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

The Figure 6 proposal looks to be perfectly good - the main thing is that there should ultimately be consistency of approach, as well as good agreement between parties, across the entire Scottish waters area covered by Scottish Marine Regions

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP63: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

As long as the same area is included e.g. Skule Skerry then a single strategic area might be more appropriate to ensure an integrated response and less bureaucracy. The geography, flora, fauna and culture of this area is similar and interdependent throughout. We don't have strong feelings and think it would be wasteful to debate too much on this

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP64: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

From an Orkney Fisheries perspective either of the boundary options would be suitable as most of our fleet operates within inshore areas however for logical and effective management and operation of the Orkney Fishery a discrete Orkney boundary would work best which did not include parts of the Scottish Mainland. We understand that other sectors might wish to adopt the strategic area option to minimise bureaucracy should their activity cross more than one SMR. The strategic area will potentially incorporate the boundaries of two IFGs, The North West IFG and the Moray Firth IFG as well as the proposed Orkney Management Model. Although the Orkney management model is still embryonic, the plan should none the less make clear the relationship between the IFGs and the marine planning body and highlight the opportunities for area fisheries management plans to complement the marine spatial plan. A map highlighting the boundaries of the IFGs should be incorporated into the marine spatial plan when these have been confirmed.

Noted. Neutral.

AP65: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

As per our response of 28 ^th February to the Consultation on The Draft Scottish Marine Regions Order 2013, we would favour realignment of the boundaries of the pilot PFOW Plan to accommodate the whole of the North Coast and Orkney Waters proposed SMRs ( i.e. Figure 6). We would also strongly support amalgamation of these two proposed SMRs into a single marine planning region.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP66: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

We suggest that it would be better if the existing Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan boundary was realigned with the boundaries of the proposed Scottish Marine Region. This will help reduce the number of different boundaries that marine planners and managers will need to consider. It may also be helpful when it comes to collecting data and monitoring to have the same boundary.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP67: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

There maybe benefit to realign the existing PFOW Marine Spatial Plan to the boundaries of the proposed Scottish Marine Regions. However if this wasdone, there would need to be a close working basis for the Pentland Firth Area (the area of water between Dunnet Head and Duncansby Head) to ensure that same plans / polices/etc were being adopted.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP68: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

We understand that the pilot plan will be non-statutory but will inform the production of future statutory plans and would favour re-alignment of the pilot plan boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Region ( SMR) boundaries

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP69: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

Prefer the holistic approach, as more likely that local authorities will work together.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP70: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

There was some agreement that the area should be based upon the proposed Scottish Marine Regions. However Orkney Harbours did have some reservations as regards the handling of traffic in the east of the area where currently tanker de-ballasting takes place. Should renewables take place in the Outer Sound then there could be some conflicts of interest across the border line as regards the control of shipping. Section 6 does not cover this border line. This would need to be looked into.As regards renewables in the Outer Sound these would probably all be connected through Caithness due to the cable capacity between Orkney and the mainland of Scotland.The latest study of renewables in the Pentland Firth has downgraded the available Gigawatts from 9+ to between 1 and 2. This will make it more likely that the Outer Sound will need to be used resulting in navigation problems due to the amount of deeply laden ships.If ships are forced to take passage to the north of Orkney their fuel consumption would be increased. This would defeat the purpose of having marine renewables in this area.

Noted. Neutral.

AP71: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

From an Orkney Fisheries perspective either of the boundary options would be suitable as most of our fleet operates within inshore areas however for logical and effective management and operation of the Orkney Fishery a discrete Orkney boundary would work best which did not include parts of the Scottish Mainland.A map highlighting the boundaries of the IFGs should be incorporated into the marine spatial plan when these have been confirmed.

Noted. Neutral.

AP72: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

Realignment with the Marine Region boundaries would help to avoid duplication of effort. Most activity will be within the existing boundaries and the extension could be done with little additional effort.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP73: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

Yes the PFOW MSP boundary should be realigned with the boundaries of the proposed Scottish Marine Regions.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP74: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

We believe the proposed area based on the Scottish Marine Regions offers the best boundary for the PFOW MSP because it includes a larger area of sea adjacent to the North Coast and also includes Sule Skerry, which we hope would enable more holistic decision-making on issues which have the potential to affect large areas of sea. We note that Figure 6 p.26 divides the area into North Coast and Orkney, which may detract from the proposed area being considered as oneunit.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP75: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

No comments.

Noted.

We support the proposal that the plan follows the boundaries of the Scottish Marine Regions as proposed in Figure 6. In our response to the Scottish Marine Regions Boundaries consultation in February 2013, we raised concerns regarding the practicality of the Regional Boundaries proposed around the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters area. The plan area overlaps with two of the proposed Marine Regions - the North Coast and Orkney Marine Regions. Further clarity on how these administrative regions will work together on planning matters is required in order to ensure that the plan and any future plans for the North Coast and Orkney Marine Regions are consistent and deliver the objectives set for each plan. In addition, we have some concerns about the feasibility of managing the area to the west of John O'Groats where there are three Marine Regions in a relatively small area. We would suggest that the North Coast Marine Region need not extend out to the 12nm limit.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP76: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

The existing 'strategic area' is appropriate in terms of retaining continuity between the plan and the ecological unit that is the Pentland Firth & Orkney Waters. However, establishment of the marine regions will result in the separation of this ecological unit across two authority areas. As a result it is necessary to ensure there is a mechanism in place that effectively integrates the two authorities and their spatial plans so that they may contribute effectively, together, to the sustainable development of the whole region/ ecological unit.The alternative would be to alter the forthcoming Scottish Marine Regions to be contiguous with the strategic area boundary.

