Environmental Challenges on the Projects Construction Link Road - Case Study Example

Environmental Statement Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Environmental Statement Introduction The project is a proposal to construct a 5.6 km link road, a two lane single carriageway, between Hastings and Bexhill in the United Kingdom. This development is expressed in terms of facilitating the wider regeneration of Hastings and Bexhill as well as addressing existing transport problems within the area. The authority for the scheme is being determined and promoted by East Sussex County Council (IEMA, 2008). From the comments of the Secretary of State for Transport in 2001, the proposal includes the rejection of the proposed Bexhill and Hastings bypass and describes planning history of the proposal (East Sussex County Council, 2007). Alternatively, it was proposed that a transport solution for the area be integrated into a wider regeneration programme. Separated from the main carriageway, the proposal includes horse riding facilities, pedestrian, cycle and a 'Greenway'. The nature of the separation demonstrate the Greenway, cross sections and also between elements at a range of points along the route (Ashworth, 2013). Moreover, maps are provided as an indication of the route of the proposed road. Clearly illustrated are links into the existing road system. The route crosses the open countryside, in the Bexhill urban area, after following the line of an abandoned railway line. Also appropriately and described are illustrated vertical alignment of the road, and bridges crossings. Environmental challenges on the project’s ES draft Environmental Statement (ES) provides an area to be affected by the development and a comprehensive description of the site. The ES details together with the existing road network and determines land use along the route corridor. The road network components are likely to benefit from the link road while water courses within the route corridor of the vicinity are identified (Bunger, 2011). ES evaluates the designated sites described, extent and their location as illustrated on suitable maps. The proposal is also described through a policy context for the site. The likely site conditions are taken into account in the event that the development does not proceed after all assessments of the environmental effects are complete. Traffic flows on the existing road network are the likely off site effects. To minimize exportation of any excavated materials from the site, the proposed earthworks for the scheme are designed. Nonetheless, the volume of fill match proposals the volume of excavation (Golub, 2013). In case the same material are deposited, a table will be provided to show where excavated materials are derived. As the process for the construction of the road surface, methods for handling soils are also described. The site also identifies vehicle types to be used, anticipated working hours are provided and the maximum number of workers on the site is quantified. With the exception of identified key activities, work outside of these hours is not anticipated. In this project, Environmental Statement is not justified that the impact of desalination plant proposed will be negligible with respect to the tiger pipefish. On the other hand, it is not substantiated whether the evaluation would potentially impact on the blue swimmer crab. ES brings together threads explored under technical reports but is limited in defining ‘baseline’ that demonstrate the effects of each development and scoping exercise. Where some issues have not been investigated in detail, clear explanations have not been provided so that third parties may not question the adequacy of EIA. In relation to each, mitigation measures may have to constitute suggested monitoring and environmental management during and after the development. Shortcomings of Environmental Statement The contents and format of an ES are inadequate either because key parts of the assessment are missing or in terms of the quality of the assessment. The failure to include proper consideration of alternatives, the failure to adequately consider human health, and the failure to produce a non technical summary are some of the frequent defects. Although some of the issues that EIA regulations may need to consider are worthwhile, original reference to the EU directive 97/11/EC contains more useful indications of the EIA scope than ES (Brady et al., 2013). EU directives can have a direct effect in UK law as is the legal principle of direct effect regardless of being transposed by UK regulations. This means that based on original directives, local communities can mount challenges. The public are entitled to the full ES and to see the non-technical summary (Fothergill, 2012). As the local planning authority is mandated to provide this information, they have an entitlement to make charges to copy material. As a result, it attracts a costly document since a full ES might run into hundreds of pounds. Planning information is not seen as providing always an objective and clear statement technical of environmental situations. In reality, there has been increasing demand for an independent commission and the ES seen as a sales document for the applicant (Glasson et al., 2013). In seeing schemes approved, developers abuse EIAs as they take them out to the hands of those with a vested interest. While realizing this scenario, it is crucial that EIA is evaluated on the perspective of planners and the public. They need to apply measures designed to secure mitigation and critical assessment of base line data. Environmental Statement (ES) on the desalination project at Point Lowly points to a limitation in ES to address issues like human health, biodiversity, land and vulnerability of the project to disasters and accidents. The challenges with use of previous ES were; 1. Inconsistent and limited to procedural approaches 2. Neglect of practitioner views and dominance of top-down approaches 3. Less strict on unconventional exploration activities such as Shale gas exploration and concentrates more on nuclear reactors 4. Legal ambiguities in the statement that leaves developers to guess and handle environmental issues from their individual perspective 5. Worries and concerns of communities are not considered in the process of decision-making 6. Alternatives studied by the developer are still constrained from consideration by practitioners as provided in Annex 4 7. Integration of EIA alongside other initiatives such strategic environmental assessment (2001/42EC), Water Framework Directive, and Industrial Emissions Directive remains weak. This is because individual member states lack consistent ways to measure progress. The ES is criticized for its failure to take into account additional meetings, site visits and information provided to planning authority (Wood et al., 2000). Also, this information is not available to the public despite containing all the relevant public documentation on environmental matters. Relevant information will have to be made available to decision makers (Fothergill, 2012). Other authorizations are left to cover monitoring and pollution control hence considerable powers to pollution control bodies and planning authorities. Although ES describes the development and likely environmental effects of projects, mitigating measures have not been envisaged (Tromans, 2012). ES has not identified the regulation required under EIA and whether they are being used to address a number of regulatory requirements. ES does not describe a prescribed or statutory format for arranging this information, and thus depend on the scale of development project and complexity of issues investigated. Often, non-technical summaries envisaged in the document are generalized in nature and one needs the full ES to grasp the application. Suggestions on drafting Environmental Statement (ES) 1. Involve professionals and practitioners to enhance and recognize their role in environment and sustainability. 