Imbalance in the EIA process

11th January 2015


Related Topics

Related tags

  • Business & Industry ,
  • Built environment ,
  • Planning ,
  • Public sector ,
  • Local government

Author

Adam Robinson

Tim Pearce, senior planner at the Landmark Practice explores the need for parity in screening and scoping in EIA.

Many EIA-related decisions have been overturned by the courts due to failure by the local planning authority (LPA) to comply with the procedural requirements of the EIA regulations. The regulations are still, however, acknowledged by many planning officers as among the least studied pieces of legislation in the planning system.

In 2008 the Planning Officers Society (POS) published a practice note for EIA which noted that, for many planners, EIAs relate only to large developments and therefore public sector planners only need to be aware of the regulations very infrequently. Today, while the inexperience of some LPAs may still be a factor in regulatory failure, probably the most pressing problems are caused by reduced resources, tight deadlines and lack of technical support.

Continuing cuts to LPA resources since the POS's practice note mean that, in many authorities, a point has been reached where officers struggle to deliver basic planning functions. While most support the government's objectives to streamline processes, many consider that effective delivery of LPA functions in EIA will be hindered by lack of resources.

Deadlines and delegated authority

Delegated officers are responsible for delivering properly informed screening and scoping opinions within the EIA regulatory period of three and five weeks respectively, unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing. The screening opinion establishes the need for EIA, while the scoping opinion identifies the content.

While the POS states: "It will usually be best practice if a properly trained validation team initially considers the need for an EIA as part of carrying their validation checks," limited resources inevitably necessitate prioritisation of workload to planning officers.

Where responsibility for adopting a screening opinion rests with an individual officer, a delayed start to the process increases the pressure on the officer to meet the deadline. In many instances this leads either to deadlines being missed, or procedural errors made in the rush to meet deadlines. Errors ranging from absent dates or signatures to irrationality and inconsistency of the adopted opinion with subsequent decisions have provided generous case law for legal challenge of EIA procedures.

The balance between screening and scoping

Although the authority must complete its formal screening opinion within 21 days, there is currently no mandatory requirement for consultation. Many LPAs have established protocols to ensure that consultee responses are received in time to inform the opinion but, where the consultees also have limited resources, they cannot guarantee that technical comments will be made within the required period.

Planning officers do not always have the expertise or experience to make a judgement on specific issues that must be considered within an EIA screening. Without a mandatory consultation requirement, 'protocols' for strict timescales cannot be enforced, leaving the planning officer to either delay the process while waiting for consultee responses, or attempt a decision without full information.

There is similarly no mandatory requirement for an applicant to seek a scoping opinion for EIA, and this is not anticipated to change when the UK transposes the new EIA Directive 2014/52/EU. However, if an applicant does request a scoping opinion, the LPA has a mandatory requirement to consult statutory consultees, who are in turn obliged to respond. The LPA must provide its opinion within five weeks.

This is counterintuitive. Both screening and scoping are equally important in ensuring that the LPA has the right information to reach a properly informed position from which to determine the planning application. But LPA resources are inevitably more focussed on scoping, since it is statutory, than on screening, even though the latter carries greater risk of legal challenge and is subject to a shorter timetable for decision.

EIA Directive (2014/52/EU)

Transposition of the new EIA Directive (2014/52/EU) may reduce imbalance as it states that LPAs will have to deliver its screening opinion "within a period of time not exceeding 90 days" (article 4, paragraph 6). Conversely, transposition of mandatory pre-submission of EIA screening reports could frontload review of potentially unwieldly screening requests on LPAs.

At this stage this is all rather speculative. Transposition, required by 2017, is not anticipated before 2016, and delivery may vary across devolved administrations. Genuinely streamlining EIA processes needs procedural errors to be minimised. This requires parity of the screening and scoping processes, in both timescales and mandatory consultation, and the resources to deliver.

Subscribe

Subscribe to IEMA's newsletters to receive timely articles, expert opinions, event announcements, and much more, directly in your inbox.


Transform articles

SBTi clarifies that ‘no change has been made’ to its stance on offsetting

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has issued a statement clarifying that no changes have been made to its stance on offsetting scope 3 emissions following a backlash.

16th April 2024

Read more

One of the world’s most influential management thinkers, Andrew Winston sees many reasons for hope as pessimism looms large in sustainability. Huw Morris reports

4th April 2024

Read more

Vanessa Champion reveals how biophilic design can help you meet your environmental, social and governance goals

4th April 2024

Read more

Alex Veitch from the British Chambers of Commerce and IEMA’s Ben Goodwin discuss with Chris Seekings how to unlock the potential of UK businesses

4th April 2024

Read more

A project promoter’s perspective on the environmental challenges facing new subsea power cables

3rd April 2024

Read more

Senior consultant, EcoAct

3rd April 2024

Read more

Around 20% of the plastic recycled is polypropylene, but the diversity of products it protects has prevented safe reprocessing back into food packaging. Until now. David Burrows reports

3rd April 2024

Read more

IEMA presents a digital campaign to share knowledge and inspire action in sustainability

2nd April 2024

Read more

Media enquires

Looking for an expert to speak at an event or comment on an item in the news?

Find an expert

IEMA Cookie Notice

Clicking the ‘Accept all’ button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies. Our website uses necessary cookies which are required in order to make our website work. In addition to these, we use analytics and third-party cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. To control which cookies are set, click ‘Settings’. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our website and how to change your cookie settings please view our cookie policy.

Manage cookie settings

Our use of cookies

You can learn more detailed information in our cookie policy.

Some cookies are essential, but non-essential cookies help us to improve the experience on our site by providing insights into how the site is being used. To maintain privacy management, this relies on cookie identifiers. Resetting or deleting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.

Essential cookies

These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. They include, for example, cookies that enable you to log into secure areas of our website.

Analytics cookies

These cookies allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors to our website and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works.

Advertising cookies

These cookies allow us to tailor advertising to you based on your interests. If you do not accept these cookies, you will still see adverts, but these will be more generic.

Save and close