Cumulative Environmental Impact
At the NDC planning committee meeting, 10 February 2016, Cllr Mair Manuel spoke of the need to consider several applications at the same time (despite the efforts of the Chairman, Cllr Eric Ley, to silence her). “You have to consider all three applications,” she said, “ you can’t do it one at a time”.
This is not the first time that members of the committee have been unhappy with the one-at-a-time policy of considering applications. Cllr Richard Edgell, speaking at the Trayne Farm planning meeting, 16 April 2014, said:
“This is not in the Local Plan. The cumulative effect hasn’t been considered sufficiently, particularly with respect to Highways.” [1]
[1] Our own notes – NDDC publishes no record of the discussion.
This is not the first time that members of the committee have been unhappy with the one-at-a-time policy of considering applications. Cllr Richard Edgell, speaking at the Trayne Farm planning meeting, 16 April 2014, said:
“This is not in the Local Plan. The cumulative effect hasn’t been considered sufficiently, particularly with respect to Highways.” [1]
[1] Our own notes – NDDC publishes no record of the discussion.
Cumulative Impacts/Effects
‘Cumulative impacts’, according to European Commission (EC) guidelines (May 1999), should mean ‘impacts that result from incremental changes caused by other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project’.
(Cumulative Impact Assessment Guidelines: Guiding Principles For Cumulative Impacts Assessment In Offshore Wind Farms -- Renewable UK, June 2013)
“It is important to give appropriate consideration to the cumulative impacts arising from other committed development (i.e. development that is consented or allocated where there is a reasonable degree of certainty will proceed within the next three years).”
(NPPG[2] para 014, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
“When should cumulative effects be assessed?
Each application (or request for a screening opinion) should be considered on its own merits. There are occasions where other existing or approved development may be relevant in determining whether significant effects are likely as a consequence of a proposed development. The local planning authorities should always have regard to the possible cumulative effects arising from any existing or approved development.”
(NPPG para 024, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
In judging whether the effects of a proposal are likely to be significant, Competent Authorities should always have regard to the possible cumulative effects with any existing or approved development. There are occasions where the existence of other development may be particularly relevant in determining whether significant effects are likely. Similarly, there may be cases where applications for development should be considered jointly to determine whether or not EIA is required.
(Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, B.4.26, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013: www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1198363.pdf)
What constitutes a cumulative effect, as well as an indirect and secondary effect, is a question of fact and judgement, subject to review on public law Wednesbury grounds (the legal basis on which a decision in the public sector is tested for irrationality or perversity) (Bowen-West v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (January 2012)).
(Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, B.4.27, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013: www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1198363.pdf)
“There could also be circumstances where two or more applications for development should be considered together. For example, where the applications in question are not directly in competition with one another, so that both or all of them might be approved, and where the overall combined environmental impact of the proposals might be greater or have different effects than the sum of their separate parts.”
(NPPG para 024, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
The requirement to assess cumulative effects was originally set out in the European Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 85/337/EEC (since amended by further Directives) and by the EC Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.
(Cumulative Impact Assessment Guidelines: Guiding Principles For Cumulative Impacts Assessment In Offshore Wind Farms -- Renewable UK, June 2013)
[2] NPPG: National Planning Practice Guidance (also now abbrev. ‘PPG’) – http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/
(Cumulative Impact Assessment Guidelines: Guiding Principles For Cumulative Impacts Assessment In Offshore Wind Farms -- Renewable UK, June 2013)
“It is important to give appropriate consideration to the cumulative impacts arising from other committed development (i.e. development that is consented or allocated where there is a reasonable degree of certainty will proceed within the next three years).”
(NPPG[2] para 014, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
“When should cumulative effects be assessed?
Each application (or request for a screening opinion) should be considered on its own merits. There are occasions where other existing or approved development may be relevant in determining whether significant effects are likely as a consequence of a proposed development. The local planning authorities should always have regard to the possible cumulative effects arising from any existing or approved development.”