2. Competent experts should be used to revise art. 5(3) and give more powers to EIA coordinators. 3. Additional mitigation measures, monitoring proposals and design modifications should be incorporated into the consent 4. Developers from member states to deliver measures as stipulated in Art. 8(a) so that mitigation measures are included in the consent 5. Strengthen the potential of EIA practitioners to change design elements and protect the environment post-consent. 6. The document should provide unbiased account of environmental effects and remain a balanced document with justifiable and reasoned arguments 7. ES should be logical and clear in presentation and layout with capability of being understood by non-specialist 8. The Environmental Statement should be able monitor the project’s environmental impact and deliver mitigation measures for implementation 9. ES should describe current environmental conditions and baseline source of data through clear description of methods New changes and milestones Towards 2016, there are clear legislative changes on description of processes of pre-application iterative design and reasons for choosing preferred approaches. Final amendments have also retained the criteria and thresholds to screen projects likely to generate significant environmental impact as provided in Annex 2A (Fothergill, 2012). The Habitats Directive has also been linked to EIA while screening to allow for mitigation is now a mini-EIA. Moreover, new environmental topics have also been suggested such as climate change, resource efficiency, land and disaster risk, human health and biodiversity in Art. 3 and Annex 4. In Art 5(3), experts are required to prepare EIA reports for developers and further examine for competent authority. EIA mitigation and design modifications are requires irrespective of being conditioned as provided in New Art. 8a(4). There will be transitional arrangements and a three year transposition period as provided in Art.2 of the amendment. Art. 1(2) and Art 5(1) are other substantive developments that best define EIA and determine the results of voluntary scoping. In New Art. 9a, developers are restricted from acting as competent authorities especially in highways and waste as stipulated in the county councils (Fothergill, 2012). New Art. 10a provides new rules on penalties for infringement while Annex IV defines cumulative effects. Effects of the new EIA regulations on current ES Competent authorities will then be required to explain the screening decisions and consider design measures and mitigation for the proposed project. With regard to ES, the revision of EIA will improve its interaction with other amendments provided in the legislations (Lensen et al., 2003). This will also provide coordinated procedures and improve the quality of screening despite weak wording on the text requiring only member states to coordinate assessments. However, the revised Directive still fails to make amendments into Annex I or II since it does not directly refer to unconventional hydrocarbon extraction or exploration (Fothergill, 2012). In addition, needs of the majority may not be made once environmental concerns are not addressed at higher level of decision making. By recognizing the big role of practitioners, the EIA Directive makes amendments into ES to empower environment and sustainability professionals (Hanna, 2009). They will no longer rely on consenting authority to identify and include mitigation in the consent forms. The new EIA directive coming into force in 2016 will require every report to consider project vulnerability to climate change and its impact on climate change. Although assessment on assessment factors on efficient natural resource use, there is a significant change in focus of the topic (Fothergill, 2012). The new regulations will also address quantities and waste generated during operations and construction. This takes into account any concern on natural resource use and stock on existing environmental problems. Nonetheless, the new regulations fail to consider ecosystem services which were regarded as substantive by most practitioners who wanted change on ES (Petts, 2009). As countries will be allowed to develop own regulations, the time frame remains limited. Given a three year period to transpose amendments, revisions on the ES will only define existing processes (Fothergill, 2012). When application is submitted for development consent, it is likely that it will be exempt from new requirements on disaster resilience, accidents and climate change. The new regulations provide essential contribution to EIA advancement as it corrects big flaws in the existing ES. First, it eliminates, for significant negative effects, the absence of mandatory monitoring. Introducing monitoring will help academicians and practitioners with new data substantial for efficacy of EIA (Fothergill, 2012). Through the 2020s, EIA practice will change since continuous improvement is driven by the real world feedback. Also, professionals on sustainability and environment gain more control, there is greater likelihood that EIA will deliver real value in future. New regulations are coming to broaden the perspective on processes, physical location of sites, design of buildings and site layout and physical appearance (Winch, 2010). Other issues to be handled are means of access such as principal transport mode of gaining access to the development. References Ashworth, A. (2013). Contractual Procedures in the Construction Industry. Routledge. Brady, J. Ebbage, A. & Lunn, R. (2013). Environmental Management in Organizations: The IEMA Handbook. Routledge. Bunger, D. (2011). Deficits in EU and US Mandatory Environmental Information Disclosure: Legal, Comparative Legal and Economic Facets of Pollutant Release Inventories. Springer Science & Business Media. East Sussex County Council, (2007). Bexhill to Hastings Road: Environmental Statement. Non-technical Summary of April 2007. East Sussex. Fothergill, J. (2012). Built to assess impacts. IEMA. London. Glasson, J. Therivel, R. & Chadwick, A. (2013). Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. Routledge. Golub, J. (2013). New Instruments for Environmental Policy in the EU. Routledge. Hanna, K. (2009). Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation, 2nd ed. Oxford. IEMA (2008). Review of the Environmental Statement for Bexhill to Hastings Link Road. St Nicholas House 70 Newport. Lenzen, M. Murray, S. Korte, B. & Dey, C. (2003). Environmental impact assessment including indirect effects-a case study using input-output analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review (Elsevier). 23 (3): 263-282. Petts, J. (2009). Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Tromans, S. (2012). Environmental Impact Assessment. Bloomsbury Publishing. Winch, G.M. (2010). Managing Construction Projects. John Wiley & Sons. Wood, C. Dipper, B. & Jones, C. (2000). Auditing the assessments of the environmental impacts of planning projects. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 43 (1): 23–47. Read More