(R63) CRYSTAL PALACE CAMPAIGN - IMMEDIATE MEDIA RELEASE - 7 August 2001

EURO COMMISSION RAPS UK, BROMLEY
OVER ENVIRONMENT FAILURE

In a major rebuff to the UK planning authorities, the European Commission has formally requested that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which both the Blair government and Bromley Council decided was not needed for the massive Crystal Palace multiplex, now be carried out -- even though the project has been scrapped.

Last week's EC decision has major implications for English planning law. It found that the Crystal Palace issue raised the more general question of how the UK applies the relevant EC Directives (binding in UK law) to "multi-stage development procedures when the final stages of the decision- making process appear not to be subject to the procedure foreseen..." The EC's aim is properly to involve the public before planning decisions are finalised, and the implication is that Britain will need to pass new legislation to come into compliance.

The Commission is therefore pursuing the second stage of "infringement proceedings" against the UK for breach of the Directive, having rejected as unsatisfactory John Prescott's first response as Environment Secretary earlier this year.

The formal request takes the form of the Commission’s "reasoned opinion", and, failing a satisfactory response from the UK within two months, the third and final stage could result in the Commission referring Britain to the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg -- much the way France was over its failure to permit British beef exports.

The decision further punctures Bromley Council's claim always to have acted within the law. It was they who in 1997 relied on consultants Chris Blandford Associates report that the multiplex was "unlikely to have significant environmental effects" and thus required no EIA from the developer. Whereas the Commission found that the very size of the multiplex "exceeded the threshold for assessment according to the official screening guidelines".

Commenting on the decision, Margot Wallström, Environment Commissioner, stated:

"I regret that the Commission has to remind member states to safeguard the important environmental rights of the public to receive environmental information and be consulted on the possible environmental impacts of projects, as foreseen under this key Directive. These rights are a tangible expression of a Community that is close to the citizen".

The original complaint to the EC was initiated by the Crystal Palace Campaign over two years ago. Commenting, CPC spokesman Fred Emery said:

"We are gratified the EC has upheld our complaint that such vast projects must have their environmental impact properly assessed, and that the public be properly informed and heard before final planning permission. It is simple common sense, and time now for the new Secretary of State to bring our government into compliance with the law. We remain vigilant concerning the future of this historic site at Crystal Palace for which we have now proposed a community trust, working together with Bromley".

Note for Editors: Attached is EC news release (3 pages)

Commission moves against Spain, Italy, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands over Impact Assessment Directive

DN: IP/01/1166 Date: 2001-08-01
IP/01/1166
Brussels, 1 August 2001

Commission moves against Spain, Italy, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands over Impact Assessment Directive

The European Commission has decided to pursue infringement cases against several Member States for breaches of the EU's Environmental Impact Assessment Directive(1). Spain is to be referred to the European Court of Justice for failing to conduct a proper impact assessment on the express road from Oviedo to Llaner. It will also receive formal requests for failing to do proper assessments of a hazardous waste depot at Bilbao airport, a pig-rearing farm at Vera in Almeria, and a landfill development at San Sebastian de la Gomera, in the Canary Islands. The United Kingdom is to receive a formal request to carry out an impact assessment on a major leisure complex at Crystal Palace in London, as well as to adequately provide in its legislation for the assessment of certain agricultural projects. Italy will receive a formal request to assess or adequately screen for assessment a road building project at Teramo (Abruzzo). Finally, the Netherlands will receive formal requests because of weaknesses in national impact assessment legislation and to adequately screen for assessment a dyke-building project at Sliedrecht. These formal requests take the form of a so-called "reasoned opinion", the second stage of infringement procedure under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. If Member States concerned fail to respond adequately within two months of receiving the reasoned opinion, the Commission may decide to refer them to the Court of Justice.

