Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan. Consultation Analysis and Modifications Report.
The Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan is a pilot process undertaken by a working group consisting of Marine Scotland, Orkney Islands Council and Highland Council in advance of statutory regional marine planning. This report presents an
7. General Policies
7.1 Summary of responses received
7.1.1 This section deals with responses received in relation to the questions 'Do you have any comments on the format of the general policies?' and 'Do you have any comments on Table 2?'.
7.1.2 This table describes the responses received in relation to the format of the general policies.
| Stakeholder | Count |
|---|---|
| Commercial | 3 |
| Fisheries and aquaculture | 1 |
| Individual | 0 |
| Non-governmental organisation | 2 |
| Public sector | 4 |
| Recreation | 1 |
| TOTAL | 11 |
7.1.3 This table describes the responses received in relation to Table 2.
| Stakeholder | Count |
|---|---|
| Commercial | 1 |
| Fisheries and aquaculture | 1 |
| Individual | 2 |
| Non-governmental organisation | 0 |
| Public sector | 5 |
| Recreation | 2 |
| TOTAL | 11 |
7.2 Main themes
7.2.1 There was a mix of comments in relation to this question. Some respondents felt the format of the policies was clear and set at the appropriate level. Other respondents felt the policies were too long and provided suggestions on how to change them. The suggestions included having policies in a similar format to the general policies within the National Marine Plan, removing Information Boxes, having Key References and pointing to existing legislation rather than have policies that reiterate much of the information. Another respondent noted the general policies were not detailed enough and did not provide adequate guidance for potential developers and decisions makers.
7.2.2 The format of the Shetland Marine Spatial Plan was suggested as a good example of embedding the principles of sustainable development and the ecosystem approach.
7.2.3 One respondent noted that additional policy guidance such as identifying areas of conflict and the required compromises is needed in the Plan. This respondent felt this would increase clarity for developers and improve the efficiency of decision making.
7.2.4 It was noted that it would be helpful to have the policies cross referenced to the equivalent policy in the National Marine Plan. Another suggestion was to have a quick guide or summary of the policies up front to allow identification of the policies relevant to a specific development. One respondent felt it would be good to have the relevant National Marine Plan interactive data referenced within each policy.
7.2.5 One respondent felt the 'Pressures' section should be renamed 'Issues' to provide a link with the 'Issues and Options' stage of the process and a clear connection with issues raised by stakeholders to the policies intended to address those issues. This respondent felt the Plan should address pressures on particular sectoral or policy targets ( e.g. economic or social pressures) and potential pressures (on the marine environment) caused by particular sectors.
7.2.6 The same respondent noted that the Future Considerations section does not set out long term challenges and could be renamed 'Future Issues and Actions' as this is the type of information that is contained within these sections of the Plan. This information could then be used in future regional marine plans to identify actions to take forward and medium and long term issues to start thinking about.
7.2.7 One respondent commented that the policies must be in line with existing Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment requirements.
7.2.8 One respondent commented that many of the polices relate to existing legislation and it may be better to point to that legislation rather than outline the requirements in the Plan.
7.2.9 The majority of respondents who replied to the question on Table 2 had no further comments. Of the remaining four responses one stakeholder felt it was a useful checklist but would likely not be used by the majority of readers. Another felt that classifying impacts as indirect should not reduce the importance of the impacts. One respondent felt that the provision of reliable information on existing and proposed marine activities was listed in the table as not contributing to achieving the majority of the Plan objectives and challenged this as they felt having reliable data is important for making informed decisions.
