ABSTRACT
T he principal aim o f EIA is, as we have seen, to provide decision m akers with com prehensive inform ation about the likely im pact o f a developm ent project on the environm ent. In the UK p lanning system those decision m akers com e in a variety o f forms. At the top o f the tree is the relevant Secretaries o f State (Environm ent, Wales, Scotland and N o rth ern Ire lan d 1); below them are a host o f Inspectors, som etim es called R eporters (Scotland) ; fu rth er down the list com e Councillors, the elected m em bers o f district, county, unitary o r m etropolitan borough councils; and at the very bottom are chief o r senior p lanning officers who deal with ‘delegated decisions’. In term s o f the n um ber o f decisions m ade, this pyram id is o f course inverted, with by far the majority o f p lanning decisions being m ade by planning officers gran ting perm ission for dom estic house extensions and m inor changes o f use. As a rough guide we can say tha t the larger the project the h igher up the pyram id o f decision m akers the decision is m ade. Yet this is n o t always true. T he UK appeal system only operates w hen planning applications are refused; there is no th ird party appeal against a p lanning perm ission unless it is a legal challenge th rough the courts. Councillors are norm ally the highest up the decision-making pyram id tha t m ost p lanning applications reach. They only go higher, to an Inspector or Secretary of State, for two m ain reasons: firstly tha t the Councillors have refused p lanning perm ission and the developer has appealed against the decision and secondly if the relevant Secretary o f State believes the application raises m ore than local issues and calls in the application for h is /h e r d e term ination2.
