Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 256

associated developments in isolation from (and after) the main development, including
the implications of the latter's location.
In their response to CPRE's complaint, the European Commission agreed in principle
that, in such cases, combined assessment was necessary and that splitting of a project in
this way was contrary to the EIA Directive:
I can confirm that it remains the Commission's view that, as a general
principle, when it is proposed to construct a power plant together with any
power lines either a) which will need to be constructed in order to enable
the proposed plant to function, or b) which it is proposed to construct in
connection with the proposals to construct the power plant, combined
assessment of the effects of the construction of both the plant and the
power lines in question will be necessary under Articles 3 and 5 of
Directive 85/337/EEC when any such power lines are likely to have a
significant impact on the environment. (Letter from European
Commission to CPRE, 11 November 1993; italics added).
The UK government had argued that the proposed transmission lines in the Wilton case
were not required primarily to service the new power station, since the proposed
upgrading would allow NGC to increase exports of electricity from Scotland to England.
However, evidence presented by NGC to the subsequent public inquiry into the power
line proposals appeared to contradict this view. Although the upgrading would have some
wider benefits for NGC, it was clear that the primary justification for the proposals, and
indeed for the specific routes proposed, was the needs of Wilton power station. The
government also argued that the Directive allowed for separate EIA procedures for power
stations and transmission lines, since the former tend to be Annex I projects whilst the
latter fall within Annex II of the Directive (for which EIA is required only if significant
effects are likely). However, the Directive requires an assessment of direct and indirect
effects, which cannot be ensured for a power station scheme unless the transmission
implications are included within the EIA. The Commission's response clearly supported
this interpretation of the Directive.
Despite this clarification of the purpose and intention of the Directive, the EC decided
against taking infringement action against the UK government in this case. Earlier, action
had been taken by the EC in connection with EIA for the Channel Tunnel rail link and
Kings Cross terminal “project”. In that case, the EC had argued that these two projects
were indivisible, because of the effect of each on the choice of site or route of the other:
The effect of dividing the London-Channel Tunnel project into the rail
link on the one hand, and the terminal on the other, leads to the
circumvention of Directive 85/337/EEC, since the siting of the rail link in
London is no longer capable of being assessed and—for instance by the
choice of another site for the terminal—its effects minimised during the
consideration of the rail link route. Terminal and link are, because of the
impact of the choice of the terminal site on the link, or the link on the site,
indissociable. The intention to assess the link once the assessment of the
impact of the terminal is [completed] does not therefore make acceptable