Chaired by Professor Thomas Fischer of the University of Liverpool and Professor Reece Alberts of North-West University, South Africa, the event brought together 212 delegates from 28 countries, making it one of the largest impact assessment events ever held in England. Below are some key takeaways from a thought-provoking couple of days.
Impact assessment is changing everywhere
For those of us working in the UK, the prospect of reform through Environmental Outcome Reports (EORs) can sometimes feel like a uniquely domestic challenge. One reassuring takeaway from the conference was that impact assessment is evolving globally. Regardless of the UK's relationship with European legislation, significant changes to assessment practice were always likely to emerge as governments, practitioners and academics respond to new environmental, social and economic pressures.
One of the most thought-provoking presentations framed the future of impact assessment through competing narratives. A pessimistic or sceptical narrative views impact assessment as a barrier to development; something to be streamlined, reduced or removed. In contrast, an optimistic narrative sees impact assessment as playing an increasingly important role in shaping better decisions, influencing institutional behaviour and supporting more sustainable outcomes. Alongside these views sits a revolutionary narrative, which argues that incremental reform is no longer sufficient and that a more fundamental overhaul of assessment systems is required. For those following planning reform in England, there are perhaps parallels with the transition towards Environmental Outcome Reports.
Better decisions, not bigger reports
A recurring message throughout the conference was that impact assessment must remain focused on its primary purpose: informing better decision-making. This means directing effort towards the issues that matter most and communicating likely significant effects clearly and concisely. It also means strengthening post-consent monitoring so that we can better understand what mitigation measures work in practice and where improvements are needed. Meaningful engagement with communities was another consistent theme. Impact assessment has a long and respected history in the UK, but maintaining confidence in the process requires practitioners to demonstrate its value. If scepticism towards impact assessment is to be addressed, its benefits must be better understood, communicated and championed.
Investing in the next generation
One issue I had not fully appreciated before attending the conference was the range of challenges currently facing academia. Discussions highlighted concerns around limited impact assessment content within some accredited courses, changing entry requirements, increasing administrative burdens on academic staff and the significant effort required to redesign teaching programmes in response to the rapid growth of AI. The impact assessment profession depends upon universities to develop future practitioners and advance research and best practice. As demand for experienced impact assessment professionals continues to grow, there is a clear need to support and invest in the academic institutions that underpin the profession.
Environmental Outcome Reports
It was particularly helpful to hear an update from MHCLG on the development of Environmental Outcome Reports. One noteworthy point was the confirmation that the concept of likely significant effects will remain within the new system. We explored some of these issues earlier this year, and while many details of EOR implementation are still emerging, this provides reassurance that the core principles underpinning Environmental Impact Assessment are likely to be retained. The challenge now is ensuring that the future system places greater emphasis on purpose, outcomes and decision-making, rather than process for process's sake.
Digital innovation and Artificial Intelligence
The morning session on day two focused on digital transformation and AI within impact assessment. Consultancies showcased a range of tools already being deployed across the profession. These included commitment management platforms capable of tracking hundreds of obligations across complex Development Consent Order projects, machine-learning approaches for analysing large datasets, and the use of AI to support the preparation of Non-Technical Summaries, supported by robust quality assurance processes. The overall consensus was clear: while technology can significantly improve efficiency and automate repetitive tasks, professional judgement remains irreplaceable. Human expertise is still essential in interpreting evidence, applying judgement and ensuring accountability for assessment outcomes.
There was also an important word of caution. Speed and simplification should not become objectives in themselves. Innovation requires time, investment and critical thinking, yet these are often the very resources under increasing pressure.
What happens without impact assessment?
One question posed during the conference has stayed with me: What would happen without impact assessment? For many practitioners, impact assessment has become such an established part of project planning and decision-making that it is easy to overlook the influence it has had over decades. While no system is perfect, the absence of major environmental and planning failures in many jurisdictions may partly reflect the value of assessment processes that identify, avoid and mitigate impacts before they occur. Perhaps one of the greatest risks is not that impact assessment fails, but that we become so accustomed to its benefits that we begin to take them for granted.
Final reflections
My thanks go to Professor Thomas Fischer and the wider organising team for delivering such a valuable event. Opportunities to bring together the impact assessment community in England remain relatively limited, particularly at a time of significant policy, legislative and technological change. The conference demonstrated the importance of creating time for practitioners, academics and policymakers to exchange ideas, challenge assumptions and shape the future of the profession together.
If the discussions in Liverpool showed anything, it is that impact assessment is not standing still. The challenge now is ensuring that its evolution strengthens, rather than diminishes, its contribution to better decisions and better outcomes.
For more information on EIA at Turley, please contact Andy Ricketts.
17 September 2026
