The Effect of Environmental Assessment on UK Local Planning Authority Decisions

8/18/2019 The Effect of Environmental Assessment on UK Local Planning Authority Decisions

1/22

Urban Studies, Vol. 34, No. 8, 1237±1257, 1997

The Effect of Environmental Assessment on UKLocal Planning Authority Decisions

Christopher Wood and Carys E. Jones

[Paper ®rst received, July 1996; in ®nal form, January 1997]

Summary. Environmental assessment (EA) is intended to ensure that environmental considerations are properly weighed in the decisions made by local p lanning authorities on plannin

applications. This paper analyses whether, to what extent, and how, EA has in¯uenced LPA

decisions. Forty case studies were analysed by examining relevant documentation and conductin

interviews with participants in the EA process. EA appears to have had a gradual rather tha

a revolutionary effect on decision-making. Its ma in bene®ts have been the enhanced provision o

environmental information and, to a lesser extent, assistance in setting conditions and i

modifying proposals. However, these bene®ts are not occurring in all cases, and changes ar

needed if the expected advantages of EAÐbetter integration of environmental considerations int

project planning and decision-makingÐare to be fully realised in the UK.

Introduction

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is

an anticipatory environmental management

tool wh ich is designed to affect decisions

about projects which might have signi®cant

ef fects on the envir onment. E I A should

in¯uence siting decisions about proposed

pro jects in tw o main ways. First, it sho uld

lead to the m itigation o f the adverse environ-

mental impacts of a project to the point

where the project becomes environmentally

acceptable (i.e. `sustainable’). When, by vir-

tue of the nature, scale or location of the

pro ject, its environmental disbe ne®ts, even

after mitigation, outweigh its economic and

other bene®ts, it should result in a decision

not to pr oceed.In the UK, certain planning applications

cannot be determined unless an environmen

tal assessment (E A) is carr ied ou t ®r st. Th

pr oponent of a project subject to EA is re

quired to prepare a document (an environ

m en tal stat em en tÐ E S) set tin g o ut i

environmental effects. The EA is a `materia

consideration’ in the decision made by th

local planning authority (LPA) on whether o

not to gr ant planning perm ission for the pr o

ject. While it is axiomati c that EA shoul

affect planning decisions, there has been lit

tle research to date on wh ether it actuall

does so. This paper presents the ®ndings o

an investigation of whether, to what exten

and how EA has in¯uenced LPA decision

on planning applications. T he paper comm ences wi th an ou tli ne o


2/22

CHRISTOPHER WOOD AND CARYS E. JONES1238

the nat ure of EIA and an explanation of the

ways in which it affects decision-making.

Next, an overview of UK environmental

plan ning and the ro le of EA is pr esented.

This is fo llow ed by an explanation of the

methods employed in the investigation. Themain results of the research into the effect of

EA on LPA decision-making are then pre-

sented in ®ve sections, the ®rst of which

deals with the evaluation of the ES by plan-

ning of®cers. The next fo ur sections analyse

the in¯uence of EA: on the pl ann ing of®cer’s

report to the LPA planning committee; on the

plan ning committee’s decision; on the condi-

tions attached to the plan ning perm ission;

and on modi®cations to the project designed

to mitigate environmental im pacts. Finally, a

num ber of conclu sions abo ut the nature of

the UK E A process are drawn and several

recommendations for im provement are made.

Environmental Impact Assessment

EIA is a systematic procedure for consider-

ing the possible effects of a proposed project on the environment before a decision is made

on whether the project should be given ap-

pro val to proceed. Consu ltation and partici-

pati on are integr al to this procedure, wh ich

originated in the US in 1970 with the im-

plem entation of the National Env ironmental

Policy Act (Caldwell, 1989; Glasson et al.,

1994; Wood, 1995). This act can now be

seen to have anticipated the world’s concern about sustainable development, inter-genera-

tional equity, resou rce usage and the inte-

gration of environmental considerations into

decision-making generally (World Com-

mission on Environment and Development,

1987). EIA has subsequently been adopted

by numerous developed, and developing,

countries (Gilpin, 1995). Environmental im-

pact assess ment can also be applied to poli-ci es, pl ans and p rogram mes (see, for

example Glasson 1995; Wood 1995)

stages (not all of which are statutory require

ments):

Ð determ ining wh ether an EA is necessary i

a particular case (screening);

Ð deciding on the coverage of the EA (scop

ing); Ð describing the project and the environmen

in the ES;

Ð assessin g the magnitu de and sign i®canc

of impacts in the ES;

Ð pr esenting alternatives and mitig ati o

measures in the ES;

Ð review ing the ES;

Ð consultat ion and participation;

Ð syn thesising the ®ndings fr om con sultatioand reaching a decision; and

Ð mon ito ring the im pacts of a pr oject if it i

implemented.

Within Europe, the effect of EIA on sitin

decisions, while marked, has been gradua

rather than revolutionary:

Whilst a sizeable proportion of project

has been modi®ed to reduce their negativenvironmental impacts, in many cases th

mitigation measures used were only o

m inor or m oderate environm enta

signi®cance (Lee, 1995, p. 81).

In other countries, there has been a genera

consensus that the bene®ts of EIA outweig

its costs (Wood, 1995; Sadler, 1996). O

those taking part in a lar ge international sur

vey, 70 per cent believed that EIA always ooften contributed to more informed decision

making and 54 per cent felt that EIA pre

vented environmental damage. They also fe

that EIA conf erred im po rtant bene®t s beyon

informing decision-makers such as increas

ing environmental awareness and improvin

pr ofession al capabili ties (S adler, 1996 ).

EIA and decision-making. The literature concerning decision-making identi®es two type

of decision making model (Simon 1948


3/22

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND UK PLA NNING DECISIONS 123

set of explicit goals and alternative courses

of action and therefore to select the `best’

course of action to achieve the stated goals,

using the relevant data and criteria. The be-

havioural model recogn ises that in reality

hum an know ledge is often incomplet e, that the val ues that und erlie ob jectives are not

always shared, and that the capacity for ratio-

nal analysis of alter natives in complex situa-

tions is limited. Go als ar e therefore not well

de®ned (and are potentially con¯icting) so

that decisio n-m akers at tem pt to balance

con¯icting interests as best they can (Simon,

1948; Cohen and Cyert, 1965). These models

can be, and have been, related to decision-

making in the EIA process (Culhane et al .,

1987). The EIA process contains elements of

the tw o types of model and can be view ed as

a hybrid situation. Decision-making within

the EIA pr oce ss of ten involves many individ-

uals and can be very complex. The decision

will usually be in¯uenced by political press-

ure as well as by the environmental advan-

tages/d isad vantages of the propo sal in

question (Culhane et al., 1987; Kobus andLee, 1993).

