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

All policies - I am in agreement with the Preferred Option proposed for all Policies

Noted.

Policy 1a The criterion should include the benefit from the exploitation i.e. not just for revenue purposes and why there are not other better locations

AP263: The Sustainable Development policy section will be drafted to ensure the economic benefits of existing economic activity, added value and new development proposals are assessed. Consideration will also be given to developing a policy to assess economic impacts.

Policy 3c: As long as bio-diversity does not means upsetting the natural balance by allowing new species to develop or existing species to dominate compare to pre-exploitation.

These issues relating to biodiversity are addressed in the proposed natural heritage policies including the non-native species policy, nature conservation designations and the wider biodiversity and geodiversity, as well as the Environmental Report and the Habitats Regulations Assessment.

Alternative: May need to have staged development with monitoring over sufficient period.

Noted. Monitoring will be addressed in the monitoring section of the Draft Plan.

No comments.

N/A

General (cross-cutting and sectoral policies)

We consider the policy topics identified to be appropriate to this Plan, but would have welcomed further development of additional and more detailed policy options. For some policies ( e.g. Commercial Fisheries) the alternatives suggested for presentation of spatial information do not appear to be real alternatives.

Agreed the alternative set out for Commercial fisheries is not a clear alternative. The responses to this consultation will inform the selection and development of an appropriate policy for Commercial Fisheries.

Within the Plan, two-way cross-referencing between policies (both across and within overarching and sectoral policies) as well as reference to the guiding principles will be important to ensuring its overall coherence. A summary schematic in the Plan introduction could be helpful to assisting users to identify policies of key relevance to their particular interests.

AP264: Amendments will be made to the individual matrix topics and these will be represented in the appropriate sections but the whole matrix will not be reproduced. As many interactions can have both positive and negative effects, these effects will not be weighted but the key issues will be discussed in the supporting text.

We feel that the proposed range of crosscutting policy areas is appropriate to this marine plan, but suggest that Marine Safety (which is currently included in sectoral policy 13) might be considered an overarching policy area. We would also suggest that dredging be moved from sectoral policy 16 (Marine Aggregates) to sectoral policy 14 (Ports and harbours) as the main dredging activity is capital and maintenance dredging, and associated dredge spoil disposal, associated with ports and harbours. Dredging for any future aggregate extraction would by definition be about permanent removal of material from the seabed/intertidal zone. The Plan should also be cross-referenced to relevant policies in Orkney and Highland LDPs with respect to commercial extraction of sand.

AP265: Consideration of Marine Safety issues will be developed in the marine transport policy section.

It should be noted that sector specific marine safety and emergency response issues will also be addressed within the sectoral policies as appropriate.

AP266: A separate policy will be developed for Dredging and Disposal, and Marine Aggregates.

AP267: Cross reference to relevant minerals policies within appropriate local development plans

We offer comments below on those cross-cutting policies (1a, 2a, 3a-e, 6a) of direct relevance to our core remit.

Noted.

Alternative: Not relevant

N/A

Proposed Policy 1a: Sustainable Development

Please see response to Q8. We broadly support the preferred option but feel that a policy around sustainable development will require use of very precise and consistent terminology. For example, at places in 11.2 and 11.3 there is reference to "sustainable economic growth" but it is not clear how this relates to "sustainable development". We suggest that last bullet of preferred option be amended to "make efficient use of marine space and sustainable use of natural resources within their carrying capacity". We also note that there is no explicit consideration of the socioeconomic conditions of coastal communities within the proposed policy.

Alternative: See comments above

AP268: Provide a clear definition of sustainable development in the Draft Plan.

AP269: The Sustainable Development policy section will be drafted to ensure the economic benefits of existing economic activity, added value and new development proposals are assessed. Consideration will also be given to developing a policy to assess economic impacts.

Proposed Policy 2a: Integrating marine and coastal development

We regard this as a very important policy area, particularly with respect to management of cumulative impacts of marine-related developments within the coastal zone. We support the preferred option; our concerns are over how this will be implemented in compliance with this Plan's overarching principles (please refer to our response to Q6)

Alternative: See comments above

Policy Area 3: Biodiversity and Natural Heritage

Proposed Policy 3a: Nature conservation designations

Proposed Policy 3b: Protected species

Proposed Policy 3c: Wider biodiversity and geodiversity interests

Proposed Policy 3d: Non-native species

AP270: Include a requirement to consider cumulative impacts within the integrating coastal and marine development policy.

We feel that this suite of proposed policies is necessary and appropriate to provide safeguard of key aspects of the natural heritage of PFOW. However, as currently presented the focus of these policies, particularly 3a, and 3b, is on the assessment and consenting of development. We would advocate inclusion of a clear policy at the outset to articulate the importance, and need for safeguard, of the area's natural heritage; this would create a strong baseline from which more specific policies on development management would then follow.

AP271: A 'Safeguarding the natural environment' general policy will be prepared within the Draft Plan to provide a mechanism for protecting marine ecosystems and the wider natural environment. This policy will provide the overarching context from which more specific policies on development management would then follow.

Proposed Policy 3a: Nature conservation designations

We are broadly content with the proposed preferred option, but offer the following comments.

Noted.

Context (section 11.12): note that Ramsar sites are not Natura 2000 sites and that there is no specific legal framework in Scotland for their safeguard. However, all Ramsar sites in Scotland are also either Special Protection Areas ( SPAs) or Special Areas of Conservation ( SACs) and benefit from the measures required to protect and enhance these Natura sites and SSSIs which overlap them.

Noted.

Context (section 11.13: the description of the status GCR sites is incorrect. GCR sites. Please see http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/safeguarding-geodiversity/protecting/geological-conservation/ for description of GCR sites and SSSIs with geological and geomorphological features.

AP272: Note this reference and use to inform the preparation of the nature conservation policy(s) in the Draft Plan.

