Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 286

Views of developers
• Greater understanding of the area and potential development impacts. Three of the four
developers felt that the CEA process had increased their understanding of the estuary
and the potential impacts of the proposed developments. For example, the power
station developer referred to better understanding of the impacts to the mudflats and
birds and potential traffic impacts, whilst the dock developer emphasized greater
understanding of the hydrodynamics and morphology of the estuary and the
relationship between the schemes and the SPA.
• Other benefits. Other benefits identified included the development of local
relationships, including closer working relationships with the other developers, LPAs
and statutory consultees; the establishment of a consistent basis for mitigation and
monitoring; the opportunity to share the costs of ongoing monitoring work in the
estuary; and—for one of the developers—the fact that the CEA process had facilitated
the rapid achievement of planning approval.
• Financial costs of the CEA process. The financial cost of undertaking the CEA was
relatively low for all of the developers, although the majority of the cost was in fact
borne by a single developer (the water utility company). The cost of the CEA to this
company represented around 5 per cent of the total cost of the EIA work for its
proposed scheme. Costs were much lower for the other developers.
• Changes to the project proposals and additional mitigation. As noted above, the CEA
process resulted in some changes to the original project proposals and additional
mitigation measures, which would not have occurred if the projects had been assessed
separately. Examples included changes to piling operations during the power station
construction to minimize noise impacts, modifications to the ferry berth construction
to compensate for loss of bird habitats elsewhere in the estuary, changes to the timing
of certain construction activities and staggering of working hours to minimize peak
traffic flows. All the developers indicated that the additional mitigation prompted by
the CEA had added relatively little to the costs of the overall development. This may
reflect the ability to share the costs of mitigation measures between the developments.
Without this opportunity, mitigation might have been less effective or more costly
(Piper 2000).
• Delays caused by the CEA process . Views differed about whether the CEA process had
resulted in a saving or loss of time in obtaining consent for the proposed schemes. In
part, this reflected the stage in the planning approval process reached by each
developer at the start of the CEA process. Delays ranged from one to two months for
the water utility company to six months for the dock developer (this last delay was
attributed to the late involvement of a statutory consultee, despite an earlier invitation
to join the study); the power station developer felt that its timetable had not been
affected. Some delay may have been caused by the fact that the CEA process began
after the bulk of the initial consultation and assessment work on some of the schemes
had been completed. This resulted in some duplication of effort.
• Other issues. One developer noted the problem of distinguishing between those changes
that resulted from the CEA process and those that would have occurred anyway
through the proper consideration of each scheme in isolation. A further issue
concerned the appropriate treatment of new projects that may come forward in the area
after the initiation of the CEA. Should such projects be incorporated into the CEA