Culhane et al. (1987) considered how EIA

could improve decision-making within the

US EIA system and described thr ee mod els.

The `r ational-objective model’ holds that the

documentation should be technically in-

formed, reasonably thorough and, most im-

por tant, unbiased . The use of mem bers of

different professions operating within a stan-dard procedure for decision-making should

make the process more ef®cient and is the

essence of the `internal reform model’. The

`external reform model’ focuses on external

pressures that reinforce environmental values

within decision-making. These three models

are all relevant to the UK situation where

elements of all are seen within local planning

authority decision-making.

ceived much greater emphasis from centra

gover nment since 1990 ( Her Majesty’

Government, 1990). Recently, the govern

ment has stressed the role of the plannin

system in achieving sustainable developmen

(Her Majesty’s Government, 1994). This rol has been given sub stance by new requir e

ments to integrate environmental consider

ations into all development plans (Davoudi e

al., 1996) and to subject plans to an environ

mental appraisal, and by the publication o

planning po licy guidance (e.g. Department o

the Env ironmentÐ Do E, 19 92).

T he basis of the UK plan ning system rest

in the right of central and local governmen

to cont rol all develo pm ent (i ncludin

changes in the use of land). All plannin

decisions must be made in accord with th

relevant development plan unless `materia

considerations’ indicate otherwise. In prin

ciple, therefore, environmental consider

ations are taken into account in considerin

all planning applications (Blowers, 1993). I

addition, certain development projects whic

are likely to have signi®cant environmentaeffects must also be subject to a separate EA

This is because the Euro pean directive o

EIA has been implemented in the UK b

means of various regulations, of which th

pr ovisions of the Town and Coun try Plan

ning (A ssessm ent of Enviro nmental Eff ects

Regu lations 1988, as am ended, for E nglan

and W ales apply to far m ore pro je ct

than those of all the other regulations pu together.

DoE has speci®ed that, when determinin

a planning application, the LPA must hav

regard to all the environmental informatio

(the ES, any further relevant information

and comments received upon the ES and th

application) as well as to other material con

siderations (DoE, 1988). It is a requiremen

that, in addition to normal planning consu lta tio ns, various bod ies be con sul ted wh en a

E A is under taken ( English N ature th


4/22


EA in the form of circulars and guidance

(DoE, 1988, 1989, 1994, 1995a; Land Use

Consultants, 1994a). In addition, LPAs have

been advised that ªconditions attached to a

grant of planning permission may incorpor-

ate mitigation measures proposed in an en-vironmental statementº (DoE, 1995b, para.

77).

Decisions on planning applications are

made by LPAs, but there is a right of appeal

against refusal. Appeal (and `called-in’) deci-

sions are taken by central government fol-

lowing a public inquiry chaired by a planning

inspector. Because LPAs deal with large

num bers of pl ann ing applications, the elected

members of planning committees normally

(but not always) accept the recommendations

of planning of®cers without signi®cant dis-

cussion (Cullingworth and Nadin, 1994;

Essex, 1996). However, the relative weight

given to environmental and to economic de-

velopment objectives by of®cers and elected

members will vary from place to place ac-

cording to local circumstances and the result-

ing political orthodoxy (Tewdwr-Jones,1995). Planning applications accompanied by

ESs would be expected to be more contro-

versial than routine applications. In such

cases, therefore, politicians might be ex-

pected to diff er more than usu al fr om their

of®cers in the weights they place on the

various relevant material considerations

(Kitchen, 1996).

The governm ent has stated that it expectsEA to yield certain bene®ts:

Environmental assessment techniques can

help bo th develo per s and public authorities

with environmental responsibilities to

identify likely effects at an early stage, and

thus to im pr ove the quality of both pr oject

planning and decision-making (D oE ,

1988, para. 7).

EA can affect planning decisions both di-

rectly and indirectly

tent, teno r and recommendatio ns of a plan

ning of®cer’s report to the plan nin

committee. Secondly, it may in¯uence th

nature of the decisio n made by the plan nin

committee. Thirdly, the L PA m ay attach con

ditions to any per mission w hich can bin¯uenced by the EA. Finally, EA can als

af fect the nature of the project throug

modi®cations to mitigate its environmenta

impacts. These m odi®cations may be made a

any of the stages of the EA process, from th

consideration of alternatives to the monitor

ing of impacts. These modi®cations may, o

course, themselves in¯uence the LPA’s de

cision about the planning application.

Indirect in¯uence of EA on decision-making

EA may also affect LPA planning decision

indirectly by way of the comments (whethe

written or otherwise) of those consulted b

the LPA, and of others who choose to partic

pate. These comments often have an im po rt

ant in¯uence on LPA planning decisions an

can be consciously ( or unconsciouslyin¯uenced by the EA and, in particular, b

the ES. On the other hand, some com ment

to the LPA may make no reference to th

EA.

Previous Studies of EA and LPA Decision

making

Un ravelling the various facets of decisi onmaking about planning applications ac

companied by an ES is clearly dif®cult. It i

therefore not sur pr ising that little speci®

guidance is provided by the existing litera

ture. Studies that have been un dert aken o

the EA pr ocess wi thin the UK , includ ing th

stages relevant to aspects of decision-mak

ing, include:

Ð Lam bert and Wood (1 99 0), on the basis o

3 detailed case studies;


5/22


sis of 32 extractive industry EAs for appli-

cations submitted b etween 1988 and 1991;

Ð Fro st (1 99 4), using a sample of 30 case

studies;

Ð L ee et al. (1994), on the basis of a re-

examination of previous cases and a num-ber of further case studies;

Ð Nelso n (199 4) (see also Land Use Consul -

tants, 199 4b), an analysis of a sam ple of

30 ESs;

Ð Fuller and Binks (1995 ), based on replies

to a qu estionnaire distr ibuted for the In ter-

nation al Associa tion of Im pact Assess -

ment study on the effectiveness of EA;

Ð Jones and Wood (1 995), usi ng a sample of

10 EA cases subject to public inquiry;

Ð L eu et al. (1995), using a sample of 167

local authorities;

Ð Glasson et al. (1996), examining ES qual-

ity based on a sample of 25 matched pairs;

and

Ð Hughes and Wood (1 996), based on a

study of 5 formal and 5 informal ESs.

These studies have yielded impor tant resul ts

relating to the different aspects of the direct

and indirect in¯uences of EA on decision-

making outlined above.

In¯uence of EA on planning of®cers’ reports.

During the early years of the EA process in

the UK , Wood and Jon es (1 991, 1992) re-

vealed that the majority of the LPAs needed to requ est info rmation additional to that pro-

v id ed in th e E S t o m eet t heir d ecisio n-

making needs. This was reinforced by Kobus

and Lee (1993) and complemented by Jones

and Wood (1995) who found that planning

inspectors also often requested additional in-

formation to supplement the ES in inquiry

cases. In a more recent study, Hughes and

Wood (1996) reported that all the planningof®cers’ reports contained a summary of the

main ®ndings of the ES and also outlined the

familiar with, the recommended EA pro

cedure contained in DoE guidance.