Policy: in addition to mapping of designated sites within the Plan area, consideration will need to be given about how to provide information on potential connectivity to Natura sites outwith the area (as referenced in section 11.12) and to potential future designations ( e.g. MPA proposals and areas of search for marine SPAs). The development of this policy (and other, including sector polices) should also be informed by the Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the Plan itself.

AP273: Set out the process for identifying potential connectivity issues in relation to mobile features of Natura sites out with the plan area within the supporting text to the nature conservation policy(s) in the Draft Plan.

Proposed Policy 3b: Protected species

We are broadly content with the proposed preferred option, but feel that there are opportunities to provide Plan users with spatial information on the occurrence of protected species ( e.g. locations of seal haul out sites) as well as providing guidance on where information may be found. Please refer to our response to Q16.

AP274: Liaise with SNH to identify appropriate spatial and non-spatial data relating to protected species and how this data should be presented i.e. with the plan or within supporting web-based GIS.

Proposed Policy 3c: Wider biodiversity and geodiversity interests

We suggest that the biodiversity duties under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 are referenced in the context to this policy. We support the general aspiration of the proposed preferred option but are unable to comment further pending further detail as to the definition of "due regard" within the wording of the draft policy.

AP275: Reference the biodiversity duties under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) in the context to the nature conservation policy(s) in the Draft Plan.

The alternatives for presentation of spatial information are not entirely clear; we would welcome opportunities for further discussion of this aspect (see also Q16).

AP276: Liaise with SNH to identify appropriate spatial and non-spatial data relating to the wider biodiversity and geodiversity policy in the Draft Plan.

Proposed Policy 3d: Non-native species

We strongly support the inclusion of a policy on invasive non-native species ( INNS) (please also see response to Q14) and the recognition of the particular importance of prevention of introductions in the marine environment. However, as with policy 3c, we are unable to comment further pending further detail on the wording of the proposed draft policy, but note that it needs to be cross-referenced to the Ports and Harbours and Oil and Gas policies within this Plan and to other relevant documents ( e.g. Orkney Islands Council's developing ballast water management plan). With respect to spatial data, we note that present occurrence of NNS within the Plan area provides context, but is of limited direct relevance to addressing risk of further introductions from elsewhere.

Support for INNS policy noted.

AP277: Cross reference INNS policy section to the Ports and Harbours and Oil and Gas policy sections within this Plan and Orkney Islands Council's developing ballast water management plan.

Comments relating to spatial data have been noted.

Proposed Policy 3e: Landscape and seascape

We strongly support the inclusion of specific policies for the management of change in the distinctive landscape and coastal character of the Orkney Islands and north Caithness coast.

Support noted.

However, as stated with respect to policies 3a and 3b, we would welcome inclusion of a clear policy with respect to the importance and protection where necessary of the coastal and seascape resource; this would provide a strong baseline against which policies on the assessment of development management would then follow.

AP278: Consider the importance of protecting coastal landscape and seascape resources with the Draft Plan objectives.

Any assessment of development should be underpinned by a clear and robust assessment of landscape and seascape character. The SNH Orkney Landscape Character Assessment (http://www.snh.gov.uk/publications-data-and-research/publications/search-the-catalogue/publication-detail/?id=299) assesses the landscape character of the Orkney Archipelago and could be used as a basis to include additional work on the coastal and seascape character of the PFOW area, in particular the landscape and visual relationship between the coast and the immediate seascape. Following on from this an assessment of sensitivity and/or capacity for different forms of development could be undertaken to inform the proposed policies on development management. In this context, an initial scoping contract has been recently been let by SNH to develop a methodology for coastal characterisation; we would be interested in exploring with you the potential for this to be further developed and incorporated into the Stage 2 Research Studies informing the preparation of this Plan.

AP279: Liaise with SNH to consider how the existing landscape character assessment and coastal characterisation methodology can inform the Draft Plan.

Any such Research Study should draw upon the assessment of Special Qualities of the Hoy and West Mainland NSA and the SNH Mapping of Relative Wildness. Both the recent work undertaken by Orkney Islands Council on assessment and identification of a suit of Local Landscape designations, the majority of which are coastal, and the equivalent work by The Highland Council assessing Special Landscape Areas, should be incorporated.

Noted.

Alternative: See comments above

Noted.

Proposed Policy 6a: Coastal erosion and flooding

We strongly support the inclusion of specific policies for the management of coastal erosion and coastal flooding around the Orkney Islands and north Caithness coast.

Support noted.

Climate change projections suggest that future rates of sea level rise in this part of Scotland, may (in the coming decades) approach rates not experienced for several thousand years. This is expected to increase the risk of erosion and flooding on some sections of the coast. Although much of the coastline is resilient, there are areas vulnerable to either erosion, flooding or, in some cases, the effects of both. Given the variability of the coastline, we recommend the initial use of regional mapping of flooding (see SEPA's indicative flood maps) and erosion susceptibility (see SEPA/ SNH Coastal Erosion Susceptibility Model). Follow-up, more detailed assessment could be undertaken if required. Given the largely un-interfered / natural state of much of the soft shoreline, the use of adaptive strategies may prove most sustainable. On the developed defended sections more interventionist approaches may prove more attractive.

Noted.

AP280: Use regional mapping of flooding ( SEPA's indicative flood maps) and erosion susceptibility ( SEPA/ SNH Coastal Erosion Susceptibility Model) to inform the development of the coastal processes and flooding policy in the Draft Plan.

For information, SNH overarching policy on coastal erosion states: As far as is possible within the constraints of public safety, SNH advocates approaches to erosion management which retain the natural coastal habitats, processes and landscapes and which enable Scotland's coastlines to evolve naturally with minimal human intervention.

Noted.

Alternative: As above

Noted.

