Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) are a central part of the design and approval process for projects where significant effects on the environment are considered likely. Through the Environmental Statement (ES), the key output of the EIA process, the aim is to ensure that any environmental effects are fully understood before planning decisions are made.
EIA has come a long way since its inception and has placed environmental issues at the heart of decision making for major developments. However, currently the EIA process is seen as a heavy and resource-hungry administrative burden for all parties involved. ESs are often criticised for being too technical and difficult to navigate and read. Furthermore, due to the sheer scale of documentation, the ES is often printed in large sets of folders, packed up in boxes and delivered by van to the local planning authority.
EIA applies to barely 0.2 per cent of all development applications in the UK so the argument that it stifles development might not be wholly accurate. However, in many instances the process has become formulaic rather than innovative, and because of the wide range of people involved in the process there is the potential for missing links, loss of detail and lack of collaboration. Reform is due.
If we have learnt anything from the last 18 months and the remote world that we have found ourselves working in, it is that there are many opportunities for digitisation to be able to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of EIA.
Many aspects of the assessment work undertaken for EIA are already digital. We map noise contours, plot protected species, model traffic outputs to name just a few, yet when it comes to reporting these in the EIA they are presented separately in an often lengthy report. Bringing these together in a collaborative and interactive space has the potential to increase the accuracy and consistency of the assessment work. It could also assist stakeholders and communities in fully understanding the likely environmental effects, and the mitigation and design features proposed.
Through the use of an interactive digital platform, the user can interact with the information to understand the proposed development and its impacts in ways that are relatable to them. This could include virtual reality, 3D modelling, fly throughs and simulations of impacts. It could also allow the user to leave feedback and ask questions. The EIA can, therefore, return to its original purpose of being a tool to protect the environment and deliver environmental gain.
This may all sound very logical and straightforward, but in reality the switch, both in mindset and in practical terms, might be more difficult to achieve. While the technology is available to support this move to digitisation, there remain challenges. These include ensuring data gathering and survey work is collated consistently, persuading developers and decision makers alike, and encouraging clients that adopting this approach will support a more efficient decision-making process.
But ultimately, there will need to be a shift from planning decision makers, supported through legislative changes in relation to how ESs and the wider planning documentation can be formally submitted, made available for consultation and recorded as part of the planning decision. If achieved the benefits could be considerable.
Further information
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