Jones and Wood (1 995) fo und that plan

ning inspe ctor s also make use of ESs i

drawing up their reports, but that the ES wa

generally given less weight than the add tio nal evidence pr esented at the inquir y.

In¯uence of EA on planning committee deci

sions. An early study by Lambert and Woo

(1990) reported that LPA response to EA

was very variable and that decisions ap

peared of ten to have lit tle regard to th

®ndings of the EA. However, Kobus and Le

(1993) reported that in about 50 per cent o

cases the LPA judged the ES, and the result

of consultations based upon it, to be of im

port ance in determ ining the planning appl

cation. They also found that the returns from

consultations were more likely to be `ver

important’ in determining the planning appli

cation than the content of the ES . Interest

ingly, other material considerations wer

judged to be more impor tant than enviro n

mental considerations in determining plan ning applicati ons in the major ity of cases

Lee et al . (1994) found that other materia

considerations were considered to be mor

important in making decisions in more tha

half the cases. T hey also reported that bo t

the contents of the ES and the consulte

comments based upon it were considere

important in reaching planning decisions i

up to 30±45 per cent of cases.Nelson (1994) reported that 23 per cent o

LPAs found the ES to be of `much’ assist

ance in decision-making. S ixty per cent o

LPAs believed the ES had been of `some

assistance, with 14 per cent saying it ha

been of `little’ assistance and 3 per cent o

`no’ assistance. In 1995, Fuller and Bink

reported that 68 per cent of a wide range o

EA practitioners held the view that EA `always’ or `often’ contributed to more in

formed decision making Glasson et a


6/22


ES to have had `little’ or `no in¯uence’. In a

more recent study, Hughes and Wood (1996)

reported that, in the majority of cases, the

plan ning of®cers and the developers believed

that bo th the contents of the ESs and the

comments arising from consultations had an important in¯uence on the decisions. In all

cases, the planning of®cers believed that the

ES was an aid to decision-making.

In their consideration of EA cases involv-

ing planning inquiries, Jones and Wood

(1995) found that the results from consulta-

tions based upon the ES and the pl anning

application were often as important as the ES

in making the decision (and sometimes more

so).

In¯uence of EA on planning conditions.

There has been very little pu blished on the

use of planning conditions to formalise the

commitments made i n ES s or the suggestions

arising from EA consultations. Jones and

Wood (1995) found that environmental con-

ditions were imposed in all four cases where plan ning perm ission was gr anted fo llow ing a

pub lic inqu iry. These related most fr equently

to landscaping followed by noise control.

In¯uence of EA on project modi®cations.

Wood and Jones (1991, 1992), together with

Kobus and Lee (1993), found that nearly

tw o- thirds of pr ojects were modi®ed as a

r esult o f th e E A p ro cess b ut th at t he semodi®cations were often of a minor nature.

However, a later study indicated that, in the

opinion o f the LPA of®cers involved, around

50 per cent of projects were modi®ed to

some degree on the basis of the ES and the

consultations associated with i t (L ee et al.,

1994). Similarly, Frost (1994) found that 50

per cent of 30 pro jects were `m aterially’

altered during the post-submission stage of the EA process, and Jon es and Wood (1 995)

found that 7 of a sample of 10 cases were

sions, to determine whether any real trend

over time are discernible. However, it ap

pears that, in the opinion of planning of ®cer

there may have been an increase in the pr o

port ion of cases in wh ich the conten ts of th

ES were considered important in reachin the decision. On the other hand, ther e ma

have been a decrease in the pro portion o

cases in which consultations were considere

important (Lee et al., 1994).

Methodology

This research involved 40 EA cases draw

from throughout Great Britain. All the case

were selected utilising several criteria. Cr

teria relating to pr oject type and DoE regio

were applied so that the sample re¯ected th

overall population of planning cases wher

EA w as required in Great Britain as at Marc

1993 (utilising existing EIA Centre infor

mation on ESs). The sample was also sub

divided to include cases where plannin

perm ission was either gr anted or refu sed an

where cases were subsequently dealt wit thro ugh the appeal/call-in pr ocess. The se

lected cases related to initial decisions mad

by the LPAs during three time-periods: Jul

1988±June 1990 (13 cases); July 1990±Jun

1992 (14 cases); and July 1992±June 199

(13 cases). These three time-periods wer

chosen to investigate whether increasing ex

perience of EA had any effect on plan nin

decisions. Half of the cases were selectewhere permission was granted by the LPA

with the remainder being divided betwee

cases where permission was refused and th

application was not taken further, and case

which went to appeal or were called-in b

the appr opr iate Secretar y of State.

T he 40 cases included 17 diff erent types o

pr oject, of wh ich 6 fell within Schedule 1 t

the Regulations and 34 wi thin Schedule 2 The Schedule 1 pr ojects covered a majo

power station an installation dealing wi t


7/22


plan t, ur ban developments (8), a cable car,

local roads (2), a pipeline installation, a yacht

marina, waste disposal installations (8), a

hotel com plex and a motor race track.

The 40 pr op osed pr ojects were located in

the Eastern (4), East Midlands (5) No rthern (3), North-West (4), South-East (4), South-

West (3), West Midlands (5), and Yorkshire

and Humberside (4) regions and in Scotland

(5) and Wales (3). The types of LPAs in-

volved were 15 county councils, 18 district

councils, 4 metropolitan district councils, 2

development corporations and a national

park authority. The 40 cases are believed to

be suf®ciently representative of the UK

pop ulation of planning EA cases, in term s of

pro ject type, DoE region, local pl anning

authority, etc., for any conclusions drawn

from their analysis to be broadly applicable

to the wider domain .

A master questionnaire was designed to

elicit information about the in¯uence of EA

on various aspects of LPA decision-making,

and from this several shorter questionnaires

were prepared, each designed for use with a particular grou p/o rg ani sation within the EA

pro cess. The questionnair es designed for

plan ning of®cers were used duri ng face-to-

face interviews and a visit to each planning

authority was combined with scrutiny of the

plan ning ®l e. Prior to each visit, the ES,

plan ning of®cer’s report and LPA decision

notice were read and relevant info rmati on

was recorded. Usi ng the info rmation obtained fr om the

plan ning ®le, the other main participants in

the EA pr ocess were in terv iewed by tele-

pho ne, using the appr opria te questionnaire.

These includ ed statutory EA consultees, con -

sultancies who had undertaken the EA, major

pub lic interest gr oups and local actio n

groups.