Proposed Policies 1A, 2A, 3A, B, C and D and 7A

In relation to our interests we can confirm that we support the preferred options.

Noted.

In relation to Proposed Policy 3D we remind you that consideration of introduction of marine non native species via attachment to construction plant, as well as in ballast water, needs to be considered.

Alternatives: No.

AP281: Text will be drafted accordingly.

Policy Area 5 and Proposed Policy 5A: Water Environment

We support the preferred option. It is especially important to us that the water environment is protected and that opportunity for improvements and enhancements are taken where ever possible.

Alternatives: No.

Noted.

Policy 6A: Coastal Erosion and Flooding

We are supportive of a policy approach which supports assessment of development for flood risk and ensures that it does not add to existing problems or introduce new problems. In line with the Flood Risk Management Act, opportunities for reducing existing flood problems should be identified as well.

Alternatives: Covered above.

AP282: Use regional mapping of flooding ( SEPA's indicative flood maps) and erosion susceptibility ( SEPA/ SNH Coastal Erosion Susceptibility Model) to inform the development of the coastal processes and flooding policy in the Draft Plan.

Tourism & Recreation

Please ensure that recreation guide books (eg guide books for sea kayaking and surfing) are consulted so that there is an understanding of the established / recognised routes or surfing areas. There are currently 2 guide books for sea kayaking in the area and a 3rd is about to be published. It is important to contact local organisations (eg clubs) who will have more detailed information of areas used.

AP283: Use the guide book information to inform the PFOW Tourism and Recreation case study.

The preferred option should consider where marine development consent could bring benefits to tourism and recreation.

Noted.

Protected Species

The preferred option should provide an overview of potentially sensitive known locations of individual species and also guidance of where further information can be obtained.

Noted. Designated sites, such as Natura and MPAs, will be provided as live map layers in National Marine Plan Interactive.

Landscape & Seascape

It is important that the visual impacts of developments are considered and in particular the cumulative impacts. The impacts should also the visual and noise impacts during installation and operation & maintenance.

AP284: Impacts on biodiversity, as covered in the Environmental Report and HRA, consider cumulative impacts and these will be reflected in the Draft Plan.

Waste management and Marine Litter

The policy should also safe guard the water from increase pollution from "rubbish" discarded /lost from vessels as a result of increased activity.

3b Protected Species

We would wish to see this policy should be developed at a National rather than at a Regional level, applying a scientific and evidence based approach, thus ensuring that certain mobile or migratory species would have appropriate levels of protection wherever they exist and leading to certainty for developers to manage risks, determine investment requirements and manage their activities.

Alternative: Scottish Water has no comment

Noted. We have a duty to consider this at regional as well as national level. The policies and supporting text will support national policy, using scientific and evidence based approach, as shown by the numerous supporting studies and vast evidenced gathering approach taken to date.

3c Wider biodiversity and geodiversity interests

Scottish Water works with our environmental regulators to ensure that an appropriate level of protection for natural heritage designated sites and protected species and habitats is integrated into our capital and operational expenditure projects.

Alternative: Scottish Water has no comment

Noted.

3d Non-native species

We support the preferred option; threats, issues and management specific to marine Non-Native Species ( NNS) occurring locally need to be addressed, we would seek to protect our assets integrity and functionality.

Alternative: Scottish Water has no comment

Noted.

5a Water environment

With regard to paragraph 11.49

Scottish Water invests in WWTW and collecting systems to meet regulatory drivers based on a number of criteria, including the population within a network catchment and sensitivity and status of the receiving waters for the final effluent or discharge. It is essential that all sectors that may be contributing to diffuse pollution of marine waters either directly, or indirectly via rivers, are managed and regulated in an unbiased way.

Noted.

With regard to paragraph 11.50

Scottish Water understands that SEPA takes the view that the current category of "Recreational and Shoreline Waters" has no legal basis and that this terminology is no longer used.

Noted.

AP285: we shall consult with SEPA to ensure use of appropriate terms.

With regard to paragraph 11.51

We would wish to point out that "larger" discharges from WWTW do not necessarily present a greater impact or risk to the environment , I refer to the response to paragraph 11.49 above.

Noted.

Preferred option

We would wish to be consulted further if programmes of measures were considered necessary to implement the provisions to safeguard bathing water quality at designated bathing beaches.

Alternative: Scottish Water has no comment

Noted. This would be appropriate at individual project development level.

7a Waste management and marine litter

Scottish Water is actively participating in the development of the marine litter strategy

Alternative: Scottish Water has no comment

Noted.

8a Safeguarding existing pipelines, electricity and telecommunications cables

Scottish Water considers that final effluent discharge pipelines and Combined Sewer & Emergency Overflows ( CSO & EO) should be included in the policy to safeguard existing pipelines; we support the proposal to identify appropriate safety zones.

Alternative: Scottish Water has no comment

AP286: Policy and text to be drafted accordingly in the Draft Plan

No comments.

N/A

Proposed Policy 3d: Non Native Species

The introduction of ballast water into Scapa Flow could result in the presence of non-native species plus other pollutants.

At present the throughput of the ballast water treatment at the Flotta Terminal will be well below the original design and should be capable of taking the quantities required. This could be done using the present de-commissioned east single point mooring.

It is important that the economy of the islands be assessed in relationship to ship to ship transfers and that the Spatial Plan should encourage this by bringing together the parties concerned. This should also be looked at as concerns other places in the UK as to the most suitable place taking into account all aspects of the environment.

The transfer of ballast from one ship to the other should also be looked into. Looking through the various regulations for ballast water there does not seem to be anything mentioned on this topic. Perhaps it needs looking into on a Governmental basis. If ships can transfer oil from one to another it would not seem insurmountable to be able to transfer ballast water.

Noted. When drafting the Plan, we shall take existing guidance on ballast water and wider implications of invasive non-native species into account.

