Consultation outcome

Environmental principles assessment guide

Updated 2 September 2024

Background

The Environment Act 2021 introduces a new legal duty to consider environmental effects of policies throughout their development, known as the Environmental Principles.

For full information and resources on the five Principles, please visit this page on the Policy Profession Hub.

Purpose of this document:

This document is to guide policymakers in their thinking and their assessment of environmental considerations in line with our legal duty to give due regard to the Policy Statement on Environmental Principles (meaning that the duty must be exercised with rigour and with an open mind).

The Environmental Principles Policy Statement is a statutory document that explains how to interpret and proportionally apply the five environmental principles. It helps policymakers to assess the environmental impact of the policy and understand which principles are relevant, before then considering what action is taken as a result.

The principles are not rules and do not dictate policy outcomes. This document is therefore to be used to make it as easy as possible for policymakers to evidence how they have given the right considerations on the environment when developing policy, in order to then inform the relevant minister accordingly.

Policymakers are not expected to carry out a “deep-dive” assessment into all environmental effects, as these may not be known. Nor are policymakers required to replicate the environmental impact assessment process. Instead, the level of research into the environmental effect should be relative to the likely effect of the policy on the environment.

This guide is not mandatory but is strongly recommended as best practice.

It is mandatory to demonstrate to ministers that appropriate thought has been given to the Policy Statement [see Section 6: Informing ministers].

How to use this document:

This document should be used for all policies which fall under the duty (all new or revised policies, but not individual decisions e.g. individual planning determinations). A useful way of thinking of it is if a Minister of the Crown is responsible for final agreement on a policy, then it is in scope of the policy statement.

• Policy can be broadly understood as an intended course of action adopted to achieve an objective. Examples of policy include: proposals that lead to legislation; national policy statements, strategies and frameworks; Ministerial statements setting out the Government’s formal position on an issue; documents, strategies and frameworks prepared by public bodies that ministers are required by statute to approve; any other document that sets out a substantial change in approach to an established policy position.
• Policy areas exempt from this duty are the armed forces, defence or national security and taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government.

This document should be considered in conjunction with the Policy Statement (found at the above link to the Hub).

This consideration must take place at an early stage in the policymaking process, and throughout as appropriate, not as an afterthought at the end. If changes are made to a policy at a later stage, then the principles should be reconsidered. The initial application should make reconsidering at a later point easier. The document is divided into three phases. Policymakers should take an iterative approach by regularly reviewing opportunities to shape the policy and its effects as the policy develops. You might therefore want to revisit each phase and go back to previous questions as your policy develops and changes.

The questions are to guide your thinking, so you can work through as many sections as is relevant and proportionate to your policy.

Once you have completed this document, please keep it as a record for future reference. You should retain your thinking and refer to it as your policy develops.

Phase 1: Environmental considerations

Section 1: Policy/service

Provide a brief outline of (the changes to) the policy or service being considered, including the main rationale and aim(s), and any indicative timeframes for policy development.

Making provision for a second staircase in new tall buildings that are 18m or more in height is one component of the Government’s building safety programme. A second staircase offers enhanced capacity for emergency egress, or access for fire and rescue services. For example, it might offer residents an alternative way of leaving a building if another route is blocked or filled with smoke and/or enable emergency responders to enter where there might otherwise be congestion in escape routes.

Building Regulations set the statutory performance standard for new building work; Part B deals with Fire Safety. Statutory guidance, called Approved Documents, set out how Building Regulations performance requirements might be met in common building situations. To date, Building Regulations and supporting guidance (Approved Document B ‘Fire Safety’) have not prescribed a height threshold above which a second staircase might be provided in residential buildings.

The introduction of second staircases in buildings above 18m is a considered and gradual evolution of building standards which, when taken with the other measures that have been introduced, combine to ensure high levels of safety in all tall residential buildings. The 18m threshold aligns with the definition of a high-rise residential building in the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022; and helps to synchronise standards across the UK by aligning to rules in Scotland.