Noted. Would prefer an alternative.

AP77: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

Yes, the boundary should reflect the boundaries for the proposed Scottish Marine Regions. It makes sense to align to this boundary now and achieve a marine spatial plan, albeit a pilot, which uses the proposed Scottish Marine Regions as 'building blocks' to create the area covered. This should simplify and streamline matters later on in the marine spatial planning process.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP78: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

Given the potential for the PFOW area to be subject to seven separate plans (National Marine Plan, Sectoral Wave Energy Plan, Sectoral Tidal Energy Plan, Sectoral Offshore Wind Energy Plan, 'North Coast' Plan, 'Orkney' Plan and pilot PFOW Plan), we believe the boundaries of the proposed marine regions should be amended to match the pilot plan area. This would enable the pilot plan to be adopted as the statutory regional plan for the PFOW area, subject to the requirements of the Marine (Scotland) Act. Creating a single PFOW region would mean the area is eventually subject to just five plans (National Marine Plan, the three sectoral plans and Regional Plan), rather than the currently proposed seven. This would also mean only one Marine Planning Partnership ( MPP) would need to be created to manage the regional planning of the PFOW area. We accept this would involve a slight extension to the west of the current pilot PFOW plan but believe this would involve fewer resources than the creation of two new plans and two separate MPPs. We understand that if the pilot plan is approved by the Scottish Ministers it will become a material consideration in the determination of marine licensing applications and consideration will also be given to the pilot by the Scottish Ministers when they make relevant decisions even if it is not subsequently approved by them. There is also potential for Highland Council and Orkney Islands Council to adopt the pilot plan as Supplementary Planning Guidance or as Supplementary Guidance to the appropriate Local Development Plan. Given the pilot plan will most likely constitute a material consideration, we request further clarity on whether it will actually be adopted as supplementary guidance by the Councils or if there is any mechanism open to the Scottish Government to direct the Councils to do so. We also believe the relationships between the pilot PFOW spatial plan, the regional plan, the National Marine Plan and the sectoral plan (currently being developed by Marine Scotland) is still unclear. Clarification that if there are discrepancies between the plans, the sectoral plans and the statutory regional plans (when developed) will take precedence over the non statutory pilot plan is required.

Noted. Would prefer an alternative.

AP79: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

It makes sense for the pilot plan to match the boundaries of the proposed North Coast and Orkney marine regions as illustrated in Figure 6. There are clear efficiencies to this change when considering the transition to statutory regional planning - not least in streamlining the process to reduce burden on stakeholders. We are concerned that while the pilot area encompasses the whole of the Pentland Firth, the proposal for regional planning will split the firth between two authorities. We remain opposed to the subdividing of units of ecological continuity ( e.g. firths, sea lochs or sounds) in setting the boundaries of regional marine planning. However, we are confident that a strong partnership between Orkney and Highland authorities during the pilot phase can help foster a common approach to managing the pentland firth as a single unit through marine planning partnerships. We would encourage that a key part of learning from the pilot process focuses on future working arrangements to ensure collaboration and agreement across administrative boundaries.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP80: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

Page 24, Paragraph 6.10

How are this Draft Plan and the statutory Regional Marine Plan for the area to be treated, especially if there is any overlap and/or contradictory advice within the guidance between the two plans? This will be of particular concern if both plans are of material consideration (as stated for this plan in Paragraph 6.9).

Page 24, Paragraph 6.11

For the area of the Pentland Firth there is the potential to have this plan and 3 other RMPs covering the area, all potentially of material consideration and all potentially differing in their guidance. Is there a requirement for this Draft Plan, or should the focus be on the RMPs themselves in order to minimise potential conflict?

Page 24, Paragraph 6.13

Given that The Crown Estate PFOW SA was arbitrarily drawn in the first instance there is a need to clarify the boundary here and not simply state that it was chosen because it already existed. The area of the Draft Plan should be fit for purpose and this should be defendable.

Question 5, Page 26

The Spatial Plan boundary cannot be considered to be appropriate as it was not selected from first principals, but is a boundary that was defined for a different purpose (and this boundary has since altered also). Therefore, it would make more sense to re-align the plan boundary to fit with the North Coast and Orkney SMRs. This should have the benefit of preventing confusion in the future when these two SMRs draw up their own RMPs.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP81: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

Whichever route is chosen, it is vital that the overlap in marine planning and land based planning jurisdictions concerning the intertidal area between mean low water springs and mean high water springs is fully clarified. If neither regulatory system is able to renege control of this specific area, the consenting process could be significantly delayed though this over-complication. What if both consenting bodies cannot agree on development proposals in this specific area?

Noted. Neutral.

AP82: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

AP83: We will address this in Policy 2A Integrating Marine and Coastal Development.

Yes

Noted. Agree with SMR (based on discussions at workshop as well)

AP84: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

Comments in Question 19 box.

Noted.

Comments in Question 19 box.

Noted.

Inappropriate

Noted.

HIE strongly support Marine Scotland to extend the existing boundaries to include West Highlands, Moray and Shetland enabling and supporting sustainable economic growth across the Highlands and Islands.

Noted. Alternative suggested.

AP85: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.

Comments in Question 19 box.

Noted.

The SFF belief that if following the earlier consultation, new boundaries are recommended, the plan should be realigned to match them.

Noted. Agree with SMR.

AP86: The majority of the responses supported aligning the boundaries with the proposed Scottish Marine Regions and the Draft Plan will be developed on this basis.