(NPPG para 024, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
In judging whether the effects of a proposal are likely to be significant, Competent Authorities should always have regard to the possible cumulative effects with any existing or approved development. There are occasions where the existence of other development may be particularly relevant in determining whether significant effects are likely. Similarly, there may be cases where applications for development should be considered jointly to determine whether or not EIA is required.
(Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, B.4.26, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013: www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1198363.pdf)
What constitutes a cumulative effect, as well as an indirect and secondary effect, is a question of fact and judgement, subject to review on public law Wednesbury grounds (the legal basis on which a decision in the public sector is tested for irrationality or perversity) (Bowen-West v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (January 2012)).
(Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, B.4.27, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013: www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1198363.pdf)
“There could also be circumstances where two or more applications for development should be considered together. For example, where the applications in question are not directly in competition with one another, so that both or all of them might be approved, and where the overall combined environmental impact of the proposals might be greater or have different effects than the sum of their separate parts.”
(NPPG para 024, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
The requirement to assess cumulative effects was originally set out in the European Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 85/337/EEC (since amended by further Directives) and by the EC Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.
(Cumulative Impact Assessment Guidelines: Guiding Principles For Cumulative Impacts Assessment In Offshore Wind Farms -- Renewable UK, June 2013)
[2] NPPG: National Planning Practice Guidance (also now abbrev. ‘PPG’) – http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/
EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment
An environmental impact assessment (or EIA) is a way of providing decision makers with information about the effects that a given project could have on the environment. Since 1988 it has been a legal requirement in the UK for certain types of development project to undergo EIA before decisions are made on whether consent should be given.
The legal basis for the use of EIA comes from a European Union (EU) Directive [Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, Directive 2003/35/EC and Directive 2009/31/EC], which was first adopted in 1985, and has been subsequently amended in 1997, 2003 and 2009.
In the UK a number of pieces of legislation have been used to implement the EU Directive, but for the majority of projects in England it is the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 – Statutory Instrument 2011 No.1824 (referred to here as the EIA Regulations) that are the key legal instrument at present.
(Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance Note 1 Surrey County Council, Jan. 2012)
The legal basis for the use of EIA comes from a European Union (EU) Directive [Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, Directive 2003/35/EC and Directive 2009/31/EC], which was first adopted in 1985, and has been subsequently amended in 1997, 2003 and 2009.
In the UK a number of pieces of legislation have been used to implement the EU Directive, but for the majority of projects in England it is the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 – Statutory Instrument 2011 No.1824 (referred to here as the EIA Regulations) that are the key legal instrument at present.
(Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance Note 1 Surrey County Council, Jan. 2012)
The EIA Regulations
The responsibility for implementing the EIA Regulations lies with councils as part of their role as planning authorities. If a particular development project would require planning permission from the local or other relevant planning authority (e.g. the appropriate minerals or waste planning authority) it is they that would also be responsible for determining whether EIA is needed.
(Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance Note 1 Surrey County Council, Jan. 2012)
“The local planning authority (or the Secretary of State in the case of an appeal) should determine whether the project is of a type listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the Regulations:
(Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance Note 1 Surrey County Council, Jan. 2012)
“The local planning authority (or the Secretary of State in the case of an appeal) should determine whether the project is of a type listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the Regulations:
- if it is listed in Schedule 1 an assessment is required in every case;
- if the project is listed in Schedule 2, the local planning authority should consider whether it is likely to have significant effects on the environment.”
Scoping of EIA
“It is important to give appropriate consideration to the cumulative impacts arising from other committed development (i.e. development that is consented or allocated where there is a reasonable degree of certainty will proceed within the next three years). At the decision-taking stage this may require the developer to carry out an assessment of the impact of those adopted Local Plan allocations which have the potential to impact on the same sections of transport network as well as other relevant local sites benefitting from as yet unimplemented planning approval.”
(NPPG para 014, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
The accompanying diagram shows the headings / subject areas that should be covered in an Environmental Impact Assessment (derived from various sources).