All data from the questionnaires werecoded for analysis (frequency analyses.

cross tabulations and correlations to elicit

Evaluation of Environmental Statement

by Planning Of®cers

LPA evaluation of the ES. The majority (9

per cent) of the local plan ning of®cers mad

some evaluation of the E S, and this w a

generally through internal consultatiowithin the LPA (49 per cent). In three cases

Schedule 3 to the EA Regulations was use

as a checklist to assist in evaluation and in

further three cases both internal and externa

consultation took place. In the remainin

cases, various combinations of consultatio

and documentation were used.

Where the planning of®cers formed a view

as to the adequacy of the ES,1

72 per cenindicated that the ES was `adequate’ for de

cision-making purposes; in the other cases

the ES was felt to be `inadequate’.

Use of consultants by LPA. Most LPAs (7

per cent) did no t re tain exter nal consu ltancie

to assist them in evaluating the info rmatio

contained within the ES. In two cases, th

Institute of Environmental Assessment waretained (the LPAs concerned becomin

members of the Institute for the express pur

pose of ob taining review s of the ESs). Th

external consultancy’s appraisal of the E

was `very in¯uential’ in framing the plannin

of®cers’ recommendations in ®ve of the nin

cases. However, the appraisal by the consul

tancy had `no in¯uence’ on the desig n of th

pr oject in seven of the nine cases.

LPA consultations on ES and planning appl

cation. Formal consultations by the LPA fo

lowing submission of the ES and plannin

application should take place with a variet

of consultees in all instances (DoE, 1989

However, as shown in Table 1, this was no

always true for the cases in this study. Th

relevance of the project to the interests of th`statutory EA consultees’ should be deter

mined by the consultees themselves but i


8/22


Table 1. Consultations undertaken by LPAs following submission of ES and planning application anresponses of consultees

Consultees

Other Major Nature statutory public interest

conservation Countryside EA localagencies Commission HMIP consultees action groups

Cases where LPAundertook 35 31 22 39 38consultation after (88) (82) (55) (98) (95)submission of ESand PA

Cases where aresponse was 35 21 18 39 38

made to LPA (100) (68) (82) (100) (100)consultation

Cases whereconsultees made 27 10 12 35 26speci®c comment (77) (47) (67) (90) (69)on the ES in response to LPAconsultation

Notes: Figures in parenthesis are percentages.HMI P is only a statutory EA consultee for cases involving mining ope rations, manuf acturing industry o

disposal of waste w hich are likely to g ive rise to radio-active or special waste or wo rks likely to give ris to particular emissio ns.Other statutory EA consultees include National Rivers Autho rity (now part of the E nvironment AgencyHealth and Safety Executive, water companies and relevant local authorities.

Countryside Commission, HMIP and their

equivalentsÐwere less likely to be consulted

than the more traditional planning consultees

and the public.

Where consultation took place, a responsewas not always forthcoming from all groups

of consulteesÐspeci®cally, the Countryside

Commission and HMIP (Table 1). The varia-

bility in response was governed by the par-

ticular interests of the consu ltee gro ups and

whether the projects in question were likely

to have a direct effect on these inter ests.

Not all responses from consultees included

speci®c comments relating to the ES (see Table 1). Tho se most likely to pr ovide suc h

comments were the other statutory EA con

adequate for decision-making purposes, fur

ther information was requested in 68 per cen

of cases. In these cases, this was mainly (8

per cent) done in an info rmal or voluntar

manner without invoking any regulation The speci®c clause in the EA Regulation

relating to requests for further informatio

was used on three occasions and the power

conferred on LPAs by the General Develop

ment Order once. In the majority of cases (8

per cent), on ly on e request for fu rther info r

mation was made, although in 19 per cent o

cases between two and ®ve separate request

were made. Analysis revealed that furtheinformation was more likely (90 per cent o

cases) to be requested where the plannin


9/22


one or more of the consultees in half of the

cases. Of the remainder, requests arose solely

from the LPA in 38 per cent of the cases and

solely from the consultees in 12 per cent of

the cases.

The info rmation requested was quitevaried in range but related most often to:

Ð landscape and visual issu es (33 per cent of

cases);

Ð ecology (33 per cent);

Ð highw ays issues (26 per cent);

Ð noise (22 per cent);

Ð design and layout of the project (22 per

cent);

Ð em issions and wastes rising fr om the pr oj-ect (22 per cent);

Ð hyd ro logy (15 per cent); and

Ð restor ation and after-use (15 per cent).

The info rmati on was generall y (in 89 per

cent of cases) provided by the developer or

consultant, although in one case the supplier

queried the necessity of the request. Where

the requ ested info rmation was not supplied,

the planning author ity did no t pu rsue the

matter, because it intended to refuse the ap-

plic ation anyw ay and anticipated an appeal.

The fu rther info rmation was also dis-

tributed to certain of the statutory EA consu l-

tees in some of the cases. 2 The natu re

conservation agencies (in 57 per cent of

cases) and the major public interest groups

and local action groups (in 46 per cent of

cases) were more likely to receive the further information than the other consultees (in

only 24±29 per cent of cases). The nature

conservation agencies (in 77 per cent of

cases) and the major public interest groups

and local action groups (in 64 per cent of

cases) w er e much more likely to make a

response to the LPA.

In¯uence of EA on Planning Of®cers’ Re-ports

reports, while 26 per cent merely mentione

the exi stence of the ES (F igure 1) . Ho we ver

a further 26 per cent of reports summarise

the contents of the ES and in 16 per cent o

cases the contents of the ES were used t

pr ovide the structure of the planning of® cer’own report. In seven of cases, the infor

mation contained in the ES was conveyed t

the planning committee by supplying bo t

the planning of®cer’s repo rt and the ESÐo

parts of it. In on e case, the committ ee re

ceived the of®cer’s report together with a

extensive formal presentation of the issue

involved.

T he main trend in the presentation of th

contents of the ES in planning of®cers’ re

ports ov er time was the increase in the distr

bution of the ES itself (or parts of the ES

including the non-technical summary) to th

committee. In only 8 per cent of cases i

1988±90 was the ES distributed to the com

mittee; in 1990±92 it was 15 per cent; and i

1992±94 it was 31 per cent.

T he results of consu ltations on the plan

ning applic ation and ES were generall y summarised in the planning of®cers’ reports (8

per cent of cases) (F igure 1). In one case, th

consultation results were merely mentioned

and in 13 per cent of cases, the consultation

were used to structure the report itself.

An evaluation of the weight given to th

content of the ES in the planning of®cers

reports was undertaken by calculating th

pr oportion of the report dealing with the Econtent (Figure 2). In nearly three-quarter

(74 per cent) of the cases in this sample, les

than on e-®f th of the repo rt dealt with th

content of the ES. Only two reports (5 pe

cent) devoted more than 50 per cent of th

report to the ES. T here was little change ove

tim e in the pr op ortion of space devoted to th

ES in of®cers’ reports.

