Factory and plant site selection: screen for protected areas and wetlands before you option the land
Choosing a factory or plant site is a decision about land, and the land's designations decide how long the permit will take. The EIA Directive's Annex III tells the authority to weigh the environmental sensitivity of the location — wetlands, riparian areas, nature reserves and parks, areas protected under national law, Natura 2000 sites — when it screens a project; ESRS E4 asks the company afterwards whether its sites are in or near biodiversity-sensitive areas; GRI 101 asks for the sites' polygons. ERWAY Legality Assessment answers those questions per candidate site, before the option is signed.
Upload the candidates as polygons and compare them on the same five sources: protected areas with their category and class, Indigenous and community lands with their tenure status, World Heritage sites and protected wetlands with their footprint's confidence, and the threatened species recorded inside and within a kilometre. One outcome per site, the strictest tier behind it, the deciding source named. A site inside a strict-protection area drops out on the first read; a site near a wetland boundary starts a permit conversation with the finding already in hand. The EIA screening page follows the permit; the ESRS E4 page covers the disclosure that reuses the same record.
What the permitting authority will look at
Under Annex III of Directive 2011/92/EU as amended, the location criteria include wetlands, riparian areas and river mouths; coastal zones and the marine environment; mountain and forest areas; nature reserves and parks; areas classified or protected under national legislation; Natura 2000 areas; and landscapes and sites of historical, cultural or archaeological significance. A candidate site that touches several of those is not necessarily unbuildable, but it does mean a longer and more expensive permit — and the screening tells you so before the land is bought.
Comparing candidates on one record
Because every site is checked the same way, the sites can be ranked on the same evidence: this one has no findings, that one overlaps a water-protection zone at tier 5, the third lies in a Biosphere Reserve's transition zone with a low-confidence footprint. The map shows the overlapping part of each site; the export carries the comparison into the board paper with every finding dated.
After the site is chosen
The same polygon becomes a reporting site. ESRS E4 asks whether it is in or near a biodiversity-sensitive area; GRI 101 asks for its location, size and proximity to ecologically sensitive areas, preferably as a polygon; the TNFD's Locate phase asks the same. The screening record made at selection is the one those disclosures cite, re-run whenever the reference data is re-imported.
What remains
The environmental impact assessment, the appropriate assessment where a Natura 2000 site is concerned, zoning, the building permit and the industrial licence are the authority's process and the company's application. The screening is preliminary and is labelled as such; where a national register is the authority, the page tells you to consult it.