Gordon Wignall looks at the OEP’s recent report about environmental inspections by regulators.

Gordon Wignall looks at the OEP’s recent report about environmental inspections by regulators and its recommendations.  He concludes that they will benefit operators as well as the environment, but that for operators’ they do not go far enough.

Environmental Inspections in England was published by the Office for Environmental Protection on 10 July 2025 and presented to Parliament (as required by statute).  See https://bit.ly/3GwfEl8.

Case studies across 10 regulated areas have been used as the means of asking whether environmental inspection regimes do enough to show that there is “effective regulation of environmentally harmful activities”.

In respect of regulation by local authorities, the OEP has selected the statutory nuisance regime and the regulation of small burners. As to the Environment Agency and the Permitting Regulations, there are two notable case study areas: Paper and Textiles and T11 Waste Exemptions. These studies consist of the interrogation of data provided by the regulators (the same approach being true of all 10 selected areas).  There are no granular investigations of individual inspections.

Some of the comments in the Executive Summary and the Recommendations themselves will ring very true to operators:

• “The wide discretionary powers of regulatory authorities as to when and whom they should inspect provides them with flexibility. This is reasonable …. But where there is such a high degree of discretion, it becomes essential that it is exercised appropriately”.
• “Guidance is a good thing, it helps those regulated and the public understand what should be expected, and it assists regulators in better planning their environmental inspection tasks. But the importance of guidance in environmental regulation risks being eroded as it is not being kept up to date”.
• “It is hard to understand how the wide regulatory discretion afforded to regulators is implemented in practice and what environmental inspections actually take place. We consider that regulators should be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities.”

Above all, and in respect of the latter point, the report also says:

• “it is hard to understand how the wide regulatory discretion afforded to regulators is implemented in practice and what environmental inspections actually take place. We consider that regulators should be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities. … It is difficult to assess if risk is being applied correctly.”

This last quotation has been taken somewhat out of context.  The OEP had in mind the risk-based approach to priorities for inspection, and not the correct application of risk models by individual officers following their inspections.  The lack of consistency in understanding what is meant by “risk”, however, is surely itself the root cause of the inappropriate exercise of discretion and the erroneous implementation of environmental regulation?

The OEP made seven recommendations in its report, which include the requirement to review existing guidance and to ensure that it is fully up to date (see Recommendation 1), the publication of details about inspections (see Recommendation 2) and the publication of information relating to the correct approach to compliance checks for the purpose of the Regulators’ Code, such as by way of ‘compliance monitoring policy’ (see Recommendation 3).

Admittedly, the report was not written from the perspective of operators and the difficulties they may face. From their position, aspects of the report give cause for optimism, but it is individual officers’ understanding of environmental risk, their training in the same and the regulators’ monitoring of their approach to risk both during and after inspections, which will also merit full consideration.