibility maps belong in their chapters, and reproducing them without their methodology confuses rather than informs.

Keeping it consistent with the chapters

The summary is written last, which means the chapters have moved since the author of each one finished it. Check it against the final versions rather than the drafts you were sent.

A short routine catches most problems. Take the development description from the controlled version of the parameters, word for word on numbers. Check every quantity against its chapter. Check the residual effects against the residual effects tables, term by term. Check the mitigation list against the mitigation register, and against what the drawings actually show. Then read the summary and the chapter conclusions side by side and ask whether a reader would see the same scheme in both.

Record that check. Where an objector later alleges the summary understated an effect, a documented reconciliation is a far better answer than an explanation assembled afterwards.

Where chapters disagree with each other, the summary cannot paper over it, and the reconciliation has to happen first.

Length and format that works

Aim for something a committee member will read in one sitting. For most schemes that means in the region of fifteen to thirty pages including figures, and fewer for a smaller application.

Structure it to mirror the statement: the proposal, why it is needed, alternatives considered, how the assessment was done, the effects topic by topic, the mitigation, and what remains. Number the sections to match the chapters so a reader can go to the full text.

Four production points that matter more than they should. Produce it as a separate file with its own cover, not as a chapter buried in a volume. Make it searchable text rather than scanned images. Keep the file small enough to download on a weak connection. And put a version number and date on the cover, because summaries get revised when further information is submitted and the old one stays in circulation.

Last thing: an Environmental Statement under the 2017 Regulations must be prepared by competent experts, and that includes the summary. Writing it is a specialist skill, and the person who can explain a hydrology chapter to a parish council in plain English is worth paying.

Browse the report types by category to see which chapters your scheme is likely to need before the summary is scoped. 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.