Key areas of alignment between IEMA and the review include:
- Regulation, monitoring and enforcement: IEMA backs recommendations for more frequent monitoring, better use of digital technologies, increased transparency, and tougher enforcement. These measures are crucial to aligning regulatory practice with the government's environmental targets.
- Spatial delivery and local outcomes: IEMA supports the call for clearer coordination between Local Nature Recovery Strategies, planning frameworks, and the national Environmental Improvement Plan. Effective, joined-up governance at the national and local levels is essential for real environmental outcomes.
- Digital transformation and skills: IEMA welcomes the review’s focus on attracting environmental expertise to regulators and supporting digital innovation. Increasing data transparency and public access to live monitoring will improve regulatory efficiency and empower communities.
- Sustainable and nature-based finance: IEMA backs the promotion of nature-based and sustainable finance mechanisms, aligning with its ongoing work to unlock private capital for environmental benefit.
However, IEMA has concerns about several areas where the review falls short:
- Planning reform: The review does not reaffirm the importance of comprehensive environmental impact assessments, especially in relation to climate change, social impacts, and public health, and fails to guarantee that core safeguards will be preserved – raising doubts about future regulatory rigour.
- Resourcing: The review also overlooks the chronic under-resourcing of Local Planning Authorities, statutory consultees, and regulators.
- Public input: The review gives insufficient attention to public participation and access to justice, which are essential for democratic and inclusive environmental governance.
- Assessing outcomes over the long-term: IEMA also raises concerns about the lack of detail within the review with regards to how outcomes will be tracked or measured over time, which undermines the effectiveness of any new system.
Ben Goodwin, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, said: “While the review raises recommendations which IEMA supports, it would be remiss of us to ignore the emphasis on ‘removing burdens’ and ‘reducing delays’ throughout it, which may inadvertently promote a deregulatory agenda. This has the potential to weaken environmental protections, rather than bolstering them at a time when we need them the most.”
Goodwin continues, “It is IEMA’s position that any reforms must be accompanied by substantial investment in professional capacity, as streamlining processes alone will not improve outcomes. Nowhere is this more important than in the planning reforms that are currently being reviewed.
“As we expressed when government announced its proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), both the use of competent experts and appropriate resourcing across the board will be crucial in speeding up the delivery of key infrastructure projects, and thus economic growth, while protecting the environment.
“IEMA continues to advocate for long-term monitoring, evidence-based adaptive management, and learning from past assessments to inform future decisions.
“Along with this, we would reiterate that transparent and participatory processes lead to better decisions and stronger public trust, and citizens must retain the right to access environmental information, engage in planning decisions, and seek redress for environmental harm.
“The outcomes of the Green Tape Review have the potential to create a shift toward smarter, outcome-focused regulation, and IEMA is committed to working with government and regulators to ensure these reforms are implemented in a way that genuinely improves outcomes for people, nature, and the economy.”
