Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
(1990) talks of some of the potential complications associated with such discussions, and
of the need to distinguish between mitigation measures and planning gain:
Before any mitigating measures are put forward, the developer and the
local planning authority must agree as to which effects are to be regarded
as adverse, or sufficiently adverse to warrant the expense of remedial
work, otherwise the whole exercise becomes a bargaining game which is
likely to be unprofitable to both parties…
Planning permission often includes conditions requiring the provision
of planning gains by the developer to offset some deterioration of the area
caused by the development, but it is essential to distinguish very clearly
between those benefits offered by way of compensation for adverse
environmental effects and those which are a formal part of planning
consent. The local planning authority may decide to formulate the
compensation proposals as a planning condition in order to ensure that
they are carried out, so the developer should beware of putting forward
proposals that he does not really intend to implement.
Mitigation measures must be planned in an integrated and coherent fashion to ensure that
they are effective, that they do not conflict with each other and that they do not merely
shift a problem from one medium to another. A project may also benefit an area, often
socio-economically; where such benefits are identified, as a minimum there should be a
concern to ensure that they do occur and do not become diluted, and that they may even
be enhanced. For example, the potential local employment benefits of a project can be
encouraged by the offer of appropriate skills training programmes to local people; various
tenure arrangements can be used to make houses in new housing schemes available to
local people in need.
The results of a more recent research project on the treatment of mitigation within EIA
(DETR 1997) still found that UK practice varied considerably. For example, there was
too much emphasis on physical measures, rather than on operational or management
controls, and a lack of attention to the impacts of construction and to residual impacts
after mitigation. Table 5.11 provides a wider
Table 5.11 A wider classification of mitigation
Levels of mitigation
Mitigation hierarchy
Project phase
• Alternatives (strategic, alternative locations
and processes)
• Avoidance at source
• Construction
• Minimize at source
• Commissioning
• Abatement on site
• Operation
• Physical design measures
• Abatement at
Decommissioning
• Project management measures
receptor
• Restoration,
• Deferred mitigation
• Repair
afteruse/aftercare
• Compensation in kind
Search WWH ::




Custom Search