The transitional arrangements associated with this policy will allow building projects 30 months from the point of the updated statutory guidance published to submit applications which conform to either the previous guidance or the updated guidance. After that point, all applications will need to conform to the new guidance; then 18 months from the point that application is submitted to “progress work” on site. These arrangements minimise the impact on housing stock.

This Environmental Assessment notes that embodied carbon from a building’s modified design arising from this policy will increase; however the marginal increase is likely to be a minor proportion of the building’s overall embodied carbon from construction as a whole.

In this Assessment, a tall building designed to incorporate a second staircase in a single core is assumed to increase the building requirement for steel and concrete materials. The volume of material may be offset by a reduced need for construction materials(e.g. concrete beam and block, steel stanchions) that would otherwise be used to create floor space and support structure.

Section 2: Assessing environmental effects

1. Does your policy have an environmental effect? Please consider the example effects and metrics listed in Annex A to detail the type of effect.
If yes, please complete Qs 2-6 in this section.
If no, please skip to Q7 in this section.

Greenhouse gases are emitted at every stage of the construction and use cycle. From manufacture of materials through to construction and maintenance to eventual demolition; 25% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to the built environment. These emissions amount to some 40 to 50 million tonnes of CO2 annually^{[footnote 1]}, more than emissions from aviation and shipping combined.  Carbon Emissions from the construction process, maintenance and demolition of buildings, are known as embodied carbon. 

Data on exactly how much embodied carbon increases with building size is difficult to determine. It is possible that on sites where boundaries and planning considerations allow an extension of the footprint of a building, a developer may choose to compensate for marketable space lost to a second core by extending the area and saleable floorspace of the building (i.e. increasing the footprint) or by increasing the height. However increasing the footprint or height of a tall building will increase its embodied carbon. This is because an increased footprint means additional deeper foundations made from concrete, which has an especially high embodied carbon impact. Increasing the footprint will also mean more structural work above ground, which will also require additional steel and concrete being required. In London, where tall buildings are more numerous, opportunities to increase footprint may be limited.

It is expected, following the transitional period associated with this policy change, that new buildings may increase their build footprint to accommodate the changes required in the policy. However, footprint will always be constrained by site limitations (i.e. a development site may accommodate a smaller number of two-staircases buildings each designed with a larger footprint

2. Is the environmental effect positive or negative?
☐ There is a positive environmental effect.
☒ There is a negative environmental effect.

It is assumed that the inclusion of a second staircase in new building work will increase the amount of embodied carbon within the built environment.  However the increase will be relatively small compared with the overall amount of embodied carbon in the construction of the entire building.

3. Are there primary effects (an intended result or an effect directly attributed to the proposed action) or secondary effects (indirect or induced changes)?
☒ Yes, there are primary effects.
☐ Yes, there are secondary effects.

The policy will have a primary effect on the environment as there will be an increase in greenhouse emissions across all stages of the construction, however this will be relatively small compared to the impact of constructing the building.

4. Will the proposed policy cause environmental effects that occur once, repeatedly or cumulatively (a combined impact of various past, present and future activities/processes)?
☐ The environmental effects will occur once.
☒ The environmental effects will occur repeatedly.
☐ The environmental effects will occur cumulatively.

Greenhouse gases will be emitted at every stage of the construction and use cycle, from the manufacture of materials through construction and maintenance to eventual demolition.  The policy change will have a relatively small negative impact compared to that of constructing the building.

5. Is the effect permanent or temporary? Is it short, medium, or long term?
☐ The effect is permanent.
☐ The effect is temporary.
 ☐ The effect is short-term.
 ☐ The effect is medium-term.
 ☒ The effect is long-term.

The impact analysis has been based on a 70-year period, comprising a 10-year policy implementation period (2024/25-2033/34) and a further 60 years to 2093/94.  60 years is the lifetime of a building and embodied carbon is included in demolition and disposal.

6. Is the effect local, regional, national or transboundary?
☐ The effect is local.
☐ The effect is regional.
☒ The effect is transboundary.