When the planning of®cers’ reports weranalysed in a similar way for the number o

pages covering the consultations a diff eren


10/22


Figure 1. Presentation of the content of ESs and the consultations in planning of®cers’ reports.

tions. In just ov er one-qu arter of cases, dis-

cussion of the results of consultations took

30±40 per cent of the report. In 13 per cent of

cases, the reports devoted 50 per cent or

more of their content to the consultations.

This pattern did not vary wi th time. Gener-

ally, those planning of®cers giving prominence to the ES in their reports also tend ed

to give sim ilar prom inen ce to consultat ion

returns.

Usefulness of ES and consultations to plan-

ning of®cers. Planning of®cers were asked

for their opinion about the usefulness of the

contents of the ES when reaching their rec-ommendations. The majority (63 per cent)

had found the ES to be either `v ery’ or

ES in reaching their recommendations re

mained consistent over time.

Statistical analysis revealed that the degre

of usefulness of the ES indicated by th

planning of ®cers in dr awing up their recom

mendations appeared not to be related to th

pr oportion of the planning of®cer’s repodevoted to the content of the ES (see above)

Presumably, those of®cers who indicated tha

the ES had been useful wh en reaching the

recommendations did not directly translat

this usefu lness into the wr iting of their re

ports and explicitly refer at length to th

content of the ES.

When asked for their opinion on the use

fulness of the results of the consultations o the ES and plan ning application, 68 per cen

of planning of®cers expressed the view tha


11/22

0

10

0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50+

Pages of report (percentage of whole)

ESs Consultations

P e r c e n t a g e o f p l a n n i n g o f f i c e r s © r e p o r t s

20

30

40

50


Figure 2. Proportions of planning of®cers’ reports devoted to ESs and consultations.

regarding the consultations as `very’ or `rea-

sonably useful’ did not alter with time. The

consultations on the ES and planning appli-

cation w ere f elt over all to have been of

slightly more use to the planning of®cers

than the ES itself. This is perhaps not sur pr is-ing given that ESs often contain technical

details which planning of®cers are not al-

ways fully trained (or suf®ciently experi-

enced) to handle adequately. A nalysis

indicated that the consultation returns re-

ceived more prominence in the planning

of®cers’ reports (see above) where these re-

turns were regard ed as useful by the pl anning

of®cer.

Weight given to ES and consultations in

plannin g of®cers’ reco mm endations. The

plan ning of®cers were asked for thei r op in-

ion about the weight given to the contents of

the ES in their re com m endations (F igure 3).

Over one-third (35 per cent) of the of®cersquestioned felt that in drawing up their rec-

ommendations they gave `substantial’ or

gave the ES `no weight at all’. There wa

little variation in this pattern over time.

Planning of®cers’ responses tended t

con®rm the independent evaluation that th

ES was not given great weight in plannin

of®cers’ reports (see above). Where of®cerindicated that more than `marginal’ weigh

had been given, this was not apparent in th

number of pages dealing wi th the ES in the

reports. However, those planning of®cer

who indicated that `marginal’ or `no weight

had been given to the ES contents tended t

re¯ect this in the proportion of their report

devoted to the E S. It appea rs th at t h

in¯uence of the content of the ES on plan ning of®cers was achieved thro ugh the sup

ply of info rmati on wh ich, in turn, in¯uen ce

opinion about planning applications.

T he plann ing of ®cers stated th at the result

of the consultations on the ES and plannin

application were given `substantial’ or `con

siderable’ weight in framing their recommen

dations in nearly one-half (48 per cent) of th

cases (Figure 3). This was generally greate than the weight they gave to the ES. Th

remaining planning of®cers stated that the


12/22

0

10

Substantia l Considerable Some/

Moderate

Marginal None No comment

Officers© opinions o f influence

ES Consultations

P e r c e n t a g e o f r e p o r t s

20

30

40


Figure 3. Planning of®cers’ opinions about the in¯uence of ESs and consultations in recommendation

and ES were undertaken by the planningauthority with a wide range of bodies. The

plan ning of®cers were asked to indicate the

speci®c in¯uence that the comme nts received

from these different bodies had on their rec-

ommendations (Figure 4). The results are

presented as a percentag e of the total com-

ments (expressed in brackets) received from

each group. Those with most in¯uence were

reported to be major public interest groupsand local action groups (37 cases) and other

statutory EA consultees (39 cases). The na-

ture conserv ation agencies (33 cases) and

HMIP (14 cases) were reported to have had

similar in¯uence, whilst the Countryside

Commission (17 cases) had the least. There

appeared to have been a slight decrease in

the in¯uen ce of comments fr om all consu l-

tees ov er tim e.

one-®fth (8) of cases, the LPA decision waachieved within the statutory 16 weeks. Afte

eight months a decision had been made i

nearly tw o- thirds of the cases (66 per cent

and after a year 82 per cent of the cases ha

been decided. A ll the cases had been decide

after two and a half years.

T he decision made by the planning com

mittee was the same as that recommended b

the planning of®cer in 97 per cent of casesIn one case, the planning of®cer recom

mended granting planning permission, bu

this recommendation was ov erturned by th

planning committee who refused the appl

cation (which was ®nally approved on ap

peal).

When asked for their opinion as to th

overriding factor in¯uencing the decision b

the com mittee, ov er one-thir d of plan ninof®cers (37 per cent) indicated the environ

ment (Figure 5) This was followed by exist


13/22

EN0

20

40

60

80

10 0

P e r c e n t a g e o f c o m m e n

t s

CC HMIP

Consultees

O SCs Public group s

Very Reasonable Margina l Not at all No comment


Figure 4. In¯uence of consultees’ comments on planning of®cers’ recommendations. EN 5 EnglisNature. CC5 Countryside Commission, HMIP5 Her Maj esty’s I nspectorate of P ollution. OSCs5 othe

statutory consultees; (or equivalents in Scotland and Wales, in each case).

for the development; or the economic regen-

eration of an areaÐwere cited.

The reasons advanced in the LPA decision

notices were generally standard plann ing ar-

guments for granting or refusing planning

permission. Where perm ission was gr anted

the main reasons were that:

Ð a balance could be achieved bet ween en-

vironmental issues and economic/develop-

ment issues;

Ð there was a need for developm ent or that

there we re no reason( s) to refu se; and

Ð bene® ts wo uld accrue to the local econ -

omy/infrastructure/employment from the

development.

