Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 284

Piper as part of her PhD studies with the IAU, Oxford Brookes University, and has
previously been documented as Piper (2000). The Humber Estuary case study, together
with a number of other examples of cumulative effects assessment in the UK, is also
examined in Piper (2001a, b, 2002).
9.7.2 The Humber Estuary case study
This case study involved a cluster of adjacent projects, proposed at around the same time
by different developers. Each of the proposed projects required EIA, and because of the
variety of project types, more than one consenting authority was involved in approving
the projects. The developers concerned agreed to collaborate in the preparation of a single
CEA of their combined projects, which was presented to each of the consenting
authorities simultaneously.
In 1996-97, five separate developments were proposed along the north bank of the
Humber Estuary, within a distance of 5 km of each other. The projects included:
• a new wastewater treatment works serving the city of Hull;
• a 1200 MW gas-fired power station;
• a roll-on/roll-off sea ferry berth;
• reclamation works for a ferry terminal; and
• flood defence works.
The five proposed projects involved four separate developers and five consenting
authorities. The environment in the vicinity of the projects was a sensitive one, with a
European site for nature conservation—an SPA designated for its bird interest under the
EU Birds Directive and EU Habitats Directive—located within a short distance of the
developments. It was the presence of this site, and the almost concurrent timing of the
projects, that prompted the CEA study in this case. Indeed, the CEA was designed to
satisfy the requirements for an “appropriate assessment” of the effects of the proposed
schemes on the SPA, under the terms of the Habitats Directive (similar to the process
described in Section 9.4). It was also hoped that the CEA would help to avoid lengthy
delays in securing approval for the projects, as Piper (2000) explains:
The strategy adopted assumed that, by providing a common assessment to
answer the needs of each of five competent authorities involved..., the
amount of interplay and discussion required between these authorities
would be reduced, avoiding lengthy delays…. The strategy means,
however, that any insoluble problems associated with any one project
could tie up all consent applications simultaneously.
In order to guide the CEA process, a Steering Group was established consisting initially
of the developers and the two local authorities concerned. Other key statutory consultees,
including the Environment Agency and EN, joined the Steering Group later, but non-
governmental environmental organizations and the public were not directly involved.
A single environmental consultancy prepared the CEA, acting equally on behalf of all
four developers. Draft reports were prepared in consultation with the statutory consultees
and developers, with opportunities for review and comment. Close liaison with EN (the