Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3900
- 3919)
3900. CHAIRMAN: That is what it is all
about.
3901. MR ELVIN: This is from the Heron
Tower website.[7]
3902. MR HORTON: My Lord, it may help
to put up Article 5 of the Directive in its amended form and also
Annex IV.[8]
You will see that Article 5 in its amended form provides: "in
the case of projects which, pursuant to Article 4, must be subjected
to an environmental impact assessment ... Member States shall
adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the developer supplies
in an appropriate form the information specified in Annex IV",
and moving down to paragraph 3 this is provided that the "information
to be provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 1
shall include ... " the matters identified at the dagger
points and you see the fourth dagger point: "an outline of
the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication
of the main reasons for his choice". As a matter of language,
I am sure it is apparent to your Lordships and my Lady at first
blush that is simply saying that if the Promoter chooses to study
an alternative which warrants the description "main alternative",
then he must outline that and indicate the main reasons for the
choice so that I readily accept, having a duty of course to this
Committee as well as to the Petitioner, at first blush that language
does not assist me.
3903. CHAIRMAN: Does it assist us either?
3904. MR HORTON: This is the question,
I am afraid, that I am asking the Committee to grapple with.
3905. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know, but you
are going to have to tell us what you have to say about it. When
do we have to take this decision upon the basis of facts? When?
Normally speaking, if there is a case that requires an EIA, the
local planning authority is bound to look at the points such as
you have just drawn to our attention. Now in this case Parliament
has so far gone ahead on the basis of such environmental impact
assessments as have been presented. I think you are asking us
to do the exercise over again and make a recommendation that there
should be another look at this.
3906. MR HORTON: Yes.
3907. CHAIRMAN: That would therefore,
would it not, be based upon the facts as they are today?
3908. MR HORTON: It has to be. It would
be futile.
3909. CHAIRMAN: It would be absolutely
pointless, would it not?
3910. MR HORTON: Yes, it would and my
instructions, which really relate to what I will seek to put before
you tomorrow, do relate to today's date, have no fear of that.
3911. CHAIRMAN: It is an indication of
the main reasons as indicated either today or tomorrow.
3912. MR HORTON: That is what you would
be asking, if you were to do it, to be done.
3913. CHAIRMAN: It is no use looking
at the indications that were considered in 2001.
3914. MR HORTON: No.
3915. CHAIRMAN: We need to look at the
ones that are relevant today.
3916. MR HORTON: It must be right, in
my submission.
3917. CHAIRMAN: That is for Parliament's
purpose as the decision-maker.
3918. MR HORTON: Yes. You see there is
an annex as well and information referred to Article 5(1) and
that repeats at paragraph 2 the requirement to outline the main
alternative studies, the language is the same. [9]
3919. CHAIRMAN: Brussels simply said
it twice.
7 Crossrail Ref: P23, Map of Heron Tower area (SCN-20080312-007) Back
8
Committee Ref: A21, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment (SCN-200803012-008 to -009) Back
9
Committee Ref: A21, Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997
amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects
of certain public and private projects on the environment, Annex
IV-Information Referred to in Article 5 (1) (SCN-200803012-010) Back
| 