The following illustrates the desirable scope of an Environmental Statement (ES: the output from an Environmental Impact Assessment):
The ES should describe the baseline situation and the proposed development within the context of the site and any other proposals in the vicinity. Other major development in the area should be identified beyond the proposal itself including all the associated development. It is recommended that this should be identified through consultation with the Council on the basis of major developments that are:
Torridge District Council 1/0002/2012/SCO Dec. 2013)
(NPPG para 014, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
The accompanying diagram shows the headings / subject areas that should be covered in an Environmental Impact Assessment (derived from various sources).
The following illustrates the desirable scope of an Environmental Statement (ES: the output from an Environmental Impact Assessment):
The ES should describe the baseline situation and the proposed development within the context of the site and any other proposals in the vicinity. Other major development in the area should be identified beyond the proposal itself including all the associated development. It is recommended that this should be identified through consultation with the Council on the basis of major developments that are:
- Built and operational;
- Under construction;
- Permitted application(s), but not yet implemented;
- Submitted application(s) not yet determined, and if permitted would affect the proposed development in the scoping report; and
- Identified in the Development Plan (and emerging Development Plans – with appropriate weight being given as they move closer to adoption) recognising that much information on any relevant proposals will be limited.
Torridge District Council 1/0002/2012/SCO Dec. 2013)
EIA Screening
EIA ‘screening’ is the process of deciding whether or not an Environmental Impact Assessment is required for a particular application or project. Schedule 2 of the Regulations refers to ‘urban development’, and it is important to establish whether this applies to housing developments, particularly where these occur on greenfield sites. See the following:
The urban development category covers “all forms of urban development” that “give rise to significant environmental effects”, including housing, shopping centres, car parks, sports stadiums, leisure centres and multiplex cinemas.
(planning resource.co.uk, 1 August 2014, john.geoghegan@haymarket.com)
The size of a project is also an issue in screening for EIA. For both industrial estates and urban developments, the screening threshold for the area of a development used to be 0.5 hectares. In the dying days of the Coalition Government, this threshold was raised by a factor of ten to 5.0 hectares, “so that the smallest projects would not need to be screened”.
Based on an average housing density of 30 dwellings per hectare, the threshold was thus raised from around 15 to around 150 houses per scheme, the DCLG said.
(planningresource.co.uk, 1 August 2014, john.geoghegan@haymarket.com)
We should note however that all the Pilton applications that we are considering pre-dated this change, and so the old thresholds were applicable for these developments.
“It should not be presumed that developments above the indicative thresholds should always be subject to assessment, or those falling below these thresholds could never give rise to significant effects, especially where the development is in an environmentally sensitive location. Each development will need to be considered on its merits.”
(NPPG para 018, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
There are circumstances in which the thresholds and criteria in Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations do not apply, when a project would be located within or very close to a ‘sensitive area’. The EIA Regulations define ‘sensitive areas’ as including sites with national or higher level designations (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, and Ramsar Sites, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Grade I & II* Listed Buildings, and Registered Parks & Gardens).
(Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance Note 1 Surrey County Council, Jan. 2012, p.2)
“In general, the more environmentally sensitive the location, the lower the threshold will be at which significant effects are likely. It follows, therefore, that the thresholds … should only be used in conjunction with the general guidance on determining whether Environmental Impact Assessment is required and, in particular, the guidance on environmentally sensitive areas.”
(NPPG para 057, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
Guidance for the assessment of the environmental effects of traffic is provided in the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (1993). This document suggests that the scale and extent of the assessment should be limited to highway links subject to traffic flow increases of more than 30% (10% if affecting a sensitive area). Sensitive areas are defined by the presence of sensitive receptors, such as congested junctions, hospitals, community centres, conservation areas, schools, colleges or accident black spots.