The policy will affect all tall residential buildings built in England and is likely to have a larger impact, predominately, in London and other major regional cities across the country as this is where the greater volume of construction will happen.

7. If you answered ‘no’ to Q1, please state why there is no environmental effect, either positive or negative.
You can now go straight to sections 6 and 7 in phase 3 without completing sections 3, 4, and 5.

not applicable

Section 3: Understanding which principles are relevant

This section only needs to be filled out if the policy has an environmental effect, positive or negative.

These questions explore which of the 5 Principles are relevant, and why this is/isn’t the case. See ‘The Five Environmental Principles’ within the Policy Statement for more details.

1. Is there an opportunity to embed environmental protection in your policy? (Integration)
☒ Yes
☐ No

This intervention improves existing guidance for safe building construction.  Environmental considerations are part of the planning and approval process for each building constructed.  The second staircase forms a relatively small part of the overall building structure and its impact on the building footprint at the appropriate time.

2. If it is likely for environmental harm to result from your policy, is there an opportunity to prevent this environmental damage, either before it has occurred, or to contain existing damage? (Prevention)
If yes, see 4.1
☒ Yes
☐ No

The environmental impact may be mitigated by the use of new and innovative materials used in the construction and ongoing maintenance of buildings, these changes will be supported by the Governments Net Zero strategy.  The impact may also be offset during the planning and approval process with enhancement to the natural environment requested as part of the building construction.

3. If prevention of environmental harm is not possible or proportionate, can you address this damage at its origin to avoid remedying its effects at a later date or location? (Rectification at Source)
If yes, see 4.2
☐ Yes
☒ No

The use of concrete and steel in the construction in tall buildings is essential.  Both extraction of raw materials and production have an especially high carbon impact.

4. If prevention of environmental harm is not possible or proportionate, can the costs be borne by those causing it, rather than the person who suffers the effects of the resulting environmental damage? (Polluter Pays)
If yes, see 4.3
☒ Yes
☐ No

Additional costs for materials and any associated green taxation, or the inclusion of a second staircase will be borne by the developers, they may choose the option to pass on the cost to the purchasers of the properties they build.

5. If none of the above mitigating measures are relevant, is there plausible evidence that your policy could cause serious damage to the environment (even if there is a lack of full scientific certainty)? (Precautionary)
If yes, see 4.4.
☐ Yes
☒ No

The policy should not cause serious damage to the environment, although there will be an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases produced, the amount will be relatively small compared to the amount produced for constructing the building. Any impact on the environment will be reviewed for the whole individual building at the planning stage.

Phase 2: Further analysis

Section 4: Applying the principles

This section provides some further prompts for you to consider as part of your policy development based on the principle(s) in Section 3 found to be relevant to your policy. General application options:

• Amending policy options or including an additional policy option in the initial design of a policy, which reflects consideration of the environmental principles. In some cases, considering a principle may introduce a new option as a different solution to the policy problem. For example, one where the polluter may pay. This option would then be subject to the same policy evaluation as the existing options.
• Reframing the policy to accommodate the principles. In some cases, the policy design may need to be amended to ensure that a specific principle is applied. This could include the framing of the problem, the detail of how the policy option may work, or how it may be implemented.
• Embedding a principle in law or guidance. If policymakers want the principles to be used in decision-making or the implementation of a policy, this approach may be appropriate. This could be relevant where proposed legislation might include associated powers, duties or obligations that may have a significant effect on the environment.
• Postponing a policy until further evidence is gained. If a policymaker is unsure on whether action is appropriate, they should gather further evidence. Applying the precautionary principle may encourage policymakers to explore the potential environmental damage before moving forwards. Or, where the risk is serious, they may amend, postpone or discontinue the policy in rare cases.

1. If the prevention principle applies:
a. What is the scale of the likely damage: How widespread is the damage likely to be?
b. What are the costs / benefits of preventing or not preventing the damage?

The policy is part of a programme of changes which will improve the safety of people in tall buildings in a proportionate way. Damage to the environment is limited in relative terms compared to construction of the building itself. New homes are required and tall buildings are an efficient use of land when appropriate building space is in limited supply.

