Keeping track of best practice

29th May 2012


Related Topics

Related tags

  • Skills ,
  • Guidance ,
  • Construction ,
  • Property

Author

IEMA

Chris Garratt discusses the increasingly significant role to be played by non-statutory bodies in defining best practice in environmental impact assessment (EIA)

It is not the role of the EIA practitioner to be an expert in each technical topic potentially covered by EIA, however, it is important that practitioners have adequate understanding to be able to critique technical assessments undertaken by the project team and ensure that the environmental statement is robust.

Critiquing technical work is normally accomplished through a combination of EIA experience, common sense and an understanding of the agreed best practice guidance for the industry sector.

Much of the best practice guidance in England was, until recently, contained in the government’s planning policy statements and guidance (PPS/PPG) practice guides. Following the publication of the national planning policy framework (NPPF) these PPSs/PPGs have been revoked, for the most part.

Much has been said about the introduction of the NPPF and the reduction of over 1,000 pages of guidance down to 59 (or 83 if you include the technical guidance).

However, although the accompanying technical guidance still covers flooding and minerals, most of the previous guidance no longer exists and the government has stated it will not reproduce guidance where this could be better provided by statutory and non-statutory bodies.

Considering the government’s approach to planning since getting into power, its stance on the production of guidance is not surprising, especially as the assessment of certain topics in EIA have been based on guidance produced by statutory and non-statutory bodies for many years. One example of this is the guidance on landscape and visual impact assessment produced by IEMA and the Landscape Institute, which is the generally accepted industry standard for landscape professionals.

However, in the age of the NPPF with non-statutory bodies gaining more control over their field, the question must be raised over how best practice is governed? With different groups producing different guidance documents, who decides which guidance is deemed best practice for a particular topic? And if your assessment is not in line with this guidance, does this mean your EIA not robust?

The best statements

An environmental statement produced in accordance with the review criteria of the IEMA EIA Quality Mark is considered best practice, but a regulatory compliant environmental statement does not have to meet all of these criteria to still be fit for purpose.

In terms of the EIA technical assessments and using ecological protected species as an example, the purpose of undertaking the impact assessment is to ensure compliance with relevant legislation - generally to avoid killing, injuring or disturbing protected species. However, the legislation does not specify the level of survey effort that is appropriate to determine the presence of the species.

In early 2012, several of the EIAs being managed by NJL were to include bat surveys, which would be undertaken in line with the best practice guidance produced by the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT).

The survey scope, timings and fees were agreed by the client and EIA programmes were established that took into account the bat survey season. However, in April 2012, the BCT published their revised guidance that significantly increased the level and duration of survey effort required to establish the presence of bats.

The publication of the revised guidance, raised the question of whether this meant that the scope of the agreed bat survey was no longer robust, even though it had been accepted as best practice a day earlier.

Ultimately, it is up to the local planning authority to decide whether the technical work undertaken as part of the EIA is appropriate for assessing the likely significant effects on the environment, but we are all aware of inconsistencies between local authority areas, whereby some are sticklers for best practice and others are not so strict.

Unfortunately for the government, which is trying to streamline the planning process, increasing the amount of influence non-statutory bodies have in determining what is considered best practice is only likely to increase the level of work and the subsequent costs and time required to undertake an EIA.

For the EIA practitioner, who needs to ensure the environmental statement is robust, as more technical guidance emerges it will be increasingly important to determine during the scoping stage what topics are to be assessed and what assessment methodologies are deemed appropriate by the local planning authority.

It will also be important to keep track of this emerging guidance to ensure that any new requirements, as well as the associated time and cost implications, are taken into account within both the assessment process and the project management of the EIA itself.


This article was written as a contribution to the EIA Quality Mark’s commitment to improving EIA practice.

Chris Garratt, AIEMA, is a senior consultant at NJL Consulting

Subscribe

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


Transform articles

Advice note on health impact assessments

An advice note on health impact assessments and health in environmental assessments is set to be published by IEMA soon.

31st May 2024

Read more

IEMA’s Impact Assessment Network is delighted to have published A Roadmap to Digital Environmental Assessment.

2nd April 2024

Read more

Lisa Pool on how IEMA is shaping a sustainable future with impact assessment

27th November 2023

Read more

IEMA responded in September to the UK government’s consultation on the details of the operational reforms it is looking to make to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) consenting process as put forward in the NSIP reform action plan (February 2023).

24th November 2023

Read more

Members of IEMA’s Impact Assessment Network Steering Group have published the 17th edition of the Impact Assessment Outlook Journal, which provides a series of thought pieces on the policy and practice of habitats regulations assessment (HRA).

26th September 2023

Read more

In July, we published the long-awaited update and replacement of one of IEMA’s first published impact assessment guidance documents from 1993, Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic.

1st August 2023

Read more

Are we losing sight of its intended purpose and what does the future hold for EIA? Jo Beech, Tiziana Bartolini and Jessamy Funnell report.

15th June 2023

Read more

Luke Barrows and Alfie Byron-Grange look at the barriers to adoption of digital environmental impacts assessments

1st June 2023

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