Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 272

The second test, an absence of alternative solutions, was therefore failed. Under the terms
of the Habitats Directive, the project could not therefore proceed, since a number of
viable alternative solutions were shown to have been available in this case. It was not
therefore necessary to carry out the third test, the existence of imperative reasons of
overriding public interest in favour of the scheme. However, it is useful to do so, since
this demonstrates how this test is applied in practice.
Public interest issues
The third test involves the balancing of the loss of priority habitat against other
imperative public interest issues. Public interest issues would outweigh the loss of habitat
if they resulted in “far greater adverse impacts than does the loss of habitat” (Weston &
Smith 1999). So, for example, if only a minor impact on the habitat is anticipated and the
alternative options would result in extreme economic or other public interest disbenefits,
then the public interest issues could be said to outweigh the loss of habitat. Conversely, if
the impact on the habitat was great or uncertain, and the impact on the public interest
issues was small, then the interests of the habitat would take precedence.
European case law provides some guidance on the type of public interest issues that
can be considered to be “imperative” reasons. Examples include the public interest of
economic and social cohesion, human health, public safety and other environmental
concerns. However,
for such public interest reasons to out-weigh the loss of habitat they must
be of a similar scale in importance [as the protection of the priority
habitat]—that is of interest to the [European] Community as a whole—
and be demonstrable. (Weston & Smith 1999)
In the case of the N21 scheme, it was the view of the CC that a number of public interest
issues were relevant and that, when combined, the sum total of these issues outweighed
the loss of the priority habitat at Ballyseedy Wood. The public interest issues arising in
the case included:
• the strategic objectives of the wider OTP (of which the scheme was a component);
• the cost of alternative solutions;
• loss of family homes;
• road safety issues;
• heritage impacts on the Ballyseedy Monument;
• farm severance; and
• impacts on archaeology.
The independent study into the scheme concluded that none of these issues could be
regarded as both imperative (that is, of equal importance as the loss of habitat) and
overriding (that is, sufficiently damaging to override the protection of the habitat), and
therefore this third test was also failed. The reasons for this conclusion included:
• The existence of alternative solutions. The fact that a range of alternative route options
were available made it difficult to argue that the public interest issues arising in the
case were unavoidable. For example, there was considerable local concern about the