2. If rectification at source applies:
a. Where does the environmental damage originate from?
b. What is the feasibility of rectifying the issue at source versus other options, and the costs and benefits of doing so?

The environmental damage is caused through the whole lifecycle of the building.  The essential construction products of steel and concrete cannot currently be replaced.  Lower carbon products are being investigated; however, these have not currently been verified as replacements and not in general use.

3. If the polluter pays principle applies:
a. Who is the polluter: what is the driver for the pollution being caused and who is responsible for this?
b. It may be more efficient/fair to distribute the cost across a particular sector rather than an individual or a group. Also consider how the allocation of responsibility can cause the most environmental benefit. For example, it may be more effective to charge the consumer of a product associated with environmental harm than the producer. This has been illustrated by the introduction of the plastic bag charge which has successfully incentivised changes in consumer behaviour and a reduction in consumption.
c. How much should the polluter pay?
This should be proportionate to the environmental damage and wider costs and benefits to society of the activity in question. In some cases, full cost recovery may not be possible or proportionate and in these cases, it may be reasonable that the cost is covered through other means.
d. How should the polluter pay?
Consider how the costs of environmental damage could be recovered as well as how polluters could be disincentivised from causing further environmental damage. The polluter can pay in a variety of different ways e.g. directly through fees or charges, or indirectly through regulatory or contractual requirements (which in turn require additional investment to fulfil). In the latter instance, fines or penalties for breaching these obligations may also be appropriate.

The developer is regarded as the polluter. The government has recognised the importance of assessing and controlling embodied carbon emissions in the built environment and is working with industry to introduce an agreed methodology. This policy is a relatively small change to a tall building and will be addressed at individual building level whereas whole life carbon assessment would be implemented nationally.

4. If the precautionary principle applies:
a. What levels of evidence exist which indicate that there is a severe or irreversible risk to the environment as a result of this policy?
b. What is the likelihood that inaction would increase the risk of the damage occurring, or would cause/worsen the potential damage?
If there is a lack of scientific certainty or gaps in the evidence base, this should not be used as a reason for inaction. Policymakers must take a holistic approach in applying this principle. In some cases, it may be that an alternative technology offers significant potential to reduce the risk associated with established practices. In that case, a policymaker might judge that the likely environmental, economic, or social harm or the opportunity cost of the established practices is greater than the risk of facilitating a cautious deployment of new technology and new innovations. Equally, it may be that there is inconclusive scientific evidence surrounding a particular activity, and a policymaker might judge that they should exercise caution, preventing or limiting the activity until sufficient evidence to support a decision becomes available.

This policy is a relatively small change to the construction of a tall building. This will result in an increase in some greenhouse gases; however, it is unlikely to cause severe or irreversible risk to the environment. Individual building construction and relevant supply chains will be integrated into the national Net Zero initiative with the implementation of The Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy and the Transport Decarbonisation Plan.

Section 5: Other considerations

1. Are there other legal commitments or relevant international commitments to which your policy must adhere?
☐ Yes
☒ No

This policy is part of a programme of changes designed to improve the safety of people living in tall residential buildings nationally and will align building safety standards with other countries internationally.

2. Are there other specific social or economic considerations required of this policy that may conflict with environmental considerations, such as education, health or a financial cost-benefit analysis that outweighs environmental gains.? If yes, please outline your proposed approach to any such trade-offs.
☐ Yes
☒ No

Phase 3: Evidencing compliance

Section 6: Informing ministers

Sections 2-5 are designed to guide a robust assessment of environmental factors within policymaking. Following this consideration, in order to comply with the duty, policymakers must provide an explanatory overview to Ministers, demonstrating that appropriate thought has been given to the Policy Statement, and to set out the outcome of such consideration in terms of how the policy is shaped i.e. What action has been taken in applying the principle(s)? What action has been taken as a consequence of the principle(s)? This is likely to be done in the latter stages of policy making, when the proposal is more fully developed.

