Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is often a requirement for planning applications for the development of waste disposal facilities under the EIA Regulations issued in 1999 in England, where proposals may have significant environmental effects.
Under the regulations EIA is a compulsory requirement for waste disposal installations for the incineration, chemical treatment, or landfill of hazardous waste.
It is also compulsory for waste disposal installations involving the incineration or chemical treatment of non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day.
Other applications for waste disposal facilities may require an EIA where it is considered that there are potentially significant environmental effects from a development. Developments may be subject to an EIA where:
(i) the disposal is by incineration; or
(ii) the area of the development exceeds 0.5 hectare; or
(iii) the installation is to be sited within 100 metres of any controlled waters.
Planning applicants (developers) may seek an opinion from a planning authority as to whether an EIA is necessary and, if it is, what the extent or scope of the study should be.
An amendment to the European Commission's Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
in 1997 introduced scoping as a non-mandatory step in the EIA procedure with effect from
1999.
Scoping can be defined as “the process of determining the content and extent of the
matters which should be covered in the environmental information to be submitted to a
competent authority for projects which are subject to EIA” (European Commission, 2001).
Aim and methodology of the study
The overall aim of the research study, "Evidence review of scoping in environmental impact assessment", was to determine the frequency or level of current scoping work by authorities and also to consider the extent to which scoping opinions contribute to and improve the effectiveness of the EIA procedure.
It focused on scoping procedures for EIAs under the town and country planning system in England, but has also drew on experience in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and other systems involving the issue of some form of consent.
The outcome of the research may be used in future policy formulation on scoping of EIAs.
In addition to a literature review, the research also drew on EIAs produced in England since 1999 from the national EIA database (PlanET), maintained by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
The work included an EIA questionnaire sent to planning authorities involved in over 1200 EIAs produced since 1999 out of approximately 2000 recorded during that period. Around a quarter responded which for busy planning authorities seems reasonable. Further detail on the approaches used can be found in the report.
Some findings of the report
The study found that formal scoping opinions were requested in half of the EIAs included in the study while approaching a further 20% involved informal discussions.
Developers also were found to provide backing information, in general, to accompany a scoping request and especially a draft scoping opinion was provided in over 60% of cases. This could of course be a valuable aid to the planning authority.
In producing scoping opinions planning authorities essentially used in-house staff rather than consultants. Consultations externally seemed to be inconsistently undertaken and those with statutory bodies amounted to less than three-quarters, whereas these bodies should always be consulted.
However the report notes that difficulties were encountered by planning authorities in getting back consultation responses within the 5 week period allowed.
Two-thirds of local planning authorities considered that scoping studies were beneficial in that they produced better quality Environmental Statements. This could save time later by reducing the number of queries on the statements, though there was apparently evidence also that this may not be the case.
The report found that scoping opinions were often not issued within the five week period allowed, though in terms of mandays they were a relatively low demand on resources and hence costs. (This suggests that delays were probably related to slow communications internally or with consultees and likely due to the workload of staff involved).
Though the study shows some support for mandatory scoping by local authorities of EIA projects, it was not felt that this was sufficient to change current arrangements. However it was acknowledged that mandatory scoping would provide a more consistent approach across the country. There were also some concerns about the potential costs to authorities if there was mandatory scoping.
The "Evidence review of scoping in environmental impact assessment" report can be found at the DCLG website.