Policy Area 4: Cultural and Historic Environment

Scapa Flow has strong ties with the economy of Orkney. It is within the interests of Orkney that these ties be developed and kept safe for the future. The wrecks are corroding away and in the long term there will be nothing left. It should be left to OIC to determine the various controls and how these can be tied in with other areas of historic interest such as the Lyness Museum in order to create permanency. This, of course, would exclude war graves.

Noted. The Cultural and Historic Environment policies will continue to support conservation of important sites where possible: the MSP will not supersede existing legislation or terrestrial LA policy. OIC and HC will continue to work closely with Historic Scotland and other relevant agencies to ensure the cultural and historic environment are safeguarded in the PFOW area.

Preferred Options Item 2

It should be remembered that "safe havens" are called this because they are safe havens and should be available for anchoring under all conditions of weather and tide. Their ease of entry should not be obstructed in any form.

Noted.

Policy Area 5: Water Environment

There are various areas within Scapa Flow where consent has been given for fish farms. It is noticeable that on calm days pollution can be seen stretching a considerable distance from the cages. Dinghy sailing, which includes the training of children, regattas, canoeing and other activities takes place in many parts of Scapa Flow. In some of these activities there is always the risk of capsize which comes as part of the training. If the water is polluted there is always the risk to health especially with children.

Is ballast discharge from tankers considered as being large scale?

Discharges are regulated by SEPA: the MSP will not supersede existing legislation or terrestrial Local Authority policy but the Water and Aquaculture policies and supporting text will help ensure development is sustainable thereby taking appropriate environmental issues into consideration. This will be dealt with in the non-native invasive species section (Policy 3D in the PIOP): the discharges referred to here related to those licenced by SEPA.

Policy Area 7: Waste Management and Marine Litter

For quite a few years now I have been involved in beach cleaning in the Houton and Coldomo areas. In every year we have been collecting between 100 and 50 bags of litter, although the first year at Coldomo it was 150. These clean ups can really be regarded as partial ones as after every tide there is more showing as the seaweed is turned over and the sand and gravel moved.

The type of litter found consists of plastics in the form of bags, containers and sheets most apparently being farm sourced. Many of the containers tend to degrade breaking up into tiny portions when handled making them impossible to pick up. This farm sourced material I would say comes to about 40%. Another 40% may be considered as being marine litter in that it is ropes, old and new, bits of fishing nets and some complete nets probably just dumped. Some of the newish looking bits are the ends of ropes and possibly just washed overboard. The most likely source for these items will be fish farm boats, fishing boats and ferries. I would tend to say that recreation craft is an unlikely source as most of the litter appears through the winter months. There is a lot of small man made fibre coming from the breaking down of ropes and nets. Days can be spent picking up these small items and they may come to just half a bag. These bits tend to get left as the various groups doing beach cleaning are doing it for the funding of their various organisations and they get funds for the number of bags filled. The final 20% comes from the dumping of building waste, wire and barbed wire, old tyres and wheels plus a myriad of other things.

Waste dropped by the public is pretty negligible as there may only three of four people on the beach in a year.

Noted: this information is most helpful.

AP287: By having a marine litter policy, linked to the new proposed SG marine litter strategy, we shall draft out policy to look at amendments to existing development, rather than just new development, where appropriate.

Policy Area 9: Hazardous Development and Health and Safety

Executive Consultation Zones

I haven't detected in any of the maps or write ups the position of the Flotta pipeline shut off valve. This is situated in South Ronaldsay by the 4th barrier. ND477948

Detailed maps will be prepared for the Draft Plan and be made available through the National Marine Plan Interactive.

No comments.

N/A

2A Integrating marine and coastal development

It is difficult to see how there can be good integration between the two planning regimes unless the Pilot Marine Spatial Plan is a material consideration in the LDPs and vice versa. Three examples where integrated marine and coastal developments are already taking place are: Hatston jetty extension, the Golden Wharf at Lyness and Copland's Dock in Stromness. All of these are associated with the shore facilities required by marine renewable developments.

Alternatives: No.

It is intended that the Pilot Marine Spatial Plan with be identified as supplementary guidance within the coastal policy within the relevant LDPs.

Proposed policy option 3D: Non-native species

A considerable amount of work has been carried out on developing the existing policy on Invasive Non-Native Species. The RYA (the UK Governing Body for Recreational Boating) has been working with the statutory agencies on this for some time. It is important that there is a consistency of approach throughout all UK waters. The Firth of Clyde Forum has developed a biosecurity plan for the Clyde which draws upon much of the established policy.

Alternatives: The Pilot Marine Spatial Plan should not attempt to develop a new policy on INNS but rather refer to existing guidelines and policy taking account of any factors that are particular to the PFOW area.

Noted.

Proposed policy option 5: Water Environment

We welcome the statement in section 11.50 about identified recreational and shoreline waters that have potential to be affected by discharges to the water environment. Dinghy sailing, regattas, canoeing and other activities take place in many parts of Scapa Flow. In these activities there is the risk of immersion. If the water is polluted there will be a risk to health especially with children. We presume that finfish aquaculture will be included as a possible source of pollution.

Alternatives: No.

Discharges are regulated by SEPA: the MSP will not supersede existing legislation or terrestrial Local Authority policy but the Water and Aquaculture policies and supporting text will help ensure development is sustainable thereby taking appropriate environmental issues into consideration.

Proposed policy option 7A: Waste management and marine litter

Marine litter is also a hazard to small vessels if, for example, a polythene bag is sucked into a cooling intake, discarded rope becomes wrapped round a propeller, or floating debris damages a vessel's hull. While reduction at source is the prime consideration, there also need to be appropriate facilities for recycling or otherwise disposing of unavoidable wastes. This policy focuses on new developments. However, the plan also needs to take account of existing sources of litter. Data from beach cleans provides valuable information on the origins of litter although these are unable to assess micro-particles and micro-fibres of plastic. In the Houton and Coldomo beach cleans, about 40% of the litter consists of plastics in the form of bags, containers and sheets most apparently coming from farms.

