Environmental impact assessment regimes and habitats regulations: consultation analysis

Section C: Impact assessments

Impacts on the costs and burdens placed on businesses, the public sector and voluntary sector (Q7-8)

Balance of opinion

Opinions regarding the impacts of both the proposed enabling powers in relation to Scotland’s EIA regimes and the 1994 Habitats Regulations on businesses, the public sector and voluntary sector were more mixed but fell broadly in line across the closed questions related to each.

More respondents agreed (39% for EIA regimes, 34% for the 1994 Habitats Regulations) that the proposed enabling powers in relation to Scotland’s EIA regimes and the 1994 Habitats Regulations will not impact directly or indirectly on the costs and burdens placed on businesses, the public sector, voluntary and community organisations, than did not (17% for both).

Across both questions, many respondents responded that they were unsure, had other views or did not answer the closed question.

Unlike Questions 1-6, all respondents who chose not to answer these closed questions also provided no written comments in the free text boxes. This was repeated in all remaining questions of the consultation.

Key Themes

Potential impacts directly or indirectly on the costs and burdens placed on businesses, the public sector, voluntary and community organisations

As stated above, more respondents agreed that the enabling powers in relation to Scotland’s EIA regimes and the 1994 Habitats Regulations were not likely to result in any immediate impact directly or indirectly on the costs and burdens placed on businesses, the public sector, voluntary and community organisations. However, some respondents did highlight potential impacts as a result of future use of the powers. This view was shared particularly amongst those who did not agree in the closed responses to Questions 7 and 8.

Some respondents therefore suggested that in advance of any future change or amendment, a Business Regulations Impact Assessment (“BRIA”) and other relevant impact assessments to consider any potential consequences they may have on businesses, the public sector, voluntary and community organisations. Respondents were also careful to note that this should be subject to consultation and engagement with relevant stakeholders.

Potential impacts that were highlighted, and which could potentially be addressed in a BRIA and any other relevant assessment on future amendments or changes included:

• Any deviation between Scottish and UK Government approaches could place additional burden on affected businesses working across both regimes in developing internal policy, governance, data management and systems, which could ultimately impact customer bills.
• Obligations and burdens placed on land managers, businesses, the public sector and communities for restoration and the costs to be borne by them.
• Regulatory compliance costs, such as the resources needed to screen for, apply to, write, consult, and submit EIAs. It was suggested that any changes to compliance costs associated with EIA amendments could affect the financial viability of a project development and could also affect business investment confidence for developers and investors.
• Potential delays in project development and determinations through regulatory uncertainties or inconsistent interpretations of new requirements. It was highlighted that this was already an issue in some sectors, including aquaculture.

Some respondents also thought that the enabling powers could allow for legislative changes to be implemented that could have a beneficial impact on businesses. The renewables industry in particular was highlighted and the potential that amendments could enable a rapid deployment of renewables.

Lack of detail

A few respondents again raised that they felt there was not enough detail provided at this stage to assess whether or how the enabling powers could have impacts on businesses, the public sector, voluntary and community organisations. One respondent also suggested that it was not possible to assess this as the possible changes were not tightly enough defined.

Effect on Island Communities (Q9-10)

More respondents agreed (34% for EIA regimes, 32% for the 1994 Habitats Regulations) that the proposed enabling powers would not have any effect on an island community that is different from the effect on other communities, than did not (7% for EIA regimes, 5% for the 1994 Habitats Regulations).

Across both questions, a significant number of respondents responded that they were unsure (29% for EIA regimes, 32% for the 1994 Habitats Regulations). More respondents chose to provide no answer to these closed questions than any other in the consultation (24%) and those respondents did not provide further comments in the free text fields.

Key Themes

Potential Effects on Island Communities

A few respondents again suggested that, although the proposed enabling powers in relation to Scotland’s EIA regimes and the 1994 Habitats Regulations will not likely have any effect on an island community that is different from the effect on other communities, there may be effects to consider when the powers are used. They suggested that this was another important reason for full consultation in advance of the powers being used and that this should include appropriate assessments.

Potential effects on island communities that could result from future amendments were identified by some respondents. These included:

• Island businesses and communities in Scotland are especially vulnerable to climate change impacts, and may face more immediate threats from sea-level rise, coastal erosion, and extreme weather events.
• Circumstances specific to Island Communities by virtue of transport, infrastructure and local resources.
• Many island regions host a higher density of European designated sites (for example Special Areas for Conservation, and Special Protection Areas etc.). Any changes to the 1994 Habitats Regulations could therefore have disproportionate effects on areas with higher designations impact on nearby businesses and communities.
• One Renewables respondent pointed to potential issues in processing of applications and consulting on developments which could arise due to increasing number of proposals from developers within the island regions. They suggested that changes to the EIA regimes without full understanding of these potential issues could result in impacts to the Local Planning Authorities of Islands and the activities of developers.

Lack of detail

A few respondents raised that they felt there was not enough detail provided at this stage to assess whether or how the enabling powers could have any effect on an island community that is different from the effect on other communities. One respondent again suggested that it was not possible to assess this as the possible changes were not tightly enough defined.

Impacts on People with Protected Characteristics (Q11-12)

Balance of opinion

Many more respondents agreed (49% for EIA regimes, 40% for the 1994 Habitats Regulations) that the proposed enabling powers in relation to the EIA regimes will not have any impact on people with protected characteristics, than did not (2% for EIA regimes, 3% for the 1994 Habitats Regulations).

Across both questions many respondents responded that they were unsure, had other views or did not answer the closed question. All respondents who chose not to answer these closed questions also provided no written comments in the free text boxes.

Key Themes

Potential Impacts on People with Protected Characteristics

Respondents provided fewer comments to these questions than any others in the consultation. A few respondents again suggested that, although the proposed enabling powers in relation to Scotland’s EIA regimes and the 1994 Habitats Regulations will not likely have any impact on people with protected characteristics, there may be impacts to consider when the powers are used.

They suggested that this was another important reason for full consultation in advance of the powers being used and that this should include appropriate equality impact assessments, including engagement with relevant representative organisations, to ensure changes to the rules take account of the needs of various groups within society.

One respondent specified that the 1994 Habitats Regulations could potentially impact on people with protected characteristics who work on sites where assessments are undertaken, if those who work on sites are forced to stop while assessments are taking place, as they may experience additional monetary impact.

Lack of detail

A few respondents again raised that they felt there was not enough detail provided at this stage to assess whether or how the proposed enabling powers in relation to the EIA regimes and the 1994 Habitats Regulations will not have any impact on people with protected characteristics. One respondent again suggested that it was not possible to assess this as the possible changes were not tightly enough defined.