Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 288

throughout construction and for 5 years subsequently and will observe the
movements and ranges of population of waterfowl. Provided these
stipulated conditions are met, English Nature was of the opinion that the
various projects would not, individually or [in combination], adversely
affect the conservation objectives of the Special Protection Area. (Piper
2000)
English Nature commented that a number of factors—some of which were unique to this
case—had assisted the completion of the CEA. These included the relatively small
geographical area covered by the schemes; the fact that all schemes were at an early stage
at the start of the process, although some project-specific EIA work had already been
completed; the absence of direct competition between the developers to be the first to
obtain planning consent; and the willingness of one of the developers (the water utility) to
take the initiative in getting the study underway (Piper 2000). The latter was seen as
particularly important, given that responsibility for undertaking the “appropriate
assessment” under the Habitats Directive properly rested with the consenting authority.
As we have seen, in this case there were no fewer than five different consenting
authorities. It was suggested that
it would have been problematic to sort out exactly where responsibility
lay, had the CEA strategy not been devised by the water utility and its
advisers. For these reasons English Nature indicated that, whilst CEA was
“an excellent solution” [in this particular case], it is not a method of
immediate and general applicability but depends upon the circumstances
encountered in each case. (Piper 2000)
9.7.4 Conclusions
The consideration of cumulative effects is widely regarded as one of the weak areas in
EIA, both at project level (see Section 11.3) and in some SEA studies (see Section 9.8).
This case study has demonstrated a novel approach to the assessment of cumulative
effects, in this case associated with the impacts of a number of adjacent proposed
developments. The assessment process was made possible by a number of factors,
including the willingness of one of the developers to take the initiative in starting the
CEA study and the fact that the developers involved were not directly in competition with
each other. These circumstances may not apply in all such cases. Nevertheless, CEA
studies of the type described have a number of benefits, for developers, consenting
authorities and other key stakeholders, and—at least based on the evidence in this case—
appear to involve relatively little additional cost.