Another 40% may be considered as being marine litter in that it consists of ropes, old and new, bits of fishing nets and some complete nets. The most likely source for these items is fish farm boats, fishing boats and ferries. As most of the litter appears in the winter months recreational boats are unlikely to be a significant source. The final 20% comes from the dumping of building waste, wire and barbed wire, old tyres and wheels plus a myriad of other things. The Spatial Plan will need to be consistent with the Scottish Marine Litter Strategy but the emphasis may well differ due to the different relative sources of the litter.

Alternatives: No.

Noted: this information is most helpful.

AP288: By having a marine litter policy, linked to the new proposed SG marine litter strategy, we shall draft out policy to look at amendments to existing development, rather than just new development, where appropriate.

Proposed policy option 9A: Hazardous developments and HSE consultation zones.

The position of existing hazardous installations also needs to be mapped. For example, the Flotta pipeline shut off valve is situated in South Ronaldsay by the 4th barrier.

Alternatives: No.

Detailed maps will be prepared for the Draft Plan and be made available through the National Marine Plan Interactive.

No comments.

N/A

No comments.

N/A

PP 2a Integrating marine and coastal development

It would be useful to understand whether the plan has a locus outwith the statutory planning, licencing and consenting regime to look at areas such as positive management of the marine zone. So this would include policy that relates to areas such as byelaw development or codes of conduct or positive management through e.g. zoning, management agreements, guidance, signposting, communication, information etc. These are mechanisms relevant to positive ICZM and it would be useful to know how this will be taken forward under marine planning.

It is beyond the scope of the pilot plan process at this stage, but something that may be taken forward by the subsequent Regional Marine Plans in due course.

PP 3a,b,c,d - Natural heritage.

We hope that such a comprehensive approach is taken to the protection and consideration of sport and recreation interests.

Noted.

PP 3e Landscape

It will be important to take cognisance of SNH's core wild land area mapping which is being used by NPF3 to protect wild land areas. The marine development impact on these core areas should be considered.

This will be mapped in the National Marine Plan Interactive where there is a marine/coastal element.

In considering landscape it is important, in addition to considering aesthetic components, to also be aware of the physical qualities of the landscape that are used for a range of recreational activities. This needs thought on how it relates to the marine environment but if the intention is for policy to extend to the land then consideration should be given to whether landscape policy intends to provide protection to landscape qualities such as gradient, bedrock, water table etc. which all determine what activities take place where and at what level. From a seascape perspective this could include impacts on wave pattern and height, sediment shift, current patters etc that are integral to seascape and to recreational use of the seascape.

Noted.

PP5a - water environment

Water quality is fundamental to participation in immersion sports. We fully support the need to maintain and improve water quality.

Noted.

PP 6a - erosion and flooding

We support the need to assess the impact development could have on flooding and erosion. Please see answer to question 6.

We are working closely with OIC and HC planners, as well as SEPA, to ensure that our Plan is compatible with terrestrial Local Plans and vice versa.

Proposed Policy 1a: Sustainable Development

Given the purpose of the plan is defined as to " support the sustainable development of key sectors including, but not limited to, offshore renewables, aquaculture, inshore fisheries, tourism and recreation", it is important that a robust policy on sustainable development is defined and developed within the plan.

Noted.

AP289: This will be a key policy section, with a clear definition and supporting text.

We support the proposed option to set out a high level policy that details the considerations that need to be addressed to achieve sustainable development in relation to all development proposals. In order for this to assist decision-making bodies/regulators in considering whether sustainable development principles have informed the preparation of development proposals, it is important that such a policy demonstrates consistency with the National Marine Plan.

The proposed policy states that that development will be supported where it:

• Safeguards or enhances the natural, cultural and historic environment
• Demonstrates compatibility with other marine users
• Supports the sustainable use of existing infrastructure

Makes efficient use of marine space and natural resources.

Now that a draft NMP is available, we shall ensure our Draft Plan aligns with it.

We would also like to see the following points considered for inclusion:

AP290: We shall consider these points when drafting the Plan.

• Supports the growth and diversification of the local economy
• Makes a contribution towards meeting Scotland's climate change targets.

AP291: Climate change will be a policy area within the Draft Plan.

Proposed Policy 2a: Integrating marine and coastal development

We welcome the proposed approach to develop policies which support the integrated consideration of marine and terrestrial planning issues. The integration of marine and terrestrial planning issues will be particularly relevant to the terrestrial elements of offshore renewable energy developments. Therefore, we support the reference to the forthcoming Scottish Government circular on this topic. It will be important that the policies developed within the plan are consistent with this circular.

In addition to the Circular, the recent consultation on the Main Issues Report of the National Planning Framework 3 ¹ proposes that the onshore infrastructure requirements for offshore renewable energy are considered as a National Development. Given the status of National Developments in establishing the need for that development, it is important that the plan reflects the designation of onshore infrastructure requirements for marine energy developments in any policies on integrating marine and coastal development.

^{1 Scottish Government (2013) Scotland's Third National Planning Framework: Main Issues Report and Draft Framework (2013)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00421073.pdf}

Noted.

We also suggest that the plan should be a material consideration in the determination of marine licence applications and in the determination of terrestrial planning applications which are linked to offshore development e.g. marine renewables.

The Pilot Marine Spatial Plan will be a material consideration in the determination of marine licence applications and terrestrial planning applications. It is intended that the Pilot Marine Spatial Plan with be identified as supplementary guidance within the coastal policy of the relevant LDPs.

