An overview of UK practice to date - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 239

Greece, with a correlation between length and quality—the average length of a
satisfactory EIS being 203 pages and of an unsatisfactory EIS being 63 pages.
8.5 The post-submission EIA process
After a competent authority receives an EIS and application for project authorization, it
must review it, consult with statutory consultees and the public and come to a decision
about the project. This section covers these points in turn.
8.5.1 Review
Interviews with local authority planners show that planning officers see little difference
between projects subject to EIA and other projects of similar complexity and controversy:
once an application is lodged, the development process takes over. Competent authorities
usually review EISs using their own knowledge and experience to pinpoint limitations
and errors: the review is carried out primarily by reading through the EIS, consulting with
other officers in the competent authority, consulting externally and comparing the EIS
with the relevant regulations.
Despite the ready availability of the Lee & Colley review criteria (1990), only about
one-third of local authorities use any form of review methods at all, and then usually as
indicative criteria, to identify areas for further investigation, rather than in a formal way.
About 10-20 per cent of EISs are sent for review by external consultants or by the IEA;
but even when outside consultants are hired to appraise an EIS, it is doubtful whether the
appraisal will be wholly unbiased if the consultants might otherwise be in competition
with each other. There are also problems involved in getting feedback from the reviewing
consultants quickly enough, given the tight timetable for making a project determination.
An innovative approach being used by some developers requires consultants who are
bidding to carry out an EIA to include as part of their bid an “independent” peer reviewer
who will guarantee the quality of the consultants' work.
Various studies (e.g. Jones 1995, Kobus & Lee 1993, Lee et al 1994, Weston 1995)
suggest that LPAs require additional EIA information in about two-thirds of cases. This is
usually done informally, without invoking the regulations. The 1999 regulations do
provide for some tightening-up of EIA procedures in relation to EIA information. Where
an EIA is required, the developer must now produce an EIS that includes at least the
information listed in Part 2 of Schedule IV of the regulations and any relevant
information listed in Part 1 of Schedule IV as they can be “reasonably required to assess
the environmental effects of the project” (DETR 1999a). The Circular 2/99 reinforces the
point with an important change of emphasis: “…if a developer fails to provide enough
information to complete the ES, the application can be determined only by a refusal”
(Regulation 3, DETR 1999b). As Weston (2002) notes,… “This effectively removes the
ability LPAs had under the 1988 regulations to accept ESs that did not include the
'minimum requirements'”.