Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan. Consultation Analysis and Modifications Report.

2. Responses to Consultation Documents

2.1 Background

2.1.1 The consultation consisted of the following documents:

• Consultation Draft Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan
  http://www.gov.scot/publications/pilot-pentland-firth-orkney-waters-marine-spatial-plan-consultation-draft/
• Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating a Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA)), a Socio-Economic Assessment and work undertaken to meet obligations under the European Commission ( EC) Habitats Regulations Appraisal ( HRA).
  http://www.gov.scot/publications/pilot-pentland-firth-orkney-waters-marine-spatial-plan-sustainability-appraisal/
• Socio-Economic Baseline Review
  http://www.gov.scot/publications/pilot-pentland-firth-orkney-waters-marine-spatial-plan-socio-economic/
• Regional Locational Guidance
  http://www.gov.scot/publications/pilot-pentland-firth-orkney-waters-marine-spatial-plan-regional-locational/
• Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment
  http://www.gov.scot/publications/pilot-pentland-firth-orkney-waters-marine-spatial-plan-partial-business/
• Equality Impact Assessment Record
  http://www.gov.scot/publications/pilot-pentland-firth-orkney-waters-marine-spatial-plan-equality-impact/

2.1.2 These reports were published on the Scottish Government website ^[10] and Consultation Hub ^[11] on 15 June 2015 with responses requested by 6 September 2015.

2.1.3 The public consultation events were held on 6 July in Stromness, 7 July in Thurso and 9 July in Durness.

2.2 Number of Responses

2.2.1 A total of 31 responses were received, these included 28 that had comments specifically in relation to the Plan and three from the Consultation Authorities (Scottish Natural Heritage ( SNH), Scottish Environment Protection Agency ( SEPA) and Historic Environment Scotland ( HES)) that were specifically in relation to the Sustainability Appraisal. For the purposes of this analysis the 28 responses received in relation to the Plan will be discussed first and the responses received in relation to the Sustainability Appraisal discussed in Section 38.

2.2.2 Each response received was read in detail and given due consideration. All respondents gave permission to publish their responses and this was done via the Consultation Hub ^[12] .

2.3 Respondent Classification

2.3.1 Each respondent to the consultation was assigned to one of six broad stakeholder groups and then subdivided (where necessary) to a further sub-group to allow a detailed analysis of their responses. Table 2.1 shows the six groups and 14 sub-groups used in the consultation analysis and the number of responses received against the broad stakeholder category and for each sub-group within that.

Table 2.1 Definitions of stakeholder categories and responses received.

2.3.2 It can be seen that most responses were received from the public sector and the commercial sector (9 and 6 responses respectively) with individuals having 4 responses and the remaining sectors being made up by responses from the recreation sector, non-governmental organisations and the fisheries and aquaculture sector with 3 responses each.

2.3.3 For some groups the responses came from a wider range of stakeholders as shown by the sub-group counts e.g. the commercial sector had five sub-groups whereas all the fisheries and aquaculture sector responses were received from fishermen's associations representing the industry as a whole.

2.3.4 For the remainder of this report the 'fisheries and aquaculture' group will be referred to as 'fisheries' where comments are in relation to commercial sea fisheries or relevant to both industries, with specific aquaculture comments i.e. those in relation to the keeping of fish or shellfish, highlighted where necessary.

2.4 Geographical Distribution of Respondents

2.4.1 The geographical distribution of the respondents is shown in Table 2.2. There were 4 responses each for Orkney and Caithness and Sutherland but the majority of the responses (16 of 28 responses) were received from organisations that had a Scotland-wide remit. One response was received from a company based in Ireland but with a commercial interest in renewable energy development in Scotland.

Table 2.2 Geographical origin of responses received.

2.5 Analysis of Responses

2.5.1 The consultation consisted of a total of 55 questions ^[13] , the majority of which were asking for comments on specific parts of the Plan or supporting documents. There were also questions where respondents could comment on the marine planning process more generally.

2.5.2 Respondents were asked to complete an online survey on the Scottish Government Consultation Hub. The majority of the respondents choose not to do this and either submitted their responses by e-mail using an electronic copy of the questionnaire or by sending a letter.

2.5.3 When responses were sent by e-mail or letter the responses were uploaded manually to the Consultation Hub by Marine Scotland staff. Where it was not clear which question the response referred to the comments were noted in an 'any other comments' box and were read and used to inform this Consultation Analysis and Modifications Report.

2.5.4 For the purposes of the analysis outlined below only responses that provided comment or text were discussed, those that did not supply text or provided text such as 'no comment' or 'no' to a question were included in the counts of responses for each question but not considered further.

2.5.5 The remainder of this report follows the structure of the consultation draft of the Plan and outlines the responses received for each section or policy. In each section the main themes from the responses are discussed and a table that has modifications suggested by respondents and the working group response is included as a summary for each section. Sections containing the analysis of the supporting documents are also included and a similar format followed.

2.5.6 The tables of suggested modifications has been used to update the Plan. Where the working group themselves have identified a change or correction that was needed these are included in the relevant modifications table. Minor spelling corrections and formatting changes are not included in these tables.

2.5.7 Where a paragraph number is used to refer to specific text the number from the consultation draft is used and, if the number has changed during the updates of the Plan, the new paragraph number is contained in brackets.

2.5.8 The text for the suggested modifications has, in most cases, been copied directly from the response but on other occasions similar comments have been combined into one suggestion and in other cases the comments have been edited for clarity or brevity.