(Use of Whitecleave Quarry: Environmental Statement Vol. 11, para 11.3.1– URS Scott Wilson, June 2011, p.11-1)
Case law has also clarified that decision makers must also have regard to the precautionary principle when reaching screening decisions. In R (on the application of Loader v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (June 2012), the Court of Appeal stated:
“The decision maker must have regard to the precautionary principle and to the degree of uncertainty, as to environmental impact, at the date of the decision. Depending on the information available, the decision maker may or may not be able to make a judgment as to the likelihood of significant effects on the environment. There may be cases where the uncertainties are such that a negative decision cannot be taken.”
(Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013)
The urban development category covers “all forms of urban development” that “give rise to significant environmental effects”, including housing, shopping centres, car parks, sports stadiums, leisure centres and multiplex cinemas.
(planning resource.co.uk, 1 August 2014, john.geoghegan@haymarket.com)
The size of a project is also an issue in screening for EIA. For both industrial estates and urban developments, the screening threshold for the area of a development used to be 0.5 hectares. In the dying days of the Coalition Government, this threshold was raised by a factor of ten to 5.0 hectares, “so that the smallest projects would not need to be screened”.
Based on an average housing density of 30 dwellings per hectare, the threshold was thus raised from around 15 to around 150 houses per scheme, the DCLG said.
(planningresource.co.uk, 1 August 2014, john.geoghegan@haymarket.com)
We should note however that all the Pilton applications that we are considering pre-dated this change, and so the old thresholds were applicable for these developments.
“It should not be presumed that developments above the indicative thresholds should always be subject to assessment, or those falling below these thresholds could never give rise to significant effects, especially where the development is in an environmentally sensitive location. Each development will need to be considered on its merits.”
(NPPG para 018, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
There are circumstances in which the thresholds and criteria in Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations do not apply, when a project would be located within or very close to a ‘sensitive area’. The EIA Regulations define ‘sensitive areas’ as including sites with national or higher level designations (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, and Ramsar Sites, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Grade I & II* Listed Buildings, and Registered Parks & Gardens).
(Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance Note 1 Surrey County Council, Jan. 2012, p.2)
“In general, the more environmentally sensitive the location, the lower the threshold will be at which significant effects are likely. It follows, therefore, that the thresholds … should only be used in conjunction with the general guidance on determining whether Environmental Impact Assessment is required and, in particular, the guidance on environmentally sensitive areas.”
(NPPG para 057, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
Guidance for the assessment of the environmental effects of traffic is provided in the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (1993). This document suggests that the scale and extent of the assessment should be limited to highway links subject to traffic flow increases of more than 30% (10% if affecting a sensitive area). Sensitive areas are defined by the presence of sensitive receptors, such as congested junctions, hospitals, community centres, conservation areas, schools, colleges or accident black spots.
(Use of Whitecleave Quarry: Environmental Statement Vol. 11, para 11.3.1– URS Scott Wilson, June 2011, p.11-1)
Case law has also clarified that decision makers must also have regard to the precautionary principle when reaching screening decisions. In R (on the application of Loader v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (June 2012), the Court of Appeal stated:
“The decision maker must have regard to the precautionary principle and to the degree of uncertainty, as to environmental impact, at the date of the decision. Depending on the information available, the decision maker may or may not be able to make a judgment as to the likelihood of significant effects on the environment. There may be cases where the uncertainties are such that a negative decision cannot be taken.”
(Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013)
NDDC actions in the case of development applications affecting Pilton
|
See the accompanying images of screening decisions made by NDDC for these applications. After very thorough investigation (as can be seen), all these decisions were negative (ie. no EIA required) except for the Ilfracombe Southern Extension. (Note that these decisions were not posted and made public on the NDDC website.)