A greater variety of reasons was given for

those cases wh ere the LPA refu sed per

the sample the inadequacy of info rmatio

supplied in the ES on environmental impact

was quoted as one of the reasons for refusa

Weight given to ES and consultations i

planning comm ittee dec isio ns. The plannin

of®cers, together with others involved in th

EA process for the cases, were asked fo their view s on the im po rtance of the E S t

the decision made by the planning committe

( Figure 6). Consultants believed mo

strongly in the importance of the ES in plan

ning decisions, with 44 per cent indicatin

that they felt the ES to have been `v ery’ o

` reaso nab ly im por tant’. T he p lan nin

of®cers, together with developers, member

of major public interest groups and locaaction groups and of®cers from the natur

conservation agencies felt that the ES was o


14/22

60

ES Consultations

P e r c e

n t a g e o f c a s e s © v e r y / r e a s o n a b l y © i n f l u e n t i a l

20

40

80


Figure 5. Planning of®cers’ opinions of main factors in¯uencing decisions.

groups questioned in this study felt that the

ES had only been of `marginal importance’

or indeed `not at all important’ to the de-

cision in the majority of cases and this

changed little over time. These ®ndings are

not sur pr ising given the technical nature of

many ESs; traditionally, members of plan-

ning committ ees rely heavily on pl anningof®cers to present the salient facts concern-

ing applications and tend to seek little direc

access to the documentation themselves.

When planning of®cers and consultee

were also asked for their views on the im

port ance of the results of the consultation

concerning the ES and planning applicatio

on the committee’s decision, all indicate

that such consu ltations were mor e impo rtan to the eventual decision than the ES (F igur


15/22


Figure 7. Planning of®cers’ opinions of effect of EA on decisions.

6). Planning of®cers believed that the consul-

tation returns were most import ant, with just

over three-quarters (78 per cent) indicating that they were `v ery’ or `r eason ably im port-

ant’ to the decision. This view was matched

by major public interest groups and local

action groups (64 per cent) and consultants

(60 per cent). T he remaining groups attached

rather less importance to the consultations,

but in all cases f elt that they w er e more

important than the ES to the decision. This

indicates the reliance on the `expert opinion’of the consultees by planning committees

(and by planning of®cers in making their

recommendations).

Many of the respondents from the consul-

tee or ganisatio ns were un able to give an

opinion on the importance of either the E S or

the consu ltations in the decision , as they had

had little invo lvement in the cases after the

formal LPA consultation stage. For example,between 50 and 70 per cent of of®cers from

English Nature the Countryside Commission

desire to be better informed on the progres

of cases through the planning system. 5

Effect of EA on decision outcomes. Plannin

of®cers’ responses, on being asked whethe

the outcome of the decisio n on the develop

ment would have been different if an EA ha

not been undertaken, are summarised in Fig

ure 7. Only one planning of®cer stated tha

the decisio n wo uld have been reversed without the EA (i.e. refused rather than granted)

Nearly half of the planning of®cers (47 pe

cent) felt that there would have been n

difference at all to the decision, whilst th

remainder (50 per cent) felt that although th

outcome itself would not have been differen

without the EA, other bene®ts relating t

more information on environmental issue

and the setting of conditions would not havexisted. This indication that undertaking a

EA improves the availability of informatio


16/22


Table 2. Main environmental planning conditions imposed by LPAs(for 20 cases)

Conditions Number (and percentage) of casesconcerning where condition included

Landscaping 15 (75)Noise 14 (70)

Restor ation issues 9 (45)Nature conservation 7 (35)Dust 7 (35)Drainage and water quality 4 (20)Archaeology 3 (15)Bunding 2 (10)Odours/fumes 2 (10)

Remo val of existing mat erial/Site survey 2 (10)

Emissions to air 2 (10) Use of ES 2 (10)

In¯uence of EA on Planning Conditions

The planning decisi on notices for the 20

cases granted planning permission by the

LPA were examined to establish the main

types of environment al cond itions attache d.All 20 of the permissions speci®ed some

environmental conditions and the details are

shown in Table 2.

The enviro nm ental cond ition s (as opposed

to those relating to site design, operation,

access, etc.) most likely to be included were

those relating to lan dscaping (o ne of the most

common conditions imposed on all planning

permissions) and noise. Just und er half of the20 cases included conditions concerned with

the restoration of the site and in over one-

third of cases nat ure conserv ation issu es and

measures to deal with dust were included.

Interestingly, the conditions for two of the

cases contained direct reference to the ES

and indicated that the measures contained

therein were to be fo llow ed.

In the 19 cases where direct comparison between the planning of®cer’s report and the

decision was possible 6 it was found that in

in 11 per cent of cases the actual condition

were speci®ed in greater detail than those se

out by the planning of®cer, and in 5 per cen

of cases additional conditions were speci®ed

In¯uence of EA on Project Modi®cations

Projects rarely pass through the plannin

pr ocess with out some modi®cations takin

place, du e either to cost, desig n and othe

non- envir onmental factors or to the nee d t

render the project less environmentally harm

ful. Planning of®cers, developers and consul

tants were asked to indicate how manmodi®cations had been made to the develop

ments in question and their responses ar

summarised in Figure 8.

In just over one-®fth of 37 cases in th

study,7 modi®cations were made both prio

to the sub mission of the ES and after it

submission. Modi®cations took place solel

pr ior to E S subm ission in just und er on e

third (31 per cent) of cases and only after Esubmission in one-sixth (16 per cent) of th

cases However in just under one third (3


17/22


Figure 8. Numbers of m odi®cations to cases and stages at which they occurred.

they used led to any mod i®cation s.8 Several

forms of guidance were indicated, either

solely or in combination, including the UK

EA regulations, the European EIA Directive,

other similar ESs and previous experience.

W here guidance was used, it led to

modi®cations in 28 per cent of the cases. The

work involved in ES preparationÐas distinct

from cost or other factorsÐled to modi®-cations to the project in 72 per cent of cases.

In all, pre-ES submission modi®cations w ere

made as a consequence of undertaking the

EA process in 79 per cent of cases.

Developers and consultants were ques-

tioned regarding any modi®cations arising

from the scoping stage. In the ®ve cases

where the developer undertook scoping with

the consu ltancy retain ed, modi®catio ns arosein two cases. Of the seven cases where topics

were suggested by the Countryside Com

the other EA statutory consultees (48 pe

cent of cases), and the major public interes

groups and local action groups (30 per cen

of cases), these led to modi®cations in ap

pr oximately on e-third of these cases. In non

of the cases in this sample did topics sug

gested by HMIP at the scoping stage lead t

modi®cations.

T he no n- statutory info rmal consultationundertaken by the LPA with consultees prio

to ES sub mission led to project mod i®catio n

in o nly o ne o f th e 10 case s w here su c

consultation took place.

Modi®cations also arose from topics sug

gested by the consultees to the LPA durin

formal consultations on the planning appl

cation and E S. A s stated above, modi®

cations were less likely to arise at this stagin the EA process. Modi®cations occurred i

35 per cent of cases w here the other statutor


18/22


arose from comments received from the

Countryside Commission.