Structure of the explanatory overview, to be included in relevant submissions when seeking a policy decision:

When developing this policy proposal, environmental considerations were taken into account in line with the Environmental Principles Policy Statement. Our assessment of environmental effects found that the policy is likely to result in a relatively small increase in greenhouse gases and embodied carbon from construction of buildings after introduction of the policy, compared to the planned construction of the entire building in line with the current policy position.  Some of the impact can be mitigated with the use of new materials or changes considered at the planning stage of the building and the continued progress toward Net Zero.

Based on this, the following principles were found to be relevant; integration, rectification and polluter pays.

On this basis, we are proposing to implement the policy as intended to safeguard lives and integrate with the other interventions designed to improve building safety on an evolving basis.

The principles must be applied proportionately. This means that ministers should balance social, economic, and environmental considerations in making policy. They should consider the environmental effects of a policy and the value of any mitigating actions. They should consider this in the context of the associated costs and benefits to society of the policy’s primary objectives, as well as the financial and economic costs and benefits. This includes the potential costs of effects on the environment, and any related ecosystem services.

Where there is a substantial risk to the environment, the weight given by Ministers to the policy statement increases. If this is the case, you may wish to annex relevant pieces of your assessment in order to support your explanatory overview. Equally, if the potential environmental impact is limited, then a lighter-touch action may be appropriate and in some cases no change to the policy will be appropriate.

Section 7: Support & sign-off

1. Have you consulted with your work area’s Environmental Principles Policy Champion, or the Climate Change and Net Zero Team?
Contact the Climate Change and Net Zero Team on ClimateChangeNZ@levellingup.gov.uk
DLUHC policy champions:

• Guy Skelton (Planning Infrastructure)
• Ashley Nye & Matt Spencer (Planning Reform)
• Sirdeep Singh (Planning Design Quality)
• Lewis Sullivan (Housing Markets & Strategy)
• Jonny Fitzpatrick (Housing Delivery)
• Polly Lord (Local Government Communities)
• Kirsti Johnson & Jacob Hull (CLGU Policy)
• Luke Spanton (PRS)
• Isobel Ames (SRS)
• Mark Sykes (Building Remediation)

DLUHC coordination leads:

• Emma Simpson (emma.simpson@levellingup.gov.uk)
• Nele De Doncker (nele.dedoncker@levellingup.gov.uk)

Annex A: Example environmental effects and metrics

Energy efficiency

Indicator	Metric/measurement
Reduction / increase in CO2 emissions	Ton CO2 per year
Reduction / increase in energy consumption	kWh per year
Production of renewable energy	kWh per year
Impact on EPC rating	# of dwellings

Adaptation

Indicator	Metric/measurement
Higher / lower climate resilience	e.g. impacts of flooding, coastal erosion, drought
Reduction / improvement of summer thermal comfort	# of residential units or non-residential floor area that do / do not suffer from overheating in summer
Reduction / improvement of winter thermal comfort	# of residential units or non-residential floor area that are / are not underheated and draughty in winter
Reduction / improvement of (indoor) air quality	# of residential units or non-residential floor area, signs of damp or mould, Concentrations of fine particulate matter

Natural environment

Indicator	Metric/measurement
Enhancing more / less the beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment	people having access to and caring for the natural environment, landscapes, waterscapes
Reduction / improvement of water quality	Quality from water tests
More /  less efficient and sustainable use of natural resources	farming productivity, soil health
Enhancing / damaging biosecurity / biodiversity	Impacts of exotic pets, diseases and invasive non-native species / Abatement of the number of invasive non-native species entering and establishing against a baseline / Distribution and spread of non-native invasive species and plant pests and diseases
Waste production / reduction	raw material consumption
Exposure to chemicals	Emissions of nationally significant substances to the environment / Exposure of wildlife to chemicals in the environment, including marine

Socio-economic

Indicator	Metric/measurement
Support for green jobs	#Jobs created
Reduction / increase of risk of energy poverty	% of households
Reduction / increase in energy bills	£

1. UK Green Building Council (UKGBC), Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Roadmap Technical Report (November 2021) ↩