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

43. Consultation events in Stromness, Thurso and Durness

43.1 Background

43.1.1 The pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan Consultation Draft and supporting documents were released for consultation between 15th June and 6th September 2015. The working group held a series of consultation events to provide an opportunity for stakeholders and the wider public to learn about, and provide comments, on the Marine Spatial Plan.

43.1.2 The consultation events were held at the Warehouse Buildings in Stromness on 6th July 2015, Caithness Horizons in Thurso on 7th July 2015, and in the Village Hall in Durness on 9th July 2015.

43.1.3 Public drop-in sessions were held between 13:00 and 20:00 and the working group were available to provide information and discuss specific issues of interest with the members of the public that attended. A short presentation on the Plan was given by the working group at 18:30 with an opportunity for attendees to ask questions afterwards.

43.1.4 A sign-in sheet was available at each event and participants were asked to provide a name, details on occupation and an email address should they wish to receive updates on the work to develop the Plan. Details on occupation were collected to identify potential participants for the Scottish Firms Impact Test as part of the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment.

43.1.5 Notes were taken of the discussion after the presentations and summaries are provided below.

43.2 Summary of Discussion from Stromness Drop-In Session

43.2.1 Twenty-nine individuals attended the public drop-in session during the day in Stromness and 22 individuals attended the evening presentation. Some of those present at the presentation had visited earlier in the day.

43.2.2 There were questions raised concerning the purpose of the Plan. One question addressed the need for marine spatial planning when there are already existing controls for marine developments ( e.g. Environmental Impact Assessments). Another was with regards to the authority of the Plan in relation to marine development decisions. It was explained that the Plan itself does not make decisions on marine developments, rather it is intended to provide guidance for existing consenting processes. Clarification was provided on the distinction between planning and consenting decisions.

43.2.3 A question was raised in relation to the differences in process used to develop the Shetland and Clyde Marine Spatial Plans and how these relate to the pilot PFOW Marine Spatial Plan. It was highlighted that a 'one size fits all' approach is not appropriate for marine planning and that the non-statutory nature of the pilot project offered much more flexibility toward its development. It was noted that the pilot Plan has been developed in line with the process detailed in the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. The Lessons Learned report that is being prepared alongside the final Plan can be used to inform the development of the subsequent statutory Regional Marine Plans.

43.2.4 Another participant raised a number of concerns. This included pointing out the paucity of information on spawning areas for commercially important fish and shellfish as well as for the navigational routes of fishing activity. The participant felt that the spatial diagram within the Plan was misleading and that it did not represent a true baseline of existing activity given the prominence of fishing in the area. In response to this concern, it was noted that the spatial diagram is for indicative purposes and as such was only intended to highlight the diversity of activity in the Plan area and does not include every use of the marine environment. It was recognised by the working group that there are still data gaps that need to be addressed.

43.2.5 Another concern was for a perceived conflict of interest with regards to the inclusion of the Orkney Harbour Authority within the project steering group, particularly when it comes to addressing commercial issues such as cruise ships and ship-to-ship oil transfers. It was agreed that this could be considered in the Lessons Learned report to inform the make-up of the steering group in subsequent Marine Planning Partnerships. A discussion followed on the definition of sustainable development used throughout the Plan. The participant felt that sustainable development could not be achieved through spatial allocation alone.

43.2.6 Concerns regarding non-native species were raised, particularly in relation to the Ballast Water Policy in Scapa Flow. It was noted that the Plan contained a policy on invasive non-native species and that this highlighted the need for a co-ordinated approach to biosecurity. It was also noted that the transfer of non-native species is not related to just one industry and that there is a responsibility on individuals and businesses that use the marine environment to ensure that they take measures to reduce the risk of transferring species.

43.2.7 A concern was raised by one participant with regards to the removal of equipment remaining on the seabed from marine renewable energy developments that are no longer going forward. The response was that the Crown Estate had picked up on this point at a previous meeting and it was noted that the working group would try to get an update and pass this information on. The same participant expressed concern about when Crown Estate leases for wave energy sites would end. The working group advised that the Agreement for Lease at Marwick Head, as well three others, had been handed back to the Crown Estate.

43.2.8 Another participant questioned the feasibility of placing renewable energy structures within the Pentland Firth in the first place due to the nature of the current.

43.2.9 There was a question raised on whether the Plan would make things easier for local decision making. This question was directed at a local councillor who was in attendance. The response was that the Plan could be used to provide guidance during decision making, particularly to inform discussions and debate. However it was not considered to be perfect due to certain data gaps.

43.3 Summary of Discussion from Thurso Drop-In Session

43.3.1 Thirty-six individuals attended the public drop-in session during the day in Thurso and 18 individuals attended the evening presentation. Some of those present at the presentation had visited earlier in the day.

43.3.2 There was a question raised regarding whether low fly zones had been considered in the Plan. The participant was informed that new developments would be required to comply with standard procedures and guidance.

43.3.3 There was a question raised about the definition of the boundary between land and sea. The overlap between the terrestrial and marine planning systems was highlighted by a member of the working group and it was noted that estuarine waters are part of the marine planning system.

43.3.4 One participant wished to know where to find information about the progress of marine renewable energy projects. The participant was directed to the Marine Scotland Licensing and Operations Team website for updates.

43.3.5 There was a concern raised about using the online consultation as a participation tool. The participant felt that there was no opportunity for providing comments on what was missing from the Plan (routes for migratory species was used as an example). It was also considered that the online questionnaire was a lengthy process to complete. The participant was directed to provide comments on the Plan in the 'any other comments' box at the bottom of the consultation and was informed that respondents could skip sections in the questionnaire that were not relevant to them. With regards to migratory species, current research projects and planning policies are detailed within the National Marine Plan.

43.3.6 A final comment was made on current knowledge of fish breeding areas within the local area. It was acknowledged that there was a lack of data for inshore areas, but information has been updated for offshore areas.

43.4 Summary of Discussion from Durness Drop-In Session

43.4.1 Seven individuals attended the public drop-in session during the day in Durness and four individuals attended the evening presentation. Some of the discussion in Durness surrounded issues that could not be directly addressed in the Plan, but were nonetheless noted for consideration. This included the disposal of marine litter at sea, increased shipping traffic due to emergencies in other areas, and the movement of spent nuclear fuel in adverse weather conditions.

43.4.2 There was a discussion on the potential for the information contained within the Plan to be used by the Local Development Group to assist in moving forward with a local harbour project at Loch Eriboll. It was suggested by the working group that the information in the Plan could potentially be useful in the preparation of a business case to secure funding for a required wave modelling study. There was a strong concern that there was little landing access in the local area for yachting, recreational and other vessels, therefore potential economic opportunities were being missed. It was also considered a health and safety issue that access points between Kinlochbervie and Scrabster were sparse given the often changeable sea conditions. Participants were told that policies in the Plan would support development which provide socio-economic benefits and that information from the Plan could be used to support the case for new harbour development. The Marine Scotland Shipping Study was cited as a source of information on vessel traffic in the Pentland Firth which could also be used to help inform any development.