Participation, presentation and review - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 187

provide grounds for refusal or approval, those which in conjunction with others influence
the decision, and those which are unlikely to influence the outcome of the decision. Then,
decision-makers will usually be faced with a choice. The planning merits
will depend upon a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages
arising from the construction and operation of the development, with the
consequences of maintaining the status quo—or “donothing” option. (DoE
1994)
In the case of a planning application, the planning officer's recommendations will then go
to the planning committee, which makes the final decision.
The range of decision options are as for any application for project authorization: the
competent authority can grant permission for the project (with or without conditions) or
refuse permission. It can also suggest further mitigation measures following
consultations, and will seek to negotiate these with the developer. If the development is
refused, the developer can appeal against the decision. If the development is permitted,
people or organizations can challenge the permission. The relevant Secretary of State can
also “call in” an application, for a variety of reasons. A public inquiry may result.
But decision-making is not a clinical exercise. In a Canadian context, Ross (2000)
explains how he and fellow panel member Mike Fanchuk wrote the report that explained
their decision about whether to permit a pulp mill:
Mike Fanchuk [is] a farmer from just north of the pulp mill site… During
my work with Mike, we discussed when we would be satisfied with the
report, and thus when we would be willing to sign it… I believe Mike's
approach is the best I have ever encountered. He would only be willing to
sign the report when he felt that, in future years, he would be pleased to
tell his eight-year old granddaughter that he had served on the panel and
authored the report. In academic terms, this intergenerational equity
illustrates very well the principles of sustainable development… More
importantly, however, it illustrates the basic human need to be proud of
work one has done.
6.6.2 EIA and public inquiries
Weston (1997) compellingly discusses why all parties involved in EIA try to avoid public
inquiries:
By the time a project becomes the subject of a public inquiry the sides are
drawn and the hearing becomes a focus for adversarial debate between
opposing, expensive, experts directed and spurred on by advocates
schooled in the art of cajoling witnesses into submission and
contradictions. Such debates are seldom rational or in any other way
related to the systematic, iterative and cooperative characteristics of good
practice EIA. By the time the inquiry comes around, and all the