Ilfracombe S.E. was not required to consider traffic implications as far south as Pilton / Barnstaple, and so these were excluded from the subsequent EIA. Trayne Farm, despite its negative EIA screening decision, was asked to consider cumulative environmental impact, in areas such as wildlife, flood risk, etc. (See the accompanying letter written by the Planning Manager, Mike Kelly). This was not done by the applicant, but there appears to have been no corrective action taken by NDDC. 
|
| ||
|
|
|
EIA at Reserved Matters Stage: the ECJ ruling and its implications
The European Court [of Justice] … rejected the Government’s argument that development consent is given when outline planning permission is granted and not when the reserved matters are subsequently approved. ‘Development consent’ is defined for the purposes of the directive as the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project. Under domestic law, a developer cannot commence works in implementation of a project until reserved matters approval has been obtained. Until such approval has been granted, the development in question is still not entirely authorised.
(Recent Cases on Environmental Impact Assessment and a Note on Strategic Environmental Assessment (para 7)
Justine Thornton Barrister, 39 Essex Street; 29.11.06)
This then gives rise to what the ECJ termed ‘multi-stage’ development consent. Outline planning permission and the decision approving reserved matter together constitute ‘multi stage’ development consent. As a result, the competent authority is, in some circumstances, obliged to carry out an EIA in respect of a project even after the grant of outline planning permission, when the reserved matters are subsequently approved if it becomes apparent, in the course of the second stage, that the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia of its nature, size or location. This assessment must be of a comprehensive nature, so as to relate to all the aspects of the project which have not yet been assessed or which require a fresh assessment.
(Ibid, para 8)
Developers and local planning authorities will need to prepare for the possibility that a ‘second stage’ EIA will be required at the reserved matters stage. Local planning authorities will have to screen reserved matters applications whether or not the application was screened at outline stage for an EIA for likely significant effects, as an obligation to carry out EIA cannot be avoided by failing to consider whether EIA is necessary: R(Goodman) v London Borough of Lewisham. The main impact of the judgments are thought likely to be felt in those cases where there was a failure to consider the need for an EIA at the outline stage but nonetheless all reserved matters applications will need to be screened.
(Ibid, para 10b)
(Recent Cases on Environmental Impact Assessment and a Note on Strategic Environmental Assessment (para 7)
Justine Thornton Barrister, 39 Essex Street; 29.11.06)
This then gives rise to what the ECJ termed ‘multi-stage’ development consent. Outline planning permission and the decision approving reserved matter together constitute ‘multi stage’ development consent. As a result, the competent authority is, in some circumstances, obliged to carry out an EIA in respect of a project even after the grant of outline planning permission, when the reserved matters are subsequently approved if it becomes apparent, in the course of the second stage, that the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia of its nature, size or location. This assessment must be of a comprehensive nature, so as to relate to all the aspects of the project which have not yet been assessed or which require a fresh assessment.
(Ibid, para 8)
Developers and local planning authorities will need to prepare for the possibility that a ‘second stage’ EIA will be required at the reserved matters stage. Local planning authorities will have to screen reserved matters applications whether or not the application was screened at outline stage for an EIA for likely significant effects, as an obligation to carry out EIA cannot be avoided by failing to consider whether EIA is necessary: R(Goodman) v London Borough of Lewisham. The main impact of the judgments are thought likely to be felt in those cases where there was a failure to consider the need for an EIA at the outline stage but nonetheless all reserved matters applications will need to be screened.
(Ibid, para 10b)
The Secretary of State
The Secretary of State has reserved powers to intervene in cases where the local planning authority have failed to give an opinion on whether an EIA is needed within the prescribed period or where the applicant disagrees with the opinion given by the local planning authority.
(Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - a campaigner’s guide Friends of the Earth, Oct. 2005)
“Generally, it will fall to local planning authorities in the first instance to consider whether a proposed development requires Environmental Impact Assessment. However, the Secretary of State is empowered to make directions in relation to the need for Environmental Impact Assessment. Such directions will normally be made in response to an application from a developer.”
(NPPG para 020, Revision date: 26 03 2015)
“The Secretary of State can also use powers to direct that Environmental Impact Assessment is required in circumstances in which development of a type listed in Schedule 2 does not meet the criteria or exceed the thresholds, but is considered likely to have significant environmental effects.”
