(i) The authority merely had to confirm that what was contained in the Basic Assessment Report she could see when she was on the site; (ii) the observations made by the authority, whilst conducting the site visit, are not in themselves compelling to approval, but that other relevant authorities also have their say; (iii) the approval of the BAR was the result of the process taken to determine whether it conformed to the requirements, not her expert opinion of the existence of a wetland.

However, the first point seems to place over-reliance on the honesty and integrity of the EAP by merely looking at what was placed by the EAP in the BAR. In regards to the second point it is not clear what role “other relevant authorities” had in the approval process. The last point is further complicated by the fact that when the authority visited the site she was shown a sewerage leek on the property as a possible explanation for the wetland like conditions. But there was always the chance that a wetland could be present in conjunction with the sewerage leak. Accordingly, it is clear that the authority as a non-expert was not able to confirm the presence of a wetland; however, it could be argued that the authority should have exercised her discretion and requested that an expert be called in. This approach would seem to be more in line with the precautionary principle embodied in NEMA.