Two of the plann ing of®cers interviewed

expressed the view that ªmitigation measures

are often neglected in the EA process, partic-

ularly at the early project design stageº.Analysis over the time-periods of the

study shows that modi®cations were made

more often at the pre-ES submission stage

during 1992±94 (in 75 per cent of 12 cases)

than during 1988±9 0 (in 33 per cent of 12

cases). However, it appears that the pattern

of modi®cations made after submission of

the ES but pr ior to the decisio n has remained

unchanged.

Conclusions

This stu dy has show n that the effect of EA

on planning decisions has been gradual

rather than revolutionary. Rather than alter-

ing the outcomes of planning decisions, its

main bene®ts are the enhanced provision of

information about the environmental conse-

quences of actions to decision-makers and, toa lesser extent, assistance in the setting of

conditions and in modifying proposals. How-

ever, these bene®ts are not occurring in all

cases, and the expected advantages of EAÐ

b ett er p roj ect p lan ning an d d ecisio n-

makingÐare not yet being fully realised in

the UK . The exper ience of the in¯u ence of

EA on planning decisions in the UK tends to

re¯ect international practice (Lee, 1995;

Wood, 1995; Sadler, 1996).

It is notable that the planning of®cer’s

recommendation was accepted by the plan-

ning committee in virtually ever y case and

that an extensi ve fo rmal pr esent ation to the

committee was only deemed necessary in

one case. I t is apparent that E A has not

pro ved as controver sial as anticip ated. EA

would have been more effective if i t had

been introduced less seamlessly into the UK plan ning syste m, since contro ver sy wo uld

their recommendations as to wheth er a pr o

ject sho uld receive planning perm ission

They gave consi der able weight to the ES i

drawing up their recommendations in ove

one-third of the cases, even if they did no

always explicitly refer to the ES. Planninof®cers, together with developers and mem

bers of major public interest groups and loca

action groups, believed that planning com

mittees gave considerable weight to the con

tents of the ES wh en re aching their decision

in about one-third of the cases. This rein

forces the ®ndings of earlier work (Kobu

and Lee, 1993; Lee et al., 1994; Glasson e

al., 1996; and H ughes and Wood, 1996

This use of ESs by L PA s in decisio n-makin

corresponds to Culhane et al.’ s ( 1987

`rational-objective model’ of reform (above

In¯uence of consultations on decision-mak

ing. The consultations undertaken on the E

appear to have been more in¯uential than th

ES during LPA decision-making. More tha

two- thirds of planning of® cers regarded thes

consultations as being useful when drawinup their reports. They gave considerabl

weight to the consultation returns in drawin

up their recommendations in nearly half th

cases. The consultees themselves, and th

planning of®cers, also indicated their view

that the consu ltations carr ied considerabl

weight with planning committees when mak

ing a decision. Again, this result supports th

®ndings of earlier work by Kobus and Le(1993), Lee et al. (1994), Jones and Woo

(1995) and Hughes and Wood (1996). It thu

appears that Culhane et al.’s (1987) `externa

reform model’ of decision-making provides

partial explanati on of L PA behaviour.

In¯uence of EA on decision outcomes. Ove

one-third of planning of®cers indicated tha

environmental issues were the major factoin¯uencing the decision by the comm ittee. I

three of the cases the in adequacy of info r


19/22


of®cer stated that the decision outcome

would have been reversed without the EA.

Nearly half of the planning of®cers felt that

E A had made no diff er ence at all to the

decision, whilst the remaining half felt that,

although the decision itself would not havebeen different without the EA, other bene®ts

relating to information on environmental is-

sues and the setting of conditions had been

gained. This ®nding con®rms the results of a

recent survey by Fuller and Binks (1995).

The bene®t of increased info rmation on en-

vironmental issues corresponds to Culhane et

al.’s (1987) `rational-objective model’ of re-

form.

In¯uence of EA on planning conditions. En-

vironmental conditions were imposed by

LPAs in all the cases where planning per-

mission was granted. The most frequently

used conditions related to landscaping (one

of the most common conditions imposed on

all planning permissions) and noise, support-

ing the ®ndings of Jones and Wood (1995).

In¯uence of EA on project modi®cations. In

the 68 per cent of cases wh ere modi®catio ns

did occur, they were often only of a minor

natu re. This ®n ding tends to supp ort the

work of Wood and Jones (1991), Lee et al.

(1994), Frost (1994), Fuller and Binks (1995)

and Jones and Wood (1995). There also ap-

pears to have been an increase in pre-su b-

mission modi®cations. The guidance used to prepare ESs and the wo rk undertaken in

preparin g the ES had varying degr ees of

in¯uence on modi®cations to mitigate ad-

verse impacts. This provides evidence that

developers’ decision-making has been affec-

ted by Culhane et al.’s (1987) `internal re-

form model’.

Increasing the in¯uence of EA on LPA de-cision-making. The relatively minor impact

that EA has had thus far on decision making

ened guidance in the practical use of EA

speci®cally targeted at decision-making b

planning of®cers.

T his gu idance could speci®cally em ph a

sise the role of the ES, and EA more gener

ally, at the following stages: Ð in reaching re com m endations and prepar

ing planning of®cers’ reports (through uti

isation of the material in the ES

distribution of the ES or its non-technica

summary to the planning committee an

greater dialogue with consultees about th

content of ESs);

Ð decision-m aking (critical evaluation of th

material in ESs and of the results of consultations);

Ð settin g planning cond itions (u tilising th

contents of the ES and the results of con

sultations to set appropriate conditions t

minimise the impacts of the developmen

and contribute to enhancement of the en

vironment); and

Ð pr oject mod i®cations (by encour agin

greater use of modi®cations to mitigat

adverse impacts throughout the EA pro

cess).

Although recent guidance (Land Use Consul

tants, 1994 a; DoE, 199 5a) covers several o

the abo ve recommendations, it could usefu ll

be supplemented by further detail, includin

pr actical exam ples. There also appears to b

a need for the various participants in the EA

pr ocess, notab ly the EA consu ltees, to play greater role in in¯uencing outcomes, particu

larly during scoping, ES evaluation and de

cision-making. It is therefore apparent tha

further training of the various participants i

the EA pro cess is needed to ensur e that th

potential bene® ts of EA are more fu lly re

alised within the UK.

If the UK is to learn from internationa

experience, it will also need to strengthen it

EA systemÐi.e. to progress from a `Mark I

to a `M ark II’ system , as many countrie


20/22


sual in the national culture and (2) are

explicit in public law and policy.

It is therefore necessary not only to improve

the operation and nature of the EA system,

but also to ensure that it receives real public

and political endorsement. Only then will it

begin to ful®l its potential of ensuring that

UK planning decisions becom e more com-

pati ble wi th sustainability goals.