Proposed Policy 3a: Nature conservation designations

We support the proposal to develop a policy in the plan that sets out the criteria for assessing the effects of development proposals, individually and cumulatively, on identified nature conservation sites. It is important that such a policy is consistent with other policy and plans such as the National Marine Plan.

Noted.

The policy will seek to address issues in relation to connectivity between nature conservation sites and proposed developments. However, we would suggest that in many cases, this would be more effectively done at a project level.

Noted. Whilst we agree that connectivity issues will be dealt with at individual project level, to help ensure cumulative impacts of multiple activities are highlighted, we shall provide guidance at the regional scale.

Proposed Policy 3b: Protected species

We support the proposed approach for the plan to identify the legal requirements for protected species that must be addressed in the assessment of applications for development consent as required under European, UK and Scottish Legislation. This should also include any species covered by the forthcoming designation of Marine Protected Areas ( MPAs).

Noted.

Proposed Policy 3c: Wider biodiversity and geodiversity interests

No comment.

Proposed Policy 3d: Non-native species

No comment.

Proposed Policy 3e: Landscape and seascape

We support the proposal for the plan to contain a policy to guide the assessment of development proposals affecting landscape designations and support the assessment of potential impacts on wider landscape / seascape character. We would also welcome a clear definition of what is meant by seascape where this is referenced in a plan, consistent with other marine planning documents where possible.

Noted.

AP292: Provide definition of 'seascape'.

Proposed Policy 4a: Cultural and Historic Environment

We support the proposed approach and suggest that reference is also made to the 'Protocol for reporting finds of archaeological interest ² developed by Wessex Archaeology for The Crown Estate. The Protocol applies to pre-construction and construction activities associated with the development of offshore renewable energy schemes where an archaeologist is not present on site. It sets out a framework for ensuring finds discovered on the seafloor, on a vessel, in intertidal zones, and on land are reported to ensure that the submerged cultural heritage is understood and protected accordingly.

^{2 Wessex Archaeology (2010) Protocol for reporting finds of archaeological interest
http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/marine/tcerenewables/protocol}

Noted.

We are exploring the most appropriate ways of providing links to the large array of documents that have been used to draft the Plan.

AP293: Consider document suggested when drafting the Plan.

Proposed Policy 5a: Water environment

No comment.

Proposed Policy 6a: Coastal erosion and flooding

No comment.

Proposed Policy 7a: Waste management and marine litter

No comment.

Proposed Policy 8a: Safeguarding existing pipelines, electricity and telecommunications cables

We support the proposed policy to safeguard pipelines and cables for potentially damaging activities and applying appropriate safety zones to protect these assets. In general, opportunities for sustainable development should be progressed in a way which does not unnecessarily compromise existing interests.

Noted.

The Crown Estate recently commissioned a desktop study which identified, reviewed and assessed the factors affecting the routing and spacing of transmission cables for offshore wind farms. The findings, conclusions and recommendations from the study form the basis of our report and are available to download from our website:

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/energy-infrastructure/cables-and-pipelines/studies-and-guidance/cable-routing-and-spacing-study/.

Noted.

AP294: Consider documents suggested when drafting the Plan.

Although the project specifically related to offshore wind, many of the principles and technical issues discussed in the report are relevant to other forms of offshore renewable energy generation. This work is a good example of how interactions between adjacent activities can be considered.

Proposed Policy 9a: Hazardous development and Health and Safety Executive consultation zones

No comment.

Proposed Policy 10a: Defence

We would support the provision of as much information as is possible regarding MoD activities to inform areas of appropriate future development.

Noted.

Question 17: Are there other crosscutting / overarching policy areas that should be addressed in the marine spatial plan?

We are satisfied that the proposed policies cover all key cross cutting policy areas.

Noted.

No comments.

N/A

Proposed Policy 1a: Sustainable Development

The preferred option is broadly supported but requires amendment. Firstly the policy should explicitly support sustainable development. Secondly the policy should include, in the policy tests, criteria relating to the contribution of development to social objectives and to economic objectives (the criteria, as proposed, already including environmental tests). The Council's view is that these additional criteria should be within the same policy rather than in separate policy; sustainable development includes all three considerations.

Alternatives: No

Noted.

AP295: The policy and supporting text will be drafted taking these comments into consideration.

Proposed Policy 2a: Integrating marine and coastal development

As well as referring to the Highland-wide Local Development Plan, there should also be reference to the forthcoming Caithness and Sutherland Local Development Plan (and in the interim, reference should be made to the Caithness Local Plan and Sutherland Local Plan, each as currently continued in force).

Noted.

There will be some challenges presented by the relative timelines for preparation of various plans. The Caithness and Sutherland Local Development Plan ( CaSPlan) is not expected to be in place until after the Pilot Marine Spatial Plan; however, the Highland-wide LDP is already in place, providing some strategic context and there will be opportunity in preparing CaSPlan to ensure that it refers to and integrates with the Pilot MSP. Having marine spatial planning and terrestrial spatial planning actively occurring in the area will enable us to have focussed discussions about opportunities for integration and on potential areas of interaction (and potential resolution of any conflict).

The working group is working closely with the two local authorities to ensure close liaison with terrestrial plans.

The preferred option identifies that there is potential for the pilot marine spatial plan to become a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. We would support that approach. We will also consider adopting the pilot marine spatial plan as statutory Supplementary Guidance in so far as it relates to areas covered by the Council's Development Plan and subject to the inclusion of suitable cross-reference and policy 'hook' within the forthcoming Caithness and Sutherland Local Development Plan.

Alternatives: No

Proposed Policy 3e: Landscape and seascape

We agree with the preferred option. It would be useful if, in association with this, a set of key viewpoints could be established which would be used for purposes of visualisations for individual developments and to maintain a representation of the cumulative effect of multiple proposals.

