Environmental Audit Committee

The Committee scrutinised the sustainability of UK data centres, including growth in AI-related demand, grid connection constraints, water use, carbon emissions, waste heat, and local planning impacts. Witnesses from AWS, Crown Hosting, Ada Lovelace, techUK, nLighten and Global Action Plan disagreed sharply on whether demand forecasts are being exaggerated, whether efficiency gains will reduce total impacts, and whether voluntary sustainability commitments are enough. The session surfaced calls for transparent, legally binding community and environmental commitments, better national planning and carbon-budget accounting, and stronger incentives for waste heat reuse and genuinely new clean energy supply.

This session of the Environmental Audit Committee examined how England manages air quality across inventories, modelling, monitoring, planning and funding. Witnesses argued that current inventories are misnomers because they are models, not stocktakes, and that local data is needed to understand pollution hotspots (e.g., wood burning, cooking, and non-exhaust emissions). There is criticism of limit-value-centered policy and a call for a health-exposure focus, better measurement of indoor and personal exposure, and more coherent national-local coordination. Local authorities face resource gaps, and there were calls for stronger enforcement powers, a public-health lens in policy, devolution of powers to public health, and long-term funding to sustain monitoring, modelling, and interventions. The witnesses urged governance changes including explicit health considerations in planning policy (NPPF), a central national data database, cross-department collaboration, and a coherent national framework for construction emissions and enforcement. A notable commitment from a local authority panel member was to raise standards by 2030, illustrating the scale of reform sought at the local level. Overall, the evidence points to a need for stronger central direction, sustained funding, better data, and a health-focused approach to air quality policy across England.

The Environmental Audit Committee questioned the government’s national security assessment on biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, and pressed for cross-government action, international leadership, and public transparency. Witnesses argued the assessment is seminal for linking climate and security, highlighted governance gaps, and urged a proactive, resilience-focused response including a national resilience strategy, stronger international engagement (COP17, NATO), and due diligence in trade. Key tensions included publication of the unabridged report, governance fragmentation, and whether the UK is doing enough domestically to safeguard food security and nature-based solutions.

The Environmental Audit Committee’s Air Pollution in England inquiry scrutinised the health burden of air pollution, evidence on mortality attribution, and public awareness gaps, alongside a pressing need for cross-government action on nitrogen pollution (ammonia, NOx, nitrates) linked to agriculture. Witnesses argued that mortality from PM2.5 is uncertain but likely substantial, urged a more integrated nitrogen strategy across departments, and pressed for stronger regulation (e.g., low-emission manure spreading, slurry-storage controls) and planning reforms to embed health considerations in housing/new towns. There was emphasis on enhancing monitoring (including ultrafine particles and local exposure, as well as urban transport sources like the Underground), public health communications, and governance reforms (possible new Clean Air Act or ambitious planning-health integration). Several witnesses warned that voluntary measures have fallen short, urged mandatory standards, and highlighted the political economy challenges of balancing farming livelihoods with health and biodiversity goals. The session also explored the potential of wood-burning policy changes, public messaging strategies, and the role of international accords (Gothenburg Protocol) in shaping UK policy. Key government commitments reflected in witness commentary include ongoing DEFRA/UKHSA initiatives and calls for cross-departmental action on nitrogen, with a frequent refrain that health must be “in all” planning and policy decisions.

The Environmental Audit Committee’s session on air quality examined the health and economic burden of air pollution, gaps in monitoring (especially indoor and rural), data shortcomings, and the policy framework needed to drive action. Witnesses called for ambitious, legally binding targets aligned with World Health Organization guidance, a comprehensive national air quality strategy, and a new Clean Air Act. They urged stronger local-authority powers and funding for monitoring, cross-departmental governance, and targeted actions on domestic wood burning and methane. The discussion highlighted cross-cutting health, climate, and equity considerations and stressed urgency in delivering policy plans and implementation.

The Environmental Audit Committee’s session scrutinised the state and policy framework for England’s ancient woodlands, including definitions, health, and protections for PAWS (plantations on ancient woodland sites), planning safeguards, and economic incentives for restoration. Witnesses across civil society, academia, and the forestry sector highlighted: (i) a narrow current extent of ancient woodland (about 2.8% of England) and health challenges (around 9% of native woods in good ecological condition); (ii) the value and risks of maintaining distinct categories (intact ancient semi-natural woodland vs PAWS) for policy and funding; (iii) ambitious but contested restoration targets (England aiming to restore the majority of ancient woodland by 2030; government-wide targets on woodland creation and restoration, including a long-term 500,000 ha (500k) wildlife-rich habitat target by 2050); (iv) planning policy effectiveness and enforcement gaps, with calls for clearer guidance, larger buffers around ancient woodland, and better alignment between NPPF and environmental improvement goals; (v) a need for stronger deer management, pest/disease resilience, and soil biodiversity protections; (vi) the economics of restoration, including PAWS restoration grants (£275/ha/year) and the challenge of private landowner incentives to shift from conifers to native broadleaf species; and (vii) a push for more robust data, research into buffers and mycorrhizal networks, and broader access to woodlands with responsible management. The witnesses recommended specific actions, from expanding buffer zones (to around 100 m in some contexts) and better financing to enable longer-term restoration, to adopting more cohesive policy and planning guidance and more targeted grants to accelerate restoration and management of ancient woodlands.