In this webinar we explore how Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) can be better coordinated to support clearer, more robust planning decisions. Annabel Le Lohé and Katherine Peers set out how EIAs are intended to function, before focusing on the practical considerations that influence how effective an assessment is in practice, from early briefing decisions through to long‑term delivery. The session was aimed at those working across planning, development and technical disciplines who are involved in preparing, coordinating or contributing to EIAs, particularly on large and complex schemes.
The webinar began with a refresher on what EIAs are required to assess and why the concept of “significance” is central to the process. Annabel explained how EIAs are designed to identify likely significant environmental effects, set out appropriate mitigation, and provide decision‑makers with the information needed to weigh environmental considerations alongside the planning balance.
The session also covered the distinction between Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 development, the screening and scoping process, and where Brookbanks most commonly supports projects through EIA coordination, particularly on large residential‑led schemes and complex sites.
A key focus of the session was the importance of setting a clear and realistic EIA brief at an early stage. Annabel and Katherine emphasised that EIA coordination often becomes problematic when project information is unclear, changing or poorly communicated across consultant teams.
They discussed why scoping should be informed by a clear understanding of the scheme, the planning context and potential sensitivities, and why defining a worst‑case scenario early can help reduce risk later. The importance of sharing planning context, site history and local policy expectations with the wider technical team was highlighted as a way to avoid surprises and rework further down the line.
Drawing on experience from both their planning and technical perspectives, the Annabel and Katherine explored the common pitfalls that thy see arise during screening, scoping and assessment. These included inconsistent assumptions between disciplines, late engagement, contradictions in baseline data and difficulties caused by changing masterplans.
They also examined cumulative assessment, alternatives and interdependencies between topics such as transport, drainage, ecology, noise and air quality. Annabel and Katherine discussed how early communication between specialists, and agreement on assumptions and methodologies, can help avoid inconsistencies that weaken an Environmental Statement or lead to additional requests from decision‑makers.
The second half of the webinar looked ahead to the transition towards outcomes‑based assessment and Environmental Outcome Reports, which are expected to replace the traditional Environmental Statement approach in the coming years. Annabel set out the government’s direction of travel, timelines and key phases, and discussed what this change is intended to achieve.
The conversation highlighted how future EIAs are likely to focus less on siloed technical chapters and more on holistic environmental outcomes that cut across disciplines. Katherine reflected on how this could help streamline reporting, reduce duplication and improve clarity, while also acknowledging the challenges that typically arise during regulatory transition periods.
If you’re looking to learn more about Environmental Impact Assessments more generally or want to boost assessment coordination for your projects, watch the full webinar back now.
Plus don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up to date with industry updates and key insights.
Explore how rising energy demand, grid capacity constraints and changing requirements are shaping industry and logistics developments, and what developers can do to manage energy risk and future‑proof schemes.
High‑rise developments rarely fail through lack of ambition, but through risks that are identified too late. When planning, infrastructure, fire strategy, servicing and buildability are treated as separate exercises, schemes often look strong in concept but weaken rapidly at delivery, leading to redesign, delays and value erosion. This article explores why early, joined‑up thinking is essential for tall buildings, and how front‑end due diligence and integrated strategy can reduce risk, protect viability and create schemes that are genuinely deliverable.
Ground conditions remain one of the biggest sources of cost, carbon and programme risk in infrastructure delivery, yet foundation strategy is still too often considered too late. When layouts and levels are fixed before the ground is understood, projects lose the chance to shape efficient, predictable outcomes. This article explores why early, ground‑led design matters and how treating foundation strategy as a front‑end decision can unlock clarity, reduce risk and improve overall project performance.