Origins and development - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 43

words, it considered environmental policies necessary for the maintenance of a level
economic playing field. Further motivation for EC action included a desire to encourage
best practice across Member States. In addition, pollution problems transcend territorial
boundaries (witness acid rain and river pollution in Europe), and the EC can contribute at
least a subcontinental response framework.
The EC began to commission research on EIA in 1975. Five years later and after more
than 20 drafts, the EC presented a draft directive to the Council of Ministers (CEC 1980);
it was circulated throughout the Member States. The 1980 draft attempted to reconcile
several conflicting needs. It sought to benefit from the US experience with NEPA, but to
develop policies appropriate to European need. It also sought to make EIA applicable to
all actions likely to have a significant environmental impact, but to ensure that procedures
would be practicable. Finally, and perhaps most challenging, it sought to make EIA
requirements flexible enough to adapt to the needs and institutional arrangements of the
various Member States, but uniform enough to prevent problems arising from widely
varying interpretations of the procedures. The harmonization of the types of project to be
subject to EIA, the main obligations of the developers and the contents of the EIAs were
considered particularly important (Lee & Wood 1984, Tomlinson 1986).
As a result, the draft directive incorporated a number of important features. First,
planning permission for projects was to be granted only after an adequate EIA had been
completed. Second, LPAs and developers were to co-operate in providing information on
the environmental impacts of proposed developments. Third, statutory bodies responsible
for environmental issues, and other Member States in cases of trans-frontier effects, were
to be consulted. Finally, the public was to be informed and allowed to comment on issues
related to project development.
In the UK the draft directive was examined by the House of Lords Select Committee
on the European Commission, where it received widespread support:
The present draft Directive strikes the right kind of balance: it provides a
framework of common administrative practices which will allow Member
States with effective planning controls to continue with their
system…while containing enough detail to ensure that the intention of the
draft cannot be evaded… The Directive could be implemented in the
United Kingdom in a way which would not lead to undue additions delay
and costs in planning procedures and which need not therefore result in
economic and other disadvantages. (House of Lords 1981a)
However, the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State at the DoE dissented. Although
accepting the general need for EIA, he was concerned about the bureaucratic hurdles,
delaying objections and litigation that would be associated with the proposed directive
(House of Lords 1981b). The UK Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) also commented
on several drafts of the directive. Generally the RTPI favoured it, but was concerned that
it might cause the planning system to become too rigid:
The Institute welcomes the initiative taken by the European Commission
to secure more widespread use of EIA as it believes that the appropriate
use of EIA could both speed up and improve the quality of decisions on