EIA Quality Mark
Article
Mitigation need not always be a reaction solely to reduce impacts but can be a
precursor for much wider, sustainable benefits
At times as EIA practitioners we are often on the
back-foot on a project, fighting to devise mitigation
to reduce impacts to acceptable levels in the face of
seemingly insurmountable environmental
challenges. The situation may be compounded
because the proposal is already submitted under
the relevant planning regime, whether NSIP or
TCPA, thereby limiting the opportunity for any
further design changes through Regulation 22
(SI/660/2011) and associated SEI submissions.
Despite a thorough risk mitigation strategy, there is
also no crystal ball foretelling exactly how statutory
consultees will respond once planning has
commenced, despite pre-application consultations
that have indicated the general judgement of such
consultees. Consequently, we may be faced with
holding objections subject to further supplementary
clarifications. Under such circumstances, the
opportunity can emerge, with client support, for an
adjustment from solely seeking mitigation measures
to composing an environmental enhancement
programme previously unforeseen. Where the
determining authority is amenable to minor changes
to the proposal or ‘conditioning’ positive measures,
the outcome can be a resolution of conflicts with
the statutory consultee and an increase to the
planning merits of the proposal, ultimately shifting
the balance of the proposal in favour of securing a
positive determination.
Typically, as assessors we do seek design and
environmental improvements using EIA but there
are times, either through client limitations or
unforeseen circumstances, where the composition
of the best possible project is not always possible.
Only where the application then comes under
pressure is there a shift in circumstances, permitting
a new light to be shone on the project. As we delve
deeper in potential measures to avoid or reduce
environmental harm we find that EIA creates the
platform for new initiatives to emerge.
EIA practice needs at times therefore to
accommodate flexibility and creativity alongside its
typical procedural application. By means of an
example, the 3.5MegaWatt Cuckmere community
solar farm, located to the north west of Eastbourne
in East Sussex and approximately 3.5 miles north of
the South Downs National Park, was a spin-off from
a previous larger scheme, Berwick solar farm, which
was awarded permission in 2014 but for which the
northern section of the scheme (the Cuckmere site)
was removed owing to an English Heritage (now
Historic England) ‘setting’ conflict with a scheduled
monument. The Cuckmere scheme was deemed EIA
development on the grounds of potential Heritage,
National Park and cumulative effects.
Dulas was instructed to prepare an EIA for the
Cuckmere proposal, including taking account of
cumulative effects with the original Berwick scheme
and two further solar farm developments within a
5km study area already in planning. Subsequently,
following submission of the application, a further
three solar farms were submitted for planning,
thereby raising the number of schemes requiring
cumulative effects assessment and causing new
impacts to receptor inter-visibility, including views
from within the National Park.
The outcome was an objection by the National Park
to the Cuckmere scheme on the grounds of
significant cumulative harm to the special qualities
on the principle viewpoints on the northern
escarpment. Such an objection was entirely
unforeseen given their agreement to the previous
Berwick scheme, which had at the time included the
Cuckmere area.
Screening proposals entailing hedgerow planting
and management for the northern end of the site
had already been agreed with English Heritage to
preserve the setting of heritage assets; accordingly
consideration of further screening around the
southern boundary of the site was applied, but on
this occasion not solely to attenuate views of the
site from the National Park, but to engender habitat
feature and biodiversity benefits that themselves
would have planning merit. Initial impact mitigation
therefore evolved into an enhancement proposal
that would ultimately improve the overall
sustainability of the scheme.
In the spirit of the NPPF, specifically paragraph 98
which instructs authorities to “… approve the
application if its impacts are (or can be made)
acceptable” the local authority was prepared to
entertain minor improvements to the scheme.
Accordingly, following a Regulation 22 request, SEI
was submitted specifying the details of the habitat
screening and enhancement measures. Existing low
hedgerows were to be ‘gapped up’ and allowed to
mature to a height of at least 3.5 metres high, which
through horizontal and vertical modelling were
shown to screen views of the site from the National
Park escarpment. Species were to be of local
provenance and as encouraged through Biodiversity
Action Plans.
Additional occasional trees (Quercus Robor) were to
be planted along the boundary line up to 5m high,
managed sufficiently to avoid shading to the solar
arrays but sited to break up views into the site from
the National Park over the winter period when the
hedgerows were not in leaf. Such proposals
augmented the already formulated habitat
improvements for wildflower grassland, bat / bird
boxes, insect and amphibian habitats, and raptor
posts.
The outcome was a positive one. The officer
accepted and consulted upon the further Regulation
22 submission and, despite the Park Authority
sustaining its objection, the planning committee
approved the proposal. The combined benefits of
renewable energy generation, community
ownership and habitat enhancements were
overwhelming factors. In light of this experience,
the evidence is there to show that EIA acts
effectively, not solely as a response to negative
impacts, but as a tool for creating real enhancement
improvements that themselves lead to new
development that increases the presence of locally
valuable resources and is therefore more
sustainable overall.
Sarah Cane, EIA Project Manager, Dulas, April 2017.
For access to more EIA articles, case studies and hundreds of non-technical summaries of Environmental
Statements visit:
http://www.iema.net/eia-quality-mark/