Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 287

process, implying an open-ended timescale for the process, or should a new CEA be
started for the next group of schemes?
Views of local planning authorities and consenting authorities
The two local planning authorities responsible for the area in which the developments
were located were supportive of the CEA study and identified a number of benefits from
the process:
The study was found to be helpful in assessing the overall impact of
several major projects proposed for a relatively small geographic area.
The study was very helpful in its technical assessment of impacts. The
study was definitely of great value for both [councils] in understanding
likely impacts.
[It] was probably of equal value in demonstrating the likely impacts to
the developers themselves, making them fully aware of the potential
consequences of their proposals. (Comments from local authority
representatives, quoted in Piper 2000).
The point was made that local planning authorities lack the technical expertise and
resources to carry out detailed review of environmental assessments, and therefore rely
on the integrity of ES authors and consultants to identify areas of potential concern. In
this respect, “a major factor in favour of the CEA [process] is that the advisers of each
scheme proponent help 'to monitor the others', thus 'producing a more balanced
product'” (Piper 2000). Both authorities commented on the lack of public participation in
the CEA study. One noted that, partly due to the tight timescales involved, there had been
little or no public consultation, and that this represented the main weakness in the
process.
Other consenting authorities included three government departments (DTI, DETR and
MAFF). The DTI commented that the study had facilitated decision-making, stating that
“without the CEA, the power station project would have been refused” (quoted in Piper
2000). The CEA approach would be recommended in similar cases of multiple projects
elsewhere.
Views of statutory consultees
English Nature, as the statutory body responsible for nature conservation, was the
principal consultee in this case and was involved in the CEA process from an early stage.
It was necessary for the CEA to satisfy the requirements of EN, given its responsibilities
under the Habitats Directive to ensure the protection of the SPA. These requirements
were expressed in a number of planning conditions attached to the consents for the
various schemes:
The conditions covered the mitigation of construction works (via
measures to reduce disturbance of birds, a code of practice for personnel
and compliance with a programme of works designed to take account of
other CEA-related construction projects) and the monitoring of
construction. A monitoring scheme was outlined which will last