An overview of UK practice to date - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 227

8.3 The pre-submission EIA process
This is the first of three sections which discuss how EIAs are carried out in practice in the
UK. It focuses on some of the pre-EIS submission stages of EIA, namely screening,
scoping and pre-submission consultation.
8.3.1 Screening
Underpinning any analysis of the implementation of EIA in the UK are the requirements
of the EC and UK government legislation. Under the original legislation, competent
authorities in the UK were given wide discretion to determine which Schedule 2 projects
require EIA within a framework of varying criteria and thresholds established by the 40-
plus regulations and additional guidance. Generally this screening process worked quite
well (CEC 1993). However, some specific problems did arise regarding screening in the
UK. First, because of the largely discretionary system for screening, LPAs often—about
half of the time—require an EIS to be submitted only after they receive a planning
application (DoE 1996). For the same reason, screening requirements varied considerably
between competent authorities. For instance, a 1991 search of 24 LPA returns, registers
and files revealed 30 projects in 12 authorities for which EIAs could have been required
but were not (DoE 1991). Most of these types of development (e.g. 6 mineral extraction
schemes, 2 landfills and 17 mixed-use developments) had been subject to EIA in other
local authorities. The decision not to require an EIA had mostly been taken by junior
members of staff who had never considered the need for an EIA, or who thought
(incorrectly) that no EIA was required if the land was designated for the type of use
specified in the development plan, or if the site was being extended or redeveloped rather
than newly developed. Similarly, different DoE regional offices have given different
decisions on appeals for what are essentially very similar developments (Gosling 1990).
The new screening criteria established by the amendments to the Directive seek to
reduce these problems post-1999 (see Sections 3.4 and 4.3). An ODPM-sponsored study,
undertaken by the Oxford Brookes University's IAU (IAU 2003), has provided some
research evidence on the nature and characteristics of LPA screening decisionmaking
under the T&CP (EIA) Regulations 1999. The research, based on survey responses from
over 100 LPAs in England and Wales in 2002, sought information on frequency of
screening activity, on main considerations in LPA decision whether or not an EIA should
be undertaken and on the importance of different screening criteria (with regard to the
most recent project screened). For screening activity in general, and for LPAs in total, the
indicative thresholds were identified as the main consideration in screening decision-
making (44 per cent of LPAs). Schedule 3 and Circular 2.99 considerations (project is a
major development of more than local importance, is in a sensitive location or will have
complex/hazardous environmental effects), which require a greater degree of professional
judgement, were noted second most frequently (35 per cent of LPAs). Tables 8.1 and 8.2
relate to views on the LPAs' most recent single screening decision. Using regulations and
thresholds is seen as the most effective approach overall, but professional judgement is an
equally important approach amongst the more experienced LPAs (Table 8.2). The most