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

3. Overview of comments received

3.1 Approach to the Plan

3.1.1 Comments received on the approach taken by the working group to developing the Plan were mostly in response to the question 'Do you have any further comments about the approach to the marine planning process?'.

3.2 Summary of responses received on the approach to the marine planning process.

Stakeholder	Count
Commercial	2
Fisheries and aquaculture	2
Individual	1
Non-governmental organisation	0
Public sector	6
Recreation	2
TOTAL	13

3.2.1 Some respondents provided comments on the approach to the Plan in covering letters and in response to other questions. These responses have been taken into account in this overview.

3.2.2 Overall, the respondents welcomed the Plan and the approach taken by the working group. Respondents comments included 'overall an excellent MSP', a ' sound attempt to put a huge amount of complex information into a useable format' and 'the authors should be commended for the level of detail and broad context provided within the Plan'.

3.2.3 Other respondents commented they welcomed the opportunities to be involved in the development of the Plan.

3.2.4 Although broadly welcomed by the majority of those who commented the respondents also provided feedback on how the process could be improved. The overall tone of the comments was that the Plan was a very good start and will form a good basis for the statutory Regional Marine Plans but some respondents felt there were further improvements that could be made and these are outlined in Table 3.1 below.

3.3 Layout of Plan

3.3.1 A specific question was asked about the layout of the Plan 'Are there any changes to the overall layout of the Plan and/or presentation of information within it which would increase its usefulness to your organisation or business?'.

3.4 Summary of responses received on the layout of the Plan.

Stakeholder	Count
Commercial	2
Fisheries and aquaculture	3
Individual	1
Non-governmental organisation	1
Public sector	6
Recreation	2
TOTAL	15

3.4.1 Although some respondents who provided comment noted that the layout of the Plan was consistent and easy to follow and the hard copy well laid out and accessible others felt a different approach could have been taken.

3.4.2 Some respondents suggested following the approach that had been taken by the Shetland Marine Spatial Plan where the 'Clean and Safe' and 'Healthy and Diverse' polices needed to be adhered to first before considering the relevant 'Productive' policy.

3.5 Length of the Plan

3.5.1 There were many comments in relation to the length of the Plan with many respondents acknowledging the Plan contained a lot of information but noting that there were ways in which it could be presented differently in order to be more concise.

3.5.2 The suggestions included placing information in a Lessons Learned report, removing the Information Boxes, shortening the Further Reading section to a list of Key References, streamlining the background information in the How to use the Plan section and making Section 3 an appendix.

3.5.3 One respondent noted that Section 2 provided useful information on regulations and legislation but for future regional marine plans it may be more useful to have this as a stand-alone guidance document. The suggestion was that this could be an addendum to the National Marine Plan. This would be more efficient and reduce the potential for errors.

3.6 Spatial information within the Plan

3.6.1 The general theme in relation to the spatial information within the Plan was that it was not sufficient. Some respondents felt there should have been a much more regional approach and that the spatial data should have been presented in a manner that could guide potential developers and streamline the planning process.

3.6.2 One respondent noted that the Plan should have contained a constraints mapping, or equivalent, component.

3.6.3 One respondent noted that the spatial data as presented did not add significant user value to the policy framework already provided by the National Marine Plan and other instruments.

3.7 Policy information within the Plan

3.7.1 Some respondents felt the text in relation to the policies should be more concise (one gave the example of the General Policies within the National Marine Plan). Another respondent felt that to someone with an interest in a specific sector the layout would enable them to find the policies relevant to them.

3.7.2 Another respondent noted there was not enough detail contained within the policies and would not provide adequate guidance for developers and decision makers.

3.7.3 One respondent felt the policies should have had more of a focus on particular issues relevant to the area. They suggested this could be guided by the issues that emerge during the stakeholder engagement phase of the Plan process rather than following the policies contained within the National Marine Plan.

3.7.4 Some respondents raised concerns about duplication of effort and potential confusion and also the potential burden of updating and working within multiple tiers of planning policy.

3.8 Membership of working group and advisory group

3.8.1 A specific question was asked 'Do you have any comments on the membership of the Plan Working Group and/or Advisory Group that could be addressed through future Marine Planning Partnerships?'.

3.9 Summary of responses received on membership of the working group and advisory group.

Stakeholder	Count
Commercial	2
Fisheries and aquaculture	3
Individual	1
Non-governmental organisation	1
Public sector	6
Recreation	2
TOTAL	15

3.9.1 One respondent noted that they welcomed the strong links between members of the working group and local land-use planners. The same respondent noted that they hoped future regional marine plans would be led by local stakeholders.

3.9.2 In terms of the advisory group there were comments that it was important that a wide variety of interests were represented and that it should be kept to a small size and managed in such a way that stakeholders with a larger representation should not be allowed to dominate.

3.9.3 Two fisheries stakeholders made the point that their interests were not represented on the advisory group for this Plan. One also raised the issue of potential conflicts of interest within the advisory group e.g. Orkney Islands Council (a member of the advisory group) operates arms-length companies. The other stakeholder noted that although the fishing industry had been consulted during the drafting of the Plan they felt that any advisory group should have had fisheries representatives as members.

3.9.4 The same stakeholder also noted that the National Marine Plan states that inshore fishing interests should be represented by Inshore Fisheries Groups in Marine Planning Partnerships and that their management plans will inform and reflect the regional plan. They felt this was not accurately reflected in the Plan.

3.10 Other comments

3.10.1 It was noted that the collaborative work between Marine Scotland, Orkney Islands Council and the Highland Council was a very positive aspect of this pilot process.