Commenting on the decisions, the Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallström, said:

"I regret that the Commission has to remind Member States to safeguard the important environmental rights of the public to receive environmental information and be consulted on the possible environmental impacts of projects, as foreseen under this key Directive. These rights are a tangible expression of a Community that is close to the citizen"

The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive is one of the Community's principal pieces of environmental legislation. It requires Member States to consider the need for and to carry out environmental impact assessments of a wide range of projects before they are authorised.

For some projects (such as motorway construction) listed in Annex I of the Directive, such assessments are obligatory. For others (such as urban development projects) listed in Annex II, Member States must operate a screening system to determine which projects require assessment. They can apply thresholds or criteria, carry out case-by-case examination or do a combination of these.

The aim of assessment is to learn of possible environmental impacts while it is still possible to avoid or mitigate them. Developers must provide a minimum of information to the public, which must be allowed to express an opinion.

Background

The necessary national legislation should have been in place by July 1988. An amendment to the Directive was adopted in 1997. While retaining the basic framework of the original Directive, the amendment strengthens many of the details. Member States were required to adopt the necessary national laws for this amendment by March 1999.

Country by country details

Spain

The decisions taken against Spain concern several projects. The Oviedo-Llanera express road in Asturias did not receive an adequate prior environmental impact assessment, despite the fact that assessment is mandatory for such projects under the Directive. While the Spanish authorities carried out a form of assessment, this fell short of what the Directive required. The absence of an assessment in this specific case is linked to a flaw in the Spanish legislation, which is the subject of a separate procedure before the Court (C-474/99). The failure to correctly assess a waste storage facility at Bilbao airport has led to another decision against Spain. The absence of public consultation on the impact of a landfill development at San Sebastian de la Gomera has also prompted Commission action, as has the failure to carry out - in spite of clear risks of water pollution - an assessment of a large illegal pig-rearing farm at Vera in Almeria .

United Kingdom

Two Commission decisions have been taken concerning impact assessment in the United Kingdom. The first concerns the failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment with regard to a large multiplex cinema and leisure complex at Crystal Palace in London, despite the fact that this exceeded the threshold for assessment according to the relevant official screening guidelines. It also concerns the more general question of how the UK applies the Directive to multi-stage development consent procedures when the final stages of the decision making process appear not to be subject to the procedure foreseen under the Directive. The second decision relates to gaps in the United Kingdom's legislation with regard to agricultural projects mentioned in the Directive.

The Netherlands

Two Commission decisions have been taken concerning impact assessment in the Netherlands.

The first concerns the impact assessment of dyke projects. Following an October 1996 European Court of Justice decision relating to Dutch dyke projects, in which the Court emphasised the requirement to adequately determine the need for impact assessment (Case C-72/95), the Commission investigated a complaint concerning the role impact assessment has played in a number of individual Dutch dyke projects. While the situation has now improved (since 1999 Dutch legislation provides for a better system of screening dyke projects), the Commission has decided to send a Reasoned Opinion with regard to the Dutch authorities' failure to properly screen a dyke project at Sliedrecht.

The second decision concerns general defects in Dutch legislation used to give effect to the Directive. The legislation doesn't guarantee that an impact assessment will cover all of the environmental factors mentioned in the Directive, especially as regards fauna and flora, landscape, material assets, cultural heritage and the interaction between these. Nor does it guarantee that projects will be screened to judge the possible need for assessment, in accordance with the Directive, or that developers will provide the minimum information that the Directive requires.

Italy

The decision against Italy concerns the failure to undertake an environmental impact assessment of a road-building project at Teramo in Abruzzo. The road will affect a proposed site of Community importance under the Community's Habitats Directive(2). A Commission complaint investigation showed that no proper screening was carried out to determine whether the project required an environmental impact assessment.

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, amended by Directive 97/11/EC.

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna.

Press Officer: Fred Emery 020 8761 0076 Mobile: 0794 117 202
All correspondence to: Hon Secretary, 33 HogarthCourt, Fountain Drive, London SE19 1U
E-mail: fred@syre.demon.co.uk Website: www.crystal.dircon.co.uk

7/8/01 Last updated 7/8/01