Impact mitigation in environmental impact assessment: paper promises or the basis of consent conditions?

This study analysed 40 planning applications in the East of England to investigate the practice of translating paper recommendations in the environmental statement (ES) into legal conditions and obligations. A high proportion (50%) of suggested mitigation measures were not translated into planning conditions or obligations. However, a significant number of additional conditions or obligations, not directly based on the ES, were imposed on developers. The research suggests a mismatch between the practice of those producing ESs and the expectations of planning authorities, leading to inefficiency and, possibly, emasculation of environmental impact assessment through a failure to implement mitigation. Several recommendations are made to increase the effectiveness of the implementation and integration of mitigation measures.

[1]  Carys Jones,et al.  The Effect of Environmental Assessment on UK Local Planning Authority Decisions , 1997 .

[2]  Christopher Wood,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review , 1995 .

[3]  Alan Bond.  Let's not be rational about this: response to Benson , 2003 .

[4]  David Hickie,et al.  The Development of Environmental Action Plans: Turning Statements into Actions , 1997 .

[5]  Samuel F. Atkinson,et al.  Treatment of biodiversity impacts in a sample of US environmental impact statements , 2000 .

[6]  O. Bina,et al.  New Agendas for Appraisal: Reflections on Theory, Practice, and Research , 2004 .

[7]  John Glasson,et al.  Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment , 1999 .

[8]  Joe Weston,et al.  Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice , 1997 .

[9]  Alan Bond,et al.  Dealing with the cultural heritage aspect of environmental impact assessment in Europe , 2004 .

[10]  J. R. Treweek,et al.  Ecology and environmental impact assessment , 1996 .

[11]  David Short,et al.  Appendix 4 The text of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment , 1998 .

[12]  Robert B. Burns,et al.  Introduction to Research Methods , 2015, Research Methods for Political Science.

[13]  D. Rondinelli,et al.  Panacea, common sense, or just a label?: The value of ISO 14001 environmental management systems , 2000 .

[14]  M. Narayan,et al.  Environmental assessment. , 1997, Home healthcare nurse.

[15]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Roles and stakes in environmental impact assessment follow-up , 2001 .

[16]  R. Marshall.  Application of mitigation and its resolution within environmental impact assessment: an industrial perspective , 2001 .

[17]  Dick Cobb,et al.  The quality of environmental impact statements in Thessaloniki, Greece , 2002 .

[18]  Robert V. Bartlett,et al.  The Theory of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit models of policy making , 1999 .

[19]  Andrew Chadwick,et al.  Socio-economic Impacts: Are They Still the Poor Relations in UK Environmental Statements? , 2002 .

[20]  Stephen Tromans,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment: Law and Practice , 2003 .

[21]  J. Glasson,et al.  Socio‐economic impacts: the poor relations in British environmental impact statements , 1993 .

[22]  Matthew Asa Cashmore,et al.  The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory , 2004 .

[23]  E. Leknes,et al.  The roles of EIA in the decision-making process , 2001 .

[24]  Helen Byron,et al.  Biodiversity impact : biodiversity and environmental impact assessment. A good practice guide for road schemes , 2000 .

[25]  Jacques Teller,et al.  Review of present European environmental policies and legislation involving cultural heritage , 2002 .

[26]  Kim Putters,et al.  Exploring the relation between evidence and decision-making A political-administrative approach to health impact assessment , 2004 .

[27]  Luis Enrique Sánchez,et al.  An approach to linking environmental impact assessment and environmental management systems , 2001 .

[28]  David P. Lawrence,et al.  Planning theories and environmental impact assessment , 2000 .

[29]  Riki Therivel,et al.  Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment , 2002 .

[30]  Bronwyn Ridgway.  THE PROJECT CYCLE AND THE ROLE OF EIA AND EMS , 1999 .

[31]  D. Brew.  Reviewing the quality of donor agency environmental assessment guidelines , 1996 .

[32]  Joe Weston.  From Poole to Fulham: A Changing Culture in UK Environmental Impact Assessment Decision Making? , 2002 .

[33]  John Glasson,et al.  Introduction to environmental impact assessment : principles and procedures, process, practice and prospects , 1994 .

[34]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Environmental impact assessment follow-up: good practice and future directions — findings from a workshop at the IAIA 2000 conference , 2001 .

[35]  William R. Sheate,et al.  Road Developments in the UK: An Analysis of Ecological Assessment in Environmental Impact Statements Produced between 1993 and 1997 , 2000 .

[36]  Philippe Sands,et al.  Documents in European Community Environmental Law , 2006 .

[37]  Larry W. Canter,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment , 1995 .

[38]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Air quality and climate , 2006 .

[39]  Wen-Shyan Leu,et al.  Quality control mechanisms and environmental impact assessment effectiveness with special reference to the UK , 1996 .