EA: How is the current policy and legislative environment shaping the way large infrastructure projects are planned and delivered?

Right now, the policy and legislative environment is very fluid with the incoming Planning & Infrastructure Bill (Act) (PIB), potential Environmental Outcome Reports, updates to existing National Policy Statement plus new ones in addition to the Government responses to recent consultations (such as Biodiversity Net Gain) and the ongoing implementation of the Corey report.

All this points to a fundamental shift towards delivering national infrastructure sooner and in a way that is nature positive and enhances social capital. The proposed changes in the PIB, notably the removal of statutory consultation, is proposed to materially speed up the pre-application stage of the DCO process but it is yet to be determined how this will happen in practice when there is a strong supposition that an applicant will still have to consult and will still have to (currently) pass a test of adequate consultation upon submission.

Whilst in some respects all this can cause concern and uncertainty, this is also the opportunity to be innovative and adapt our approach to delivery. Delivering major infrastructure of any scale and nature can often seem complex given that big, at scale developments are hard to implement but there are well established principles and processes which remain constant. 

 

EA: With 150 Development Consent Orders set to be determined in the UK, what do you see as the biggest opportunities for the Environmental & Sustainability consulting sector to influence outcomes positively?

Behavioural change. The Environmental Impact Assessment process is not broken, and this was the vast majority of the response given to the 2023 consultation on Environmental Outcome reports. However over time and as practitioners, we have allowed a disproportionate scale of information to be the norm, and this is no secret either however it continues.

At WSP we have implemented our Future ReadyTM EIA initiatives and have engaged with our technical teams on how we can scope and assess proportionately and efficiently, without aggression but with technical integrity and justification. This of course is on a case by case basis and no two schemes will be the same, so proportionality within EIA requires a balance – we need projects which are environmentally robust and sustainable, but also economical and constructable, recognising innovation within the supply chain.

 

EA: In a context of regulatory change and uncertainty, how can project teams manage risk and liability while still driving innovation and embedding sustainability into major projects?

Transferable learning between sectors is key opportunity. I have been very lucky in my career to work on a range of projects, including seven first of a kind projects across nuclear, offshore wind, hydropower and other energy generation sectors. Each time I have absorbed and transferred lessons learnt and new ideas into the next project, and sometimes that nugget can be a goldmine. Sectors are not silos, and we have great examples from oil and gas working in deep water and how that translates to floating offshore wind, or mining and deep excavation techniques and skills being relatable to geological disposal facilities for nuclear waste. Other transferable learning can apply to social value and enhancing social and nature capital, or methods of technical engagement which minimises duplication between planning and regulatory process which in turn saves time and money and avoids consultation fatigue. 

 

EA: What practical steps can the E&S consulting sector take to proactively shape the development process so that projects remain resilient, efficient, and environmentally responsible?

Firstly, there will be no one-size-fits-all approach to the delivery of national infrastructure and any relevant policy will provide the legislative framework to work within. The proactive steps the E&S consulting sector should take is to be curious and be brave.

Secondly, we not only need to break the cycle of extensive volumes of environmental information – this will ensure it is clear to the reader how national infrastructure being hosted by their community has differentiated between the scientific and the socially important, and how said infrastructure will benefit both the community and the UK.

Lastly, we need to engage with the design and engineering teams at the earliest opportunity to determine the aspects of the project which are fixed (required by safety or project specific requirements) and those which are flexible. This ensures we can embed sustainability and environmental robustness at the core of the project, or conversely justify why a certain aspect is why it is, but also identify within the Rochdale Envelope where, as a result of supply chain or contractor innovation at detailed design, there could be a better environmental or social outcome. To enable that, we need to bring stakeholders and regulators along the same journey.

 

EA: Looking ahead, how do you see the role of the E&S consulting sector evolving to meet the demands of large-scale infrastructure delivery in an increasingly complex policy landscape?

Its well recognised that there is a skills shortage, and not just in consultancy but across all participating functions within the consenting and regulatory processes. It’s also not just resources but also knowledge of delivering and constructing the scale of national infrastructure

The role the E&S consulting sector is critical to that ongoing positive legacy. Graduate schemes and apprenticeships are fantastic but we need to really start earlier, at the inspiration stage in young people’s education.

The policy landscape is also going to be subject to change and so any policy relevant at that time should be seen as a framework of compliance. What we need to ensure is that the next generation of consulting sector has been inspired, mentored and informed by the generation before, and that’s us right now.