However, if the possible alternative is pursued further, care must be taken to ensure that the potential research study outlined would add value. If it is undertaken then as far as possible use should be made of existing studies and assessments, including those with a terrestrial focus but which could be relevant in considering impacts of development in the marine area on the wider landscape, and cumulative impacts. Recent experience with offshore wind proposals in the Moray Firth and current work by Marine Scotland on sectoral plans could also help inform this.

Alternatives: No

As the marine plan covers many different types of development over a wide range of sea ad coastal habitats, it is unfeasible to provide the visualisations suggested. However, this may be an aspect that could be developed in the individual Regional Marine Plans.

Proposed Policy 4a: Cultural and Historic Environment

Where the policy and supporting text refer to "unprotected marine and coastal archaeology", this should be amended to read "non-designated marine and coastal archaeology".

AP296: The policy and supporting text will be drafted taking these comments into consideration.

There would be scope to reduce the length of this section of the plan, by not listing each individual feature type in both policy and supporting text but in just one location and/or placing some detail in an appendix, as in the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (Policy 57 and Appendix 2).

Alternatives: No

AP297: The policy and supporting text will be drafted taking these comments into consideration.

Proposed Policy 10a: Defence

It is suggested that the proposed policy test for development proposals should relate to fit with "established Ministry of Defence activities", rather than "Ministry of Defence activities" which could be overly constraining on development.

We note that the proposed Plan area, extending westwards along the Sutherland coast to Cape Wrath, will assist in taking into consideration as part of the Plan the defence uses in that area.

Alternatives: No

AP298: The policy and supporting text will be drafted taking these comments into consideration.

Sustainable Development:

We support a principle of sustainable development. However, the established principles of sustainable development should be referenced.

Noted.

• Living within environment limits
• Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society
• Achieving a sustainable economy
• Using sound science responsibly
• Promoting good governance

AP299: This policy and/or supporting text will be updated to ensure it conforms to the principles of sustainable development.

Integrating Marine and Coastal Development:

Please refer to our answer to question 6 above.

Nature Conservation Designations:

The legal requirements developers must adhere to in relation to nature conservation designations are understood and developed at a national level. It is not appropriate for the pilot plan to develop separate policies in this regard. The policy must be consistent with national level guidance and legislative requirements.

We are working closely with OIC and HC planners to ensure that our Plan is compatible with terrestrial Local Plans and vice versa.

The Draft Plan must take designated sites into consideration. All policies and supporting text will be consistent with national level guidance and legislative requirements. The Draft Plan will provide non-statutory regional guidance and support for sustainable marine development, taking environmental considerations into account. It is a pilot process as a pre-cursor to the Regional Marine Plans.

The policy option set out for protected species should also apply in relation to protected sites and we question why they are proposed to be treated differently. The policy in relation to protected species sets out to identify legal requirements and identify the protected species which will likely be encountered in the area. The protected areas in the PFOW should be identified and the legal requirements in relation to those sites should be made clear.

The Nature Conservation Designations is the main process by which key biodiverse habitats are protected; both habitats ( i.e. sites) and species are covered by proposed polices 3A-3D, and address the appropriate separate legal requirements.

Wider Biodiversity and Geodiversity Interests:

We support using the pilot plan to focus the development of further research.

Noted

Cultural and Historic Environment:

As stated above, developing guidance in relation to best practice and marine renewables should be referred to.

Safeguarding Existing Pipelines, Electricity and Telecommunications Cables:

Exclusion zones should already apply around electricity cables to help secure safety of both the cables and other marine users. The plan should not seek to alter those requirements or designations, however, there may be a role for the plan to further develop plans for enforcing existing legislation.

Noted. The Draft Plan will not alter existing exclusion zone designations. The Draft Plan will provide non-statutory regional guidance and support for sustainable marine development, taking environmental considerations into account. It is a pilot process as a pre-cursor to the Regional Marine Plans.

1. Sustainable Development

We warmly welcome the intention to include a crosscutting policy on sustainable development. However the consultation paper uses the term sustainable economic growth where sustainable development would be the expected term. That said we agree with the preferred option as stated, although would like to see it reflect the 5 guiding principles of sustainable development outlined in the UK SD strategy.

Noted.

AP300: This policy and/or supporting text will be updated to ensure it conforms to the principles of sustainable development.

3B Protected Species

We would support the alternative supporting spatial information of broadly mapping the locations of protected species. Although we understand that species recording effort in the PFOW is not evenly distributed, there are areas that can be identified as important for cetaceans ( e.g. Scapa Flow, Gills Bay, Dunnet Bay) and could be usefully identified in the spatial plan.

Noted. Where reliable data exist, these will be mapped.

Proposed Policy 1A [Sustainable Development]

Page 49, Paragraph 11.3

Mention is made here of marine renewables; however no mention is made of offshore wind. The upcoming sectoral plans show offshore wind within the PFOW MSP area and should, therefore, be taken into account. This is an example of the requirement for an upfront description of how all future plans are to be considered by the PFOW MSP.

AP301: Offshore wind is a part of marine renewables: further clarity will be given in the Draft Plan.

Additionally, it is stated here that certain sectors ( e.g. recreation and tourism) are established. However, this does not allow for the inclusion of "new‟ activities which may well be brought forward in these established sectors. Any potentially "new‟ activities need to also be captured within the plan given that it is proposed to be looking 20 years hence.

The aim of the PIOP was to provide some ideas for the key issues that should be covered when undertaking the first draft of the plan. Section 11.2 suggests that sustainable development should be a key theme i.e. it does not limit development to any single sector. The Draft Plan will make it clearer that all sustainable development will be supported, providing it meets the relevant policy criteria.

Page 50

The statement " Safeguards or enhances the natural, cultural and historic environment‟ is likely to be very difficult to achieve and/or assess for any sort of development and or increase in activity.

Noted.

