Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 274

Having failed all three of the tests required under the “appropriate assessment” process,
EU funding for the proposed N21 link road scheme was withdrawn.
9.4.6 Conclusions
The process of appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive, once a negative
impact on the priority habitat has been established, is an exacting one. In particular, few
projects are likely to have a genuine absence of viable alternatives, especially if the
search for possible alternatives is widely defined. Also, to outweigh the loss of priority
habitat, public interest reasons must be of equal or greater weight than the protection of
priority habitats at European level. This means that issues of only local or even national
importance would not be sufficient. Finally, as illustrated above, the absence of
alternatives and imperative reasons tests are inextricably linked. “While there remains the
possibility of alternative solutions there are unlikely to be 'imperative reasons of
overriding public interest' to justify the preferred solution” (Weston & Smith 1999).
9.5 Portsmouth incinerator—new approaches to public participation
in EIA
9.5.1
Introduction
This case study involves an innovative approach to public participation within the EIA
process for a proposed municipal waste incinerator in Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK. The
approach adopted by the developer in this case provided an opportunity for members of
the public to take part in structured discussions about the project proposals and their
environmental impacts before the submission of the planning application and
environmental statement This approach to extended public participation, beyond that
required in the EU EIA Directive, has been used in a number of cases in the UK waste
sector in recent years, not only at project level (as in this case) but also at more strategic
levels in the development of local waste management strategies and plans (Petts 2003,
1995).
The increasing use of these methods reflects the perceived inadequacy of more
traditional forms of public participation in the highly contentious arena of waste facility
planning. However, questions remain about the effectiveness of such methods in
providing genuine opportunities for the public and other interested stakeholders to
participate in the EIA and wider development processes. The case described here is based
largely on research carried out by Chris Snary as part of his PhD studies with the IAU at
Oxford Brookes University (previously documented as Snary 2002), with additional
material from Petts (2003, 1995).
9.5.2 Public participation and EIA
The wider context to the case study is the almost universal opposition towards proposed
waste management facilities amongst those who live near proposed sites. Such public