3.10.2 It was noted by one stakeholder that there had been a 'An honest attempt to include stakeholders has been made and this is to be welcomed..'. Another stakeholder noted the work done to pull together information and engage with regional stakeholders will be of real benefit to the development of future regional marine plans.

3.10.3 One respondent noted that they did not feel the Plan will contribute towards achieving sustainable management of the PFOW region's marine environment. Another respondent felt it would be difficult to support the adoption of the Plan as supplementary guidance or as the basis of the Orkney and North Coast regional marine plans.

3.10.4 One respondent felt the Plan should more strongly reflect strategic/forward thinking in the planning process and provide a 'call to action' that informs activity management not subject to marine licensing. In relation to this they noted that setting out key actions (similar to the Action Programmes of the terrestrial planning process) would help the regional marine plans drive progress beyond current statutory regulatory requirements or contribute to the management of activities that do not currently require spatially specific consent.

3.10.5 The same respondent noted the 'issues' stage had been very useful and provided comment on how e.g. phrasing of the questions at this stage, could improve the process. It was also noted that a Coastal Issues Report ( CIR) could contain information on the key coastal issues in a region and could help ensure consistency with terrestrial plans. The respondent suggested the spatial limits of a CIR are defined by relevant issues rather than an arbitrary distance from the sea.

3.10.6 One respondent noted that the environmental assessment of the Plan does not recognise that the Sectoral Marine Plans and their Habitats Regulations Appraisal ( HRA) are still in draft. This respondent felt that there exists a technical omission regarding the Plan's HRA. It relies on the fact the Sectoral Plans have already been assessed, when in fact they haven't. Unless the Sectoral Marine Plans and their HRA are finalised, then the Plan will require an Appropriate Assessment.

3.11 Summary of comments

3.11.1 The comments received on the process of developing the Plan and on the Plan itself suggested ways in which the work could have been carried out differently and, in some cases, provided suggestions for changes that could be made before finalising the Plan.

3.11.2 The working group have considered the comments received and took them into consideration during the finalisation of the Plan. The key changes are outlined in the table below.

Table 3.1 Table of key points and working group response

No.	Key point made	Action taken	Lesson Learned
1	The layout of the Plan was felt to be consistent and easy to follow although some respondents suggested ways in which it could be improved.	The working group note the comments but feel that to change the layout at this stage would create confusion.	It will be noted that a more streamlined approach would be welcome. The Shetland Marine Spatial Plan approach could be considered for future Regional Marine Plans.
2	The length of the Plan was considered to be too long and there were many suggestions as to how this could be shortened.	The working group note the concerns but felt for a pilot process it was important to provide information for people who may not necessarily be aware of e.g. the legislative requirements.	Future regional marine plans could use some of the suggestions e.g. a stand alone document for the legislative requirements.
3	Spatial information within the Plan was considered to be insufficient.	Whilst it is acknowledged that there is no 'constraints' mapping within the Plan this was owing to a lack of resources to carry out this work. National Marine Planning interactive is a very useful and up to date tool that provides a lot of extra data and the Plan highlights this tool.	Future regional marine planning will need to consider methods to map constraints.
4	Policy information within the Plan was considered to duplicate existing legislation and some respondents felt the policies did not have to mirror the National Marine Plan.	The purpose of the Plan is to provide a framework of everything that would be necessary to be considered for potential developments. Consistency with the National Marine Plan was felt to be important as the marine planning process is new and both plans were being drafted in parallel.	It is likely as regional marine planning develops there will be opportunities to streamline the policies used.
5	It was noted that any advisory group should be kept small but also represent a range of interests. Two fisheries stakeholders voiced their concern that their interests were not represented on the PFOW advisory group.	The advisory group was deliberately kept small and were chosen to represent organisations with an interest in the protection and enhancement of the region, the use of the region for recreational purposes and the use of the region for commercial purposes as outlined in the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010.	Marine Planning Partnerships are in the process of being developed and will likely be different for each region. However, the core group will likely involve Local Authorities and fishing interests should be represented by Inshore Fisheries Groups, or equivalent, whose management plans will inform and reflect the regional plan.
6	It was noted that the collaborative working between Marine Scotland, Orkney Islands Council and Highland Council worked well and would benefit future work.	This set up worked very well and although it is likely each Marine Planning Partnership will be set up differently the lessons learned by the working group during this process will be useful.	This will be included in the Lessons Learned report.
7	Regional stakeholder engagement was felt to have worked well.	Agreed, although this aspect of the work is very resource intensive and this should be factored into any future Marine Planning Partnerships.	This will be included in the Lessons Learned report.
8	The 'issues' stage was felt to have been a success although there were suggestions for how it could be improved.	Agree, this stage was very useful and there is potential to make it more efficient and set up in a way that will generate useful debate.	This will be included in the Lessons Learned report.
9	It was felt the Plan could have a more strategic approach and a 'call to action' that informs activity not subject to marine licensing.	This was beyond the scope of the resources of this Plan.	This will be included in the Lessons Learned report.
10	It was also noted that a Coastal Issues Report ( CIR) could contain information on the key coastal issues in a region and could help ensure consistency with terrestrial plans.	This was beyond the scope of the resources of this Plan.	This will be included in the Lessons Learned report.
11	One respondent noted that the environmental assessment of the Plan does not recognise that the Sectoral Marine Plans and their Habitats Regulations Appraisal ( HRA) are still in draft.	The Sectoral Marine Plans and their associated HRA are in the process of being finalised and the Plan text will provide a link to the webpage where they will be published.	Future regional marine planning will need to ensure related work being drafted in parallel is used to inform the development of the regional plans.