Notes

1. One planning of®cer declined to comment;in two cases, there was no evaluation of the

ES; in one case, the ES fed straight into a public inquiry.2 . I n A p ril 1 994, the E A R egu lati on s w er e

amended to require all further information requested as part of the EA procedures to becirculated to the statutory EA consultees for comment.

3. In two cases, no written of®cer report was prod uced. In one case, the decision was dele-gated to the planning of®cer concerned, and

the other case was called-in by the Se cretar y

of State.4. Two cases were called-in by the Secretary of State and no decision was made by the LPA.O ne of the 38 cases w as appealed on thegrounds of non-determination, but the plan-

ning auth ority in dicated the decision it would have reached.

5. In A pril 1994, LPAs w ere required, w hen granting planning permission, to include astatement in the decision notice to the effect

that the environm en tal information had been tak en in to consideration in rea ching the de-cision.

6 . O ne case w as d el eg ated t o t he p lan ni ngof®cer.

7. In the remaining three cases, it did not prove possible to ascertain information concer ningany modi®cations.

8. In two out of the 40 cases in the sample, it was not known what guidance was used, if any.

References

BLOWERS A (Ed ) (1993) Planning for a Sustain

COHEN , K. J. and CYERT, R. M. (1965) Theory othe Firm: Resource Allocation in a MarkEconomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HaInc.

C UL HA NE , P. J., F RIE SM A, H. P. and BEECHER, J. A(1987) Forecasts and Decision-making. ThContent and Predictive Accuracy of Environmental Impacts Statements. Bo uld er, C OWestview Press.

C ULLI NG WO RTH , J. B. and N ADIN , V. (1994) Towand Country Planning in Britain, 1 1th ed nLondon: Routledge.

DAVOUDI, S., H ULL, A. and HEALEY, P. (1996) Environmental consensus and economic impera

tives in strategic pl an-making, Town PlanninReview, 67, pp. 421±436.

DE PA RTMENT OF T HE ENVIRONMENT (1988

Environmental Assessment . C irc ular 1 5/8London: HMSO.

DE PA RTMENT OF T HE ENVIRONMENT (1989Environmental Impact AssessmentÐA Guide tthe Procedures. London: HMSO.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (1992) Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance. Planning Policy G uidance (PPG )1London: HMSO.

DE PA RTMENT OF T HE ENVIRONMENT (1994

Environmental Assessment: Amendment oRegulations. Circular 7/94. London: HMSO.

DE PA RTME NT O F T HE ENVIRONMENT (1995aPreparation of Environmental Statements foPlanning Projects that Require EnvironmentaAssessment . London: HMSO.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (1995b) ThUse of Conditions in Planning PermissionCircular 11/95. London: HMSO.

ESSEX , S. (1996) Mem bers and of®cers in th plann ing po licy process, in: M. TEWDWR- JONE(Ed.) British Planning P olicy in Transition, pp156±167. London: University College Londo

Press. F RO ST , R. (1994) Project design beyond environ

mental impact statements, in: R. T HERIVEL (Ed

Issues in Environmental Impact Assessmen pp. 17 ±48. Workin g Pa per 144, School of Plan ning, Ox fo rd Brookes University.

F UL LE R, K. and B INKS, M. (1995) The effective ness of en viro nmenta l assessm en t, Environmental Assessment , 3, pp. 88±89.

GILPIN , A. (1995) Environmental Impact Assessment: Cutting Edge for the Twenty-®rst Cen

tury. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGLASSON , J. (1995) Regional planning and th

environment: time for a SEA change Urba


21/22


(1996) Changes in the Quality of Environmen-tal A ssessm ent S ta tem ents fo r P la nning Projects. Department of the E nvironment, Lon-don: HMSO.

H ER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT (1990) This Com-mon Inheritance: Britain’s Environmental

Strat egy. Cm 1200. London: HMSO.H ER M AJESTY’S G OVERNMENT (1994) Sustainable

Development. The UK Strategy. Cm 2426. Lon-don: HMSO.

H UG HES , J. and W OO D, C. (1996) Formal and in-formal environmental assessment reportsÐ

their role in UK planning de cisions, Land UsePolicy, 13, pp. 101±113.

JONES, C. E. and W OO D, C. (1995) The impact of environmental assessment on public inquiry de-cisions, Journal of Planning and Environment Law , pp. 890±904.

K ITCHEN , T. (1996) Roles and responsibilities in the delivery of an effective planning service, in:Proceedings of the Town and Country Planning

Summ er School 19 96 , p p. 8 4± 86. L o nd on: Royal Town Plan ning Institute.

K OBUS, D. and LEE, N. (1993) The role of environ-mental assessment in the planning and authoris-ation of extractive industry projects, Project Appraisal , 8, pp. 147±156.

L AMBERT, A. and W OOD , C. (1990) UK implementation of the Eur opean Direct ive on EI AÐ spir it

or letter?, Town Planning Review , 61, pp. 247± 262.

L AN D U SE CONSULTANTS (1994a) Evaluation of Environmental I nformation for Planning Projects: A Good Practice Guide. Department of the Environment. London: HMSO.

L AN D U SE CONSULTANTS (1994b) Good Practiceon the Evaluation of Environmental Infor-mation for Planning Projects: Research Re-

port . Department of the Environment. LondonHMSO.

LEE , N. (1995) Environmental assessment in thEuropean Union: a tenth anniversary, ProjeAppraisal , 10, pp. 77±90.

LEE , N., W ALSH, F. and REEDER, G. (1994) Assesing the performance of the EA process, ProjeAppraisal , 9, pp. 161±172.

LEU , W -S., W ILLIAMS, W . P . a n d BARK, A. W(1995) An evaluation of the implementation oenvironmental assessment by UK local author

ties, Project Appraisal , 10, pp. 91±102.N ELSON , P. (1994) Better guidance for better E IA

Built Enviro nment , 20, pp. 280±293.SADLER, B. (1996) Environmental Impact Assess

ment in a Changing World: Final Report of thInternational Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment . Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

SIMON , H. A. (1948) Administrative Behavior: Study of Decision-m aking Processes in Ad mi nistrative Organization. New York: Macmillan

TEWDWR- JONES, M. (1995) Development controand the legitimacy of planning decisions, TowPlanning Review, 66, pp. 163±181.

W OOD , C. M. (1995) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. H arlowLongman.

W OOD , C. M. and JONES, C. E . (1991) Monitorin

Environmental Assessment and Planning . London: HMSO.

W OOD , C. M. and JONES, C. E. (1992) The impacof environmental assessment on local planninauthorities, Journal of Environmental Planninand Management , 35, pp. 115±127.

W ORLD COMMISSION ON E NVIRONMENT AND D EVELOPMENT (1987) Our Common Future. OxfordOxford University Press.


22/22

The Effect of Environmental Assessment on UK Local Planning Authority Decisions

Documents

Transcript of The Effect of Environmental Assessment on UK Local Planning Authority Decisions