8th January 2007, 11:54 PM
Easy I dont think its easy âsomewhere along the line the public are supposed to be involved for some totally unfathomable reason
I had got as far as Article 2:1 when the directive started to seem like meaningless mud
If we take onedecks
âthe authority never consents to the EIA or the ES - they consent (or refuse consent) to the development, having taken the environmental information into account.â
Article 2:2. The environmental impact assessment may be [u]integrated into the existing procedures for consent </u>to projects in the Member States, or failing this, into other procedures or into procedures to be established to comply with the aims of this Directive.
I suppose a question could be: can a development be refused consent because of the EIA or can a development be granted acceptance in spite of an EIA. Do both cases need a judgement and how and who is the judge
This case has recently come to a conclusion (I think)
http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/reference...&flag=name
which I had hoped might help out with my confusion with the consents in Article 2:1 but doesnât much (note the length of battle that it took to get a final judgment on the definition of âdevelopment consentâ). As I understand it in this example the great British government only got as far as Article 1: 2
âdevelopment consentâ means: the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project.
Before it lost the plot
Now how does this relate to the Drs pipelines which seem to do the consent and EIA in one go and objections dont seem to go to public inquires where as road schemes and TCPA and others do
I had got as far as Article 2:1 when the directive started to seem like meaningless mud
If we take onedecks
âthe authority never consents to the EIA or the ES - they consent (or refuse consent) to the development, having taken the environmental information into account.â
Article 2:2. The environmental impact assessment may be [u]integrated into the existing procedures for consent </u>to projects in the Member States, or failing this, into other procedures or into procedures to be established to comply with the aims of this Directive.
I suppose a question could be: can a development be refused consent because of the EIA or can a development be granted acceptance in spite of an EIA. Do both cases need a judgement and how and who is the judge
This case has recently come to a conclusion (I think)
http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/reference...&flag=name
which I had hoped might help out with my confusion with the consents in Article 2:1 but doesnât much (note the length of battle that it took to get a final judgment on the definition of âdevelopment consentâ). As I understand it in this example the great British government only got as far as Article 1: 2
âdevelopment consentâ means: the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project.
Before it lost the plot
Now how does this relate to the Drs pipelines which seem to do the consent and EIA in one go and objections dont seem to go to public inquires where as road schemes and TCPA and others do