Independent review of Scottish aquaculture consenting

1. Strengthen the pre-application process

2. Introduce consistent format for co-ordinates, site name and summary information

3. Update of Working Arrangements document

4. Integrate wellboat Marine Licence into the CAR Licence

5. Update Scottish Aquaculture portal

6. Support provision of electronic application forms

7. Update EIA template including links to relevant guidance

8. Hold a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment workshop between SNH, LAs and industry

Review the moorings and equipment Marine Licence form for finfish and shellfish aquaculture, determine any sections that are not covered by planning permission and amalgamate them into the planning permission application form.

This will allow Marine Licences to be awarded by default when Planning Permission has been consented. This action amalgamates the application processes, but does not remove the Marine Licence altogether.

[It is recommended that this action be prioritised].

Use application form as updated in 1.a to develop one specific form for shellfish and one for finfish.

This will reduce the burden, eliminate confusion and assist the shellfish industry in completing application forms.

Update the consultation status of MCA and NLB to statutory in the planning permission process. [It is recommended that this action be prioritised].

Consider aligning the (currently 6-year) review cycle, that updates UK Hydrographic Office, into a condition of planning, subject to consultation with NLB and agreement with LAs.

Consider removing aquaculture from Marine Licencing requirements via legislative change.

This would fully integrate the objective of Marine Licensing (ensuring navigational safety) within Planning Permission.

Review the definition of fish farming as a 'development' within the 1997 Act (as set out in Circular 1/2007 Planning Controls for Marine Fish Farming) to allow aquaculture related equipment to be partly or wholly removed for normal husbandry operations without relinquishing planning permission ( e.g. specify its change to a 'use' as it is for other terrestrial business activities such as caravan parks).

[It is recommended that this action be prioritised].

Reconsider the potential to codify existing legislation into an Aquaculture Act when the consenting process is considered to be efficient/optimal e.g. via a review in 5 years.

Agree working procedures and arrangements between Local Authorities, SEPA and all statutory consultees to enable the alignment of CAR and Planning Permission consents and therefore a fast-tracked consenting process. [This could be delivered as part of the Working Arrangements document update or as a stand alone procedure]

Support facilitation of one HRA and associated Appropriate Assessment by standardising the format for reporting and setting out clear procedure ( e.g. within Working Arrangements document).

Implement a pilot period to test appropriateness of aligned consents.

Assess outcome of the pilot period to determine if alignment should be made mandatory.

Review efficiencies achieved by Options 1 and 3 (after they have been fully implemented) to assess results and determine whether a one-stop shop option would provide further gains.

To support the analysis of risk - ensure monitoring and reporting of sea lice within farmed salmonids is reported at a site level. This will require discussion and agreement between the finfish industry and MSS-FHI on how this is to be implemented, recorded and reported.

[This assumes the decision remains within Planning Permission in the short-term].

To address provision of scientific advice - form a joint agency approach ( e.g. as part of the National Technical Group, which is currently being formed/under discussion) between MSS-FHI, MSS-FFL, SNH, DSFBs and SEPA to take account of information on sea lice levels, treatments, wild fish monitoring and Natura information to enable provision of site specific advice and evaluation that gives a clear steer as to when an aquaculture proposal should be considered acceptable or not with regard to potential wild fish interactions. This could be based on an assessment of risk in data deficient instances.

[This assumes the decision remains within Planning Permission in the short-term]

Update/expand current sea lice modelling tools used by MSS to model sea lice dispersal from a fish farm to inform consenting decisions ( i.e. provide outputs for the joint agency to review and inform their advice).

[This assumes the decision remains within Planning Permission in the short-term]

Move the decision of consent related to wild fish interactions out of Planning Permission and into the remit of MSS-FHI (supported by advice provided via the joint agency (5b)). This could be implemented by expanding the remit already under MSS-FHI control during fish farm operations ^[13] and via expansion of the APB authorisation at the consenting stage, subject to advice/agreement from MSS-FHI.