OVERHEAD LINES AND UNDERGROUND CABLES: ACCEPTABILITY ISSUES AND STRATEGIES, METHODOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES FOR STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - Two UK Case Studies

摘要

The consideration of alternatives i.e. options, and the associated engagement of stakeholders are key foundations of environmental impact assessment (EIA) but in practice are often observed to be areas of poor performance. Changes in the EU EIA Directive 2014 will require the EIA to consider and compare "reasonable alternatives" and provide rationale for the options chosen [1]. This paper reviews current practice in the treatment of alternatives through case studies of two recent overhead electric line (OHL) consent applications in the UK (England and Wales). Applications for development consent for OHL above certain thresholds are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for acceptance and subsequently for examination under the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) [2]. The OHLs are classed as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) pursuant to sections 14(1) (b) and 16 of PA2008. The relevant EIA Regulations [3], require that an Environmental Statement (ES) should include an outline of the main alternatives that have been studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for its choices, taking into account the likely significant environmental impacts of each alternative. In the case of the two case studies, the alternatives considered were: 1. alternative technologies; 2. alternative routes. These alternatives were consulted on during the statutory pre-application consultation process. A recurring theme during each stage of consultation was the desire of Interested Parties (IPs) to see the connections undergrounded. IPs were generally critical of the consultation process carried out by the developer in both case studies and suggested alternatives to the developer's preferred alignments in their representations in writing, namely: 1. alternatives to an overhead line solution, undergrounding/subsea routing respectively; 2. alternative overhead line routes and 3. alternative sites for associated development. The methodology employed by the developers for the assessment of alternatives was to initially identify an area of search in which the developers assessed a number of potential strategic options. The developers preferred alignment, following consultation, was the basis of the proposed developments. This paper will describe the process of consultation on alternatives. It will suggest how the presentation of alternatives can be improved to assist stakeholders and explore common misconceptions regarding alternatives in EIA of linear routes.