7.2.10 The remaining respondent thought the table was clear and concise and was a useful tool.
Table 7.1 General Policy format and Table 2 - Table of suggested modifications
| No. | Suggested modification | Action taken | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| 75 | It would be useful to have a quick guide or summary of the policies up front for when more experienced users are familiar with the background but need to understand which policies may apply to a specific development, without having to go through the whole section. | None. | The application of policies to a development should be undertaken on a case by case basis given the different features and locations of specific developments. |
| 76 | We suggest that the 'Pressures' section is renamed 'Issues'. This would provide a more direct and transparent link with the 'Issues and Options' stage of the plan-making process, allowing a clear connection from the issues raised by stakeholders to the policies intended to address those issues. This would also facilitate an assessment of the success of the plan in addressing the identified issues. | None. | Pressures is considered an appropriate term in the context of this marine spatial plan. |
| 77 | We suggest that instead the 'Future Considerations' section be called "Future Issues and Actions". This more closely reflects the actual content of these sections, which is a mix of actions that we might expect the next RMPs to take forward and medium long term issues they might start to think about. In doing so this section could be of great value to future statutory planners, clearly indicating the aspects of marine planning that have not been deliverable in this pilot. | None. | Future Considerations is considered appropriate given the current position regarding the two future Marine Planning Partnerships, associated resources and priorities. This section allows for the identification of future action as appropriate. |
| 78 | We strongly believe all policies must be in line with existing EIA/ SEA requirements. | None. | Policies have been developed alongside an Strategic Environmental Assessment and are compliant with appropriate Environmental Impact Assessment requirements. |
| 79 | The format of the Shetland Marine Spatial Plan has successfully embedded the principles of sustainable development and the ecosystem approach and we recommend that is referred to for guidance in preparing the PFOWs Plan and subsequent Regional Marine Plans. | Consider the Shetland Marine Spatial Plan approach through the Lessons Learned process. | To compare both approaches to Marine Spatial Planning. |
| 80 | Additional policy guidance is required in the Plan, e.g. areas of conflict need to be identified and the required compromises stated. Additional guidance of this type increases certainty for stakeholders and improves and makes decision making more efficient. | Consider this spatial approach through the Lessons Learned process. | To consider an alternative spatial approach for future marine planning exercises. |
| 81 | We would prefer that the data available on NMPi is also referenced within each policy. | None. | Relevant NMPi data has been referenced with supporting policy text. An exhaustive list of NMPi data is not considered appropriate. |
| 82 | Many of the 'information boxes' are not pertinent to the policy (rather background or supplementary information) and should be removed or, where appropriate, included in the Glossary at the end of the Plan. Also, the 'Further Reading' sections at the end of each sector should be shortened to a list of Key References (similar to NMP). If the PFOW is to adopt the same policy structure as the NMP, we suggest that the General policies section be shortened and remain consistent with the NMP. | None. | The Plan is intended to be a resource for future marine planners and has therefore often provided context to policies within information boxes to signpost access to relevant information. The Further Information section is considered to be concise given the breath of available material. |
| 83 | As many of the policies relate to existing legislation it is suggested that repeating these here makes the MSP longer than is necessary. It also means that any changes to these wider pieces of legislation will need to be reflected within the MSP. It would perhaps be more efficient to point the user towards these other pieces of legislation rather than creating policies which are a direct transcript of them. | None. | The role of a regional marine plan is to coordinate statutory and non-statutory elements that influence the formulation of planning policy at the regional level. Statutory bodies require that statutory requirements are reflected in planning policies at the regional/local level. The role of local development plans or a regional marine plan is to synthesise a range of data/policies/statutory instruments to create regionally appropriate planning policy that reflect the aspirations of the diverse stakeholder base. These planning policies need to inform and be accessible to a broad range of plan users with a varying knowledge, sectoral interests, national/local interests and familiarity with the policy and legal framework. Therefore, reflecting statutory requirements in policy is essential to ensure compliance as well as aiding transparency in decision making. |
| 84 | It would be helpful to have policies cross-referenced with the equivalent 'parent' policy in the NMP. | None. | The links to the appropriate policies in the National Marine Plan are clear. |
| 85 | Para. 100. 'local sustainable development' needs definition | None. | Sustainable development is defined in Information Box 1 and the local/regional interpretation of this is reflected in General Policy 1A and the wider policy framework within the Plan. |
| 86 | Para. 102. 'Marine safety' must include the navigational safety of fishing vessels navigating to and from grounds and setting gear - this is all navigation between fishing activity and is not captured or generally identified as such when maritime navigation is referred to. | None. | The reference to marine safety in paragraph 102 includes the navigational safety of fishing vessels. |
| 87 | Table 2 - The majority of readers are likely to move past this table and therefore we advise that it would be of most use in a supporting document/ evidence base, rather in the plan itself. | None. | Table 2 provides a clear and concise diagram illustrating how the Plan policies contribute either directly, indirectly or have no clear contribution to the Plan objectives. |
| 88 | We note that table 2 implies that providing reliable information on existing and proposed marine activities is unlikely to directly contribute to achieving the majority of the plan objectives. We would challenge this assertion as we believe reliable data in proportion to the issue being considered is at heart of making informed future decisions. | Table 2 has been amended to acknowledge that all General Policies can make a direct contribution to Objective 4, which is to provide reliable information on existing and proposed marine activities. | To acknowledge that all General Policies can make a direct contribution to Objective 4. |
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback