Participation, presentation and review - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 188

investment has been made in expert witnesses and smooth talking
barristers, it is far too late for all that. (Weston 1997)
Nevertheless, hundreds of projects involving EIA have gone to inquiry.
The environmental impact of proposals, especially traffic, landscape and amenity
issues, will certainly be examined in detail during any inquiry. The EIA regulations allow
inquiry inspectors and the Secretary of State to require (a) the submission of an EIS
before a public inquiry, if they regard this as appropriate, and (b) further information
from the developer if they consider the EIS is inadequate as it stands. In practice, before
public inquiries involving EIAs the inspector generally receives a case file (including the
EIS) which is examined to determine whether any further information is required. Pre-
inquiry meetings may be held where the inspector may seek further information; these
meetings may also assist the developer and competent authority to arrive at a list of
agreed matters before the start of the inquiry; this can avoid unnecessary delays during it.
At the inquiry, inspectors often ask for further information, and they may adjourn the
inquiry if the information cannot be produced within the available time. The information
contained in the EIS will be among the material considerations taken into account.
However, an inadequate EIS is not a valid reason for preventing authorization, or even
for delaying an inquiry. 4
An analysis of 10 public inquiries involving projects for which EISs had been
prepared (Jones & Wood 1995) suggested that in their recommendations most inspectors
give “moderate” or “considerable” weight to the EIS and consultations on the EIS, and
that environmental information is of “reasonable” importance to the decision whether to
grant consent. However, a subsequent study of 54 decision letters from inspectors
(Weston 1997) suggested that EIA has had little influence on the inquiry process: in
about two-thirds of the cases, national or local land-use policies were the determining
issues identified by the inspectors and the Secretary of State, and in the remaining cases
other traditional planning matters predominated:
The headings which dominate the decision letters of the Inspectors and
Secretaries of State are the traditional planning material considerations
such as amenity, various forms of risk, traffic and need, although some
factors such as flora and fauna, noise and landscape do tend to be
discussed separately. (Weston 1997)
6.6.3 Challenging a decision: judicial review
The UK planning system has no official provisions for an appeal against development
consent. However, if permission is granted, a third party may challenge that decision on
the grounds, for example, that no EIA was prepared when it should have been, or that the
competent authority did not adequately consider the relevant environmental information.
The only way to do this is through judicial review proceedings in the courts, or through
the European Union (EU).
Judicial review proceedings in the UK courts first require that the third party shows it
has “standing” to bring in the application, namely sufficient interest in the project by
virtue of attributes specific to it or circumstances which differentiate it from all other