Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 266

time. These transferred responsibility for identifying new MSA sites, seeking planning
permission and acquiring the necessary land from the DoT to the private sector (see
Sheate & Sullivan 1993). As a result, the ES for the A556(M) scheme did not identify the
Arley Hall site or any other site for a replacement MSA. This means that a major form of
consequential development resulting directly from the scheme, and with potentially
significant environmental effects, was not addressed in the ES. Here we find another
example of the effect of divided consent procedures on EIA, similar to that discussed at
length in Section 9.2.
A somewhat ironic postscript is that shortly after the submission of the ES, the scheme
proposals were subject to further modifications which involved the retention of access to
the existing Knutsford MSA for M6 traffic. These changes therefore removed the need
for a replacement MSA site. Whether environmental statements for motorway schemes
should or could discuss the need for the provision or replacement MSAs—and the
environmental impacts of such provision—is open to debate. What is clear is that the
present arrangements do not require any consideration of such consequential
development. The removal of responsibility for MSA provision from the DoT reinforced
the separation between the planning and environmental assessments of motorway
proposals and their associated service areas.
9.3.8 Conclusions
The quality of environmental statements for road schemes has undoubtedly improved
substantially compared with the early examples produced in the years immediately after
the implementation of the original EIA Directive. However, there are continuing
concerns about the quality of the wider EIA process for major road schemes. The arrival
of the environmental statement at a time when many of the key decisions about the route
have already been made and the limited treatment of alternatives, and of indirect and
consequential impacts are well illustrated by the case study.
9.4 N21 link road, Republic of Ireland—assessing impacts on an EU
priority wildlife e habitat
9.4.1 Introduction
This case study, researched by Weston & Smith (1999), concerns a proposed road
improvement scheme in County Kerry, Republic of Ireland. The proposed route of the
road passed through part of a European protected habitat, a residual alluvial forest known
as Ballyseedy Wood. Although the proposal was not subject to EIA (largely because the
ecological status of the site was not known at the time), it was later subjected to a related
procedure known as “appropriate assessment” which operates under the EU Habitats
Directive. The Habitats Directive requires that projects likely to have a detrimental
impact on a European priority habitat must be subject to an assessment of that impact.
This assessment involves a series of sequential tests that must be passed for the project to
be allowed to proceed. The case study examines the nature and interpretation of these