Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice

Joe Weston

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317889724
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architettura
• Subtopic: Pianificazione urbana e paesaggistica

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a fast-growing field of land-use planning affecting many disciplines. At present, UK Government legislation requires EIA for certain types of development. Subject to a further new European directive, an EIA will be required for all policies, plans and programmes. Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice provides a practical introduction to the subject and relates the theory to the practice through extensive use of case studies. Edited by Joe Weston, the book draws on contributions from a number of practising experts in the field and covers topics such as: assessing the need for EIAs; the environmental team; scoping and public participation; internal and external consultation; local lobbying; local authority review and decision-making; public enquiries; monitoring the impacts; pollution control; and the lessons to be learned. Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice provides a practical introduction to EIA for final year undergraduate and postgraduate MSc courses in planning, geography, civil engineering, building and estate management, and development.

CHAPTER 1

ASSESSING THE NEED FOR EIA

Peter Bulleid

Introduction

Throughout this book, the message that EIA is both necessary and beneficial is put with force. Without wishing to detract from this I would like to take the opportunity of an early chapter to step back and look at a few of the underlying assumptions about how EIA can be used and where it fits into the planning system. I also want to examine some of the motives of the various players in this particular game and see to what extent EIA can and does fulfil their hopes. All these matters are relevant for they affect both how and why such studies are done.

It is not my intention to question the potential of EIA but to question whether a technique imported into this country and grafted onto an existing planning system fulfils that potential given the wide range of players in the environmental field. I therefore intend to examine the issues from the point of view of each of the key players in turn. If this process does not answer the questions it will at least highlight them and the reader, in considering his or her answers, may gain further insights into the value of EIA. Perversely I will then look at some cases where an EIA was not undertaken and why this came about.

Background

Joe Weston has covered, in some detail, the background history of the process but there are some points that I think are worth restating. Britain is a relatively small but intensively developed country and it is perhaps not surprising that environmental awareness arose early, as exemplified by the works of many of the pioneers of town planning. However, the physical constraints of land directed early efforts along the lines of zoning and the control of land use as a means of environmental protection. Thus a planning system was developed at an early stage which, from the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, has evolved into a very sophisticated means of directing and controlling development. The system was also flexible enough to respond to changes in public concern and emphasis and by the mid-1980s planning statements accompanying applications would regularly embrace environmental issues.

Elsewhere, notably in America, concern over development and the effects of industry centred not so much on land but on the wider environmental effects, particularly pollution, arising as a result of those activities. By 1969 this concern became crystallised in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and ecological impact assessment became firmly established. This rapidly came also to embrace socio-economic effects, so evolving into environmental impact assessment, and by the late 1970s the technique was also being applied to policies and plans.

Europe, or at least the EEC, also began to be concerned with the environment in the 1970s. In general, and at the risk of a sweeping generalisation, its approach to planning and the environment mirrored that of America more closely than that of Britain. Finally, Directive 85/337/EEC on EIA was issued, and Britain was required to legislate within three years to implement the Directive’s requirements.

With only days to spare, in July 1988, Britain found itself grafting a ‘foreign’ procedure onto an already highly developed planning system. If the worst fears of the Europhobes were confirmed, then the Europhiles saw a chance to combine the best of both systems in a typical British compromise. However, it was a compromise and therefore perhaps not the same system that would have been developed if we had had the luxury of a clean slate. After seven years of operating this enforced marriage, have the hopes and fears been realised?

The view from Whitehall

As Joe Weston argued in the Introduction, to suggest that Government welcomed EIA with open arms would be untrue. The EC Directive came well before Mrs Thatcher’s green conversion and the length of time it took to pass the necessary legislation speaks volumes for the environmental commitment at that time. Nevertheless, bowing to the inevitable it passed the legislation and issued its guidance in 1989¹.

The HMSO publication Environmental Assessment: A Guide to the Procedures (1989), or the ‘Blue Book’, defined the Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 projects and, helpfully, provided in Appendix 2 guidance on what might be significant for projects falling within Schedule 2. Clearly, as Schedule 1 projects are few and far between and, if the significant thresholds for Schedule two projects are set fairly high, there are going to be relatively few EIAs required each year. At the time it was stated that the number would be a few dozen. In practice 467 were produced between July 1988 and December 1989 with a further 321 in 1991 so that the total is now in excess of 2000. So what went wrong?