(NPPG para 018, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
“When a planning application which has not previously been subject to a screening opinion or direction is called in for determination by the Secretary of State (under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) and it is not accompanied by an Environmental Statement, the Secretary of State will consider whether it is Environmental Impact Assessment development. Where necessary the Secretary of State will make a screening direction.”
(NPPG para 028, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
As now, there is a “safety net” provided in the Regulations that the Secretary of State can, including in response to a third party request, issue a screening direction for any project irrespective of whether it falls above or below the screening threshold. Therefore, although development below the thresholds will not have significant effects, this does not mean that such projects can never be screened.
(Government response to the technical consultation on environmental impact assessment thresholds - DCLG, January 2015 - para 27)
A Screening or Scoping Direction can be sought from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can also direct that in certain instances development below the threshold would nevertheless have an impact which would necessitate an Environmental Statement. A Direction can be issued at any time up to the point where the application is determined.
(Planning Officers Society: Development Management Practice Project:
Practice Guidance Note 6: Environmental Impact Assessment -- Screening and Scoping Options (para 7))[3]
“… Any person, where they consider a proposed development requires Environmental Impact Assessment, may write to the Secretary of State requesting a screening direction, even though neither the planning authority nor the applicant takes that view. Any such requests will be considered on a case by case basis. Some indication will therefore be looked for to demonstrate that the person making the request has seriously considered the basis on which an Environmental Impact Assessment might be needed, and has offered relevant grounds for that request.”
(NPPG para 020, Revision date: 26 03 2015)
[3] http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/downloads/pdf/Guidance_Note_6_EIA.pdf (September 2015)
(Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - a campaigner’s guide Friends of the Earth, Oct. 2005)
“Generally, it will fall to local planning authorities in the first instance to consider whether a proposed development requires Environmental Impact Assessment. However, the Secretary of State is empowered to make directions in relation to the need for Environmental Impact Assessment. Such directions will normally be made in response to an application from a developer.”
(NPPG para 020, Revision date: 26 03 2015)
“The Secretary of State can also use powers to direct that Environmental Impact Assessment is required in circumstances in which development of a type listed in Schedule 2 does not meet the criteria or exceed the thresholds, but is considered likely to have significant environmental effects.”
(NPPG para 018, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
“When a planning application which has not previously been subject to a screening opinion or direction is called in for determination by the Secretary of State (under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) and it is not accompanied by an Environmental Statement, the Secretary of State will consider whether it is Environmental Impact Assessment development. Where necessary the Secretary of State will make a screening direction.”
(NPPG para 028, Revision date: 06 03 2014)
As now, there is a “safety net” provided in the Regulations that the Secretary of State can, including in response to a third party request, issue a screening direction for any project irrespective of whether it falls above or below the screening threshold. Therefore, although development below the thresholds will not have significant effects, this does not mean that such projects can never be screened.
(Government response to the technical consultation on environmental impact assessment thresholds - DCLG, January 2015 - para 27)
A Screening or Scoping Direction can be sought from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can also direct that in certain instances development below the threshold would nevertheless have an impact which would necessitate an Environmental Statement. A Direction can be issued at any time up to the point where the application is determined.
(Planning Officers Society: Development Management Practice Project:
Practice Guidance Note 6: Environmental Impact Assessment -- Screening and Scoping Options (para 7))[3]
“… Any person, where they consider a proposed development requires Environmental Impact Assessment, may write to the Secretary of State requesting a screening direction, even though neither the planning authority nor the applicant takes that view. Any such requests will be considered on a case by case basis. Some indication will therefore be looked for to demonstrate that the person making the request has seriously considered the basis on which an Environmental Impact Assessment might be needed, and has offered relevant grounds for that request.”
(NPPG para 020, Revision date: 26 03 2015)
[3] http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/downloads/pdf/Guidance_Note_6_EIA.pdf (September 2015)