Well it could simply have been a mistake. However, the Government has never been slow in estimating the likely cost to the nation when debating proposed European legislation and has tended to look on the black side. It is doubtful that it would have knowingly or mistakenly underestimated the numbers, and hence the burden, when arguing the case.

It would seem more likely that it was expressing a wish, as part of its guidance to developers and local authorities, over the interpretation of the legislation. It did not think many EIAs would be necessary. This view is perhaps confirmed by its attitude to appeals to the Secretary of State by applicants who consider that an EIA is unnecessary. The trend of these decisions has been to minimise the number undertaken.

This view is perhaps strengthened when one looks at its attitude to extensions to the list of projects covered by Schedule 2. While it has recently added windfarms, motorway service areas, coastal protection work and private toll roads to the list it has omitted other contentious proposals such as fish farms and golf courses². The list may be growing but it is doing so at a slower rate than some would wish. Or, conversely, there are fewer EIAs being undertaken than would be the case without the Government’s restraining hand.

However, amongst those pressing for change, and by implication additions, is the EU itself. Conscious of failings in the 1985 Directive and of changes since then, an amendment to the Directive has now been circulated for comment. It is understood that, amongst other things, this will considerably extend the range of infrastructure projects falling in Schedule 2 and at the same time produce fresh guidance on interpretation of ‘significant impacts’. The thresholds are likely to be lowered so that substantially more proposals would in future require EIAs. While the final form of the amendment remains open to speculation, it appears certain not to minimise the burden on developer and planning system. If this was the Government’s original hope then we are moving in the ‘wrong’ direction.

But does the Government have a point when it talks about burdens and the need to reduce them? The Department of the Environment estimates that its own modest additions of project categories to Schedule 2, outlined above, will potentially add a further 20 EIAs a year. Furthermore it estimates that these cost an average £25,000 each but, as we shall see later, this figure is open to question. Nevertheless it is clear that the Government does consider there is a direct financial cost and few would dispute this. Whether the above figures amount to a burden nationally is open to debate.

This direct cost on projects goes of course to the heart of the Government’s concerns over Europe, or rather emerging European legislation. While not antipathetic to the environment, the present Government sees it as only one of a number of factors to be taken into account in planning. Decisions made in vacuo in Brussels will not necessarily lead to the best use of resources. Such decisions would more appropriately be made at a local level on a proposal by proposal basis, or so the argument runs. This is the very essence of subsidiarity. If an EIA is necessary, its scope and format are something to be decided at local level, and over-prescriptive regulation from Europe is likely to stifle necessary investment. Given this attitude it is surprising that the concept of scoping has taken so long to be accepted. The original proposed revised Directive would have made this mandatory and it would seem to be a handy mechanism by which the potential discouragement that over-enthusiastic EIA requirements might have on investment and development could be curbed.

In fact the Government has always managed both to have its cake and to eat it, at least with respect to its own proposals, such as the road buildings programme and other strategic proposals in the national interest. While a private developer may be subject to close scrutiny through his ES or a subsequent public inquiry of the alternatives he has considered, the Government is happy to rule this out of court in respect of its own proposals. Such an attitude – ‘we are going to build a road and the ES is only there to formally record the likely environmental effects’ – is not likely to engender confidence in the belief that EIAs are always the best mechanism for objective decision making.

The local authority perspective

To local authorities falls the main responsibility of administering the regulations concerning EIAs. These require a substantial amount of additional work and resources and, given the downward pressure on staff and costs, one might expect that EIAs would not be welcomed. Curiously the opposite is the case. Why should this be?

There are several reasons. The first is that most professional planners find the requirement for an ES to accompany a major application is genuinely helpful for coming to a balanced decision on the proposed development. A number of local authorities such as Kent County Council have issued helpful guidance on EIAs. Even though the final decision may be taken out of the local authority’s hands and given to an Inspector or the Secretary of State, officers cannot advise their members on what position to take on the proposal without an EIA.

This is reasonable. It is the whole purpose of environmental assessment and on the whole it works. Unfortunately there are other reasons for EIAs being welcomed, which may only come to light in private conversations. The second is that an EIA both generates additional work and can be seen to an extent as enhancing the status of those charged with processing it. Moreover, for a manager under pressure to reduce costs and measure up to some performance indicator, the arrival of an ES in his group can be viewed as a manifestation of value. Then again it may be elected members who, faced with a controversial or sensitive proposal, see the need for an EIA as a means of gaining both time to judge a political climate and a possible reason upon which the ultimate decision may be hung. Many unpopular proposals are subject to objections on environmental grounds. An ES that shows no adverse environmental effect can be a very helpful tool in justifying an approval. Conversely if reasons are sought for refusal then most ESs will identify at least one adverse effect and so provide ammunition to use against the unwelcome proposal. This is what Alder (1993) alludes to in his statement quoted by Joe Weston³.

Whatever the reasons for a local authority seeking an ES, very real doubts exist about the ability of many smaller authorities to interpret adequately the information provided. The range of professional skills in an authority is necessarily restricted and most unlikely to encompass all the issues arising from a major development.

Furthermore, even when it has the skill in house, the staff may not be practised in interpreting an ES or have adequate time to devote to it. One way of addressing this is the use of external consultants to review ESs, if the budget is available. I recall being briefed at short notice to oppose a major development in the Thames Valley and being handed an accompanying ES with the comment that it was very comprehensive. However, a quick review together with a site visit showed that there were significant errors, some 50 potential impacts not identified in the scoping and that the site was materially different from that described.

One of the intentions of the regulations is that an EIA should explore alternatives to the proposal. To a local authority, in considering land use in an area, a detailed consideration of alternatives would be most helpful, but unfortunately this is one area where most ESs are lacking. The original intention was, no doubt, that alternative technologies as well as sites were considered. However, in reality few applicants are realistically able to offer an alternative site, let alone a different technical solution, at least on smaller and medium sized projects. On the largest projects, e.g. the parts of the road programme or the nuclear industry, the Government takes the attitude that alternatives are national issues, outside local decision making. In that the alternative sites may be beyond the local authority boundary, this may not be unreasonable.

However, a number of local authorities, welcoming the requirement for EIAs but dissatisfied with the results, have taken the initiative. Kent, for example, recognising the value of the procedure has sought to ensure that there is some standardisation of contents and treatment of the individual issues in ESs. Regardless of whether the applicant welcomes such guidance and the obligations it places on them, the logic of improving the product for the user, the local authority, is indisputable. After six years the Government followed suit with its own document on the preparation of ESs, which was first published as a consultation draft⁴. It will almost certainly become the benchmark for future ESs, with the danger that it will be assumed that all ESs must treat all the issues to the suggested depth.

The developer

If there is any party that could be expected to have an ambivalent attitude to EIA it is the developer. The immediate reaction is understandably to look askance at a requirement to make public the aspects of their proposal, warts and all, so providing ready ammunition for objectors and regulators. Furthermore the requirement inevitably adds ‘up front’ costs, at a stage before funding is generally agreed, so increasing the financial risks. Add to this the potential delays the work will entail or, looked at another way, the need to start planning and programming earlier, and there seems to be little in it for the developer.

Of course the argument goes that the discipline that an EIA imposes on the project design and development leads to a reduction in risk and an optimisation in design that provide consequential savings. Thus the EIA can more than pay for itself. I am not sure that an applicant who has been through a long and hotly contested public inquiry where the ES has been debated in detail, for example, would rush to agree. Indeed the whole argument of consequential savings is questionable if the project is properly managed. You do not need to publish an ES to go through the discipline of considering alternatives and refining designs. What, for example, are hazard and operability studies (HAZOPS) and value management supposed to achieve?

Is it all stacked against the developer then? Perhaps not. Few potential developers can be so naive as to think that they do not nowadays require a basket of permissions and consents nor that all the regulatory bodies and statutory consultees will not want to know about various aspects of the proposal and its environmental effects. One single exercise that wraps up all the issues in a seamless manner makes sense. Furthermore, the funding agencies, particularly the banks, are increasingly sensitive to the environmental liabilities of lenders. They look to the ES for reassurance that their commitment is limited and under control. The bank’s scrutiny of the ES may be more rigorous than that of the local authority. The long term effects of a bad investment can be more painful than those of a bad planning decision. It is this commercial discipline that concentrates the developer’s mind wonderfully.

Th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• About the Authors
• Abbreviations
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: EIA in the UK
• 1 Assessing the need for EIA
• 2 Taking charge of the environmental team
• 3 Scoping and public participation
• 4 Planning authority review
• 5 Consultation and the conflict of interests in the EIA process
• 6 EIA and public inquiries
• 7 EIA monitoring and audit
• 8 EIA and pollution control
• 9 Lessons from EIA in practice
• Index