Proposed Policy 3A [Nature Conservation Designations]

The preferred option here will seek to address connectivity issues between conservation sites and proposed developments. It is not clear how this will be achieved given the 20 year outlook of the plan. Will this be species specific, will it take the sectoral plans for wind, wave and tidal into account, will it consider the currently propose coherent network of nature conservation MPAs? There are still a lot of questions that need addressed given that a lot of consultation is yet to take place.

The aim of the PIOP was to provide some ideas for the key issues that should be covered when undertaking the first draft of the plan.

Page 55, Paragraph 11.20

It is unclear as to the role of the PFOW MSP in the identification of habitats and species as it is stated here that the knowledge and the data are piecemeal. This may ultimately be misleading and full of assumptions.

National Marine Plan Interactive will provide the most up to date information available as data layers which are regularly updated. The Draft Plan is a starting point in that it brings information on many different sectors, interests and activities together in one place and considers opportunities for synergies and mitigation.

Page 57, Paragraph 11.24 [Proposed Policy 3D: Non native species]

The IMO Biofouling Guidelines are stated here as being voluntary. Should it be the role of the PFOW MSP and/or the RMPs to ensure that these guidelines are formally adopted by all recreational craft organisations that utilise the area?

Noted.

[Proposed Policy 4A: Cultural and Historic Environment]

Page 61, Paragraph 11.44

Clarity should be given as to how the consideration of unprotected sites will be taken into account. For example, will it consider them to be protected?

AP302: This information will be considered when drafting the Plan.

Page 65, Proposed Policy 5A [Water Environment]

Much of the supporting spatial information set out here alters annually. Clarity is required as to how this is to be dealt with in the PFOW MSP given its 20 year outlook.

Noted. National Marine Plan Interactive will provide the most up to date information available as data layers which are regularly updated.

Page 67, Proposed Policy 7A [Waste Management and Marine Litter]

This section appears to limit the consideration of waste plans to developments; however, these should be considered by all sectors including commercial fisheries and recreational activities.

Noted.

AP303: Take these comments into account when drafting the Plan.

Page 69, Proposed Policy 9A [Hazardous Development and HSE Consultation Zones]

This section appears to focus on developments. However, there should be awareness that all new activities within any sector will have implications with regards this policy area and should be considered.

Noted.

AP304: Take these comments into account when drafting the Plan; a definition of 'developments' will be provided.

(Note: Typo in policy 1a 'with' should be 'should' in the opening sentence)

Noted.

1a

'Safeguards or enhances' is a relatively new planning term that has been broadly adopted, but it is very subjective. Every development has various impacts and some of these impacts will be negative, so to say that it must 'safeguard or enhance' unnecessarily stacks the case against development proceeding. The terminology should take account of the balance of impacts i.e. an assessment that the benefits of proceeding with any development outweigh the negatives that would be endured by allowing it to proceed.

Noted.

AP305: This policy and/or supporting text will be updated to ensure it conforms to the principles of sustainable development.

2a

See answers to question 5 & 6.

Noted.

3a

The wording of the preferred policy option stacks the case against development insofar as those utilising the deploy and monitor approach would no doubt give rise to significant objections from natural heritage bodies with regard to the cumulative assessments required for all developments proposed in the plan area. Clear boundaries need to be set regarding to what extent cumulative impacts should be considered. Without these being defined in the policy document , the wording risks giving carte blanche to the natural heritage consultees to require cumulative assessments of all development proposals throughout the whole spatial plan area to be made for each and every development proposal submission.

Noted.

AP306: Take these comments into account when drafting the Plan.

3b, 3c & 3d

No comments to make.

3e

A study should be carried out to ensure that assessment is made from the same basis. Having only subjective policies in this area will result in the same undesirable situation that has arisen for on-shore wind developments with regards to the assessment of landscape impacts.

Noted.

AP307: We shall liaise with SNH to ensure we use the best available guidance.

4a

Apart from the WHS designation around Skara Brae, the vast majority of the text concerning the Heart of Neolithic Orkney WHS is completely irrelevant. The central west mainland area of the WHS is not visible from any of Orkney's coast - there is no need to cite any of the monuments in the central west mainland within the policy as having any remote chance of being affected by off-shore elements of proposed marine renewables development. The WHS, comprising Maeshowe and the standing stones/ Ring of Brodgar, is designated for its monuments situated in a 'natural amphitheatre' which comprises a backdrop of a circle of hills.

Assessments would obviously be required for impacts on Skara Brae, coastal listed buildings etc but this policy needs fairly substantial redrafting.

Noted.

5a

No comments

6a

No comments

7a

No comments other than marine litter is already governed by other legislation so may not be required to be covered by the MSP.

The Draft Plan is not replacing any existing legislation; it will provide non-statutory regional guidance and support for sustainable marine development, taking environmental considerations into account. It is a pilot process as a pre-cursor to the Regional Marine Plans.

8a

No comments.

9a

No comments

10a

No comments

Policy 2A. See Q6 above.

Noted.

Comments in Question 19 box.

Noted.

Comments in Question 19 box.

Noted.

1a [Sustainable Development]

It is not new tourist attraction but preservation of unique wild land and cultural heritage which is vital

Alternative: Limited development and more research preferred option

Noted.

3a [Nature Conservation Designations]

Dunnet Head from Brough should be designated SSSI to protect it.

Noted but beyond the scope of the PFOW MSP process.

3a and 3b [Nature Conservation Designations] and [Protected Species]

Dunnet Head and Duncansby Head and road from Brough - should be designated SSSIs.

[3e Landscape and Seascape]

Seascape and landscape. N.E. coast is vital and should not be changed.

Alternative: Dunnet Head and Duncansby Head preserved for future generations. No sustainable development.

Comments not attributed to specific policy:

Preferred and proposed [?? No policy stated]

More attention to Neolithic sites in Caithness.

Caithness to be considered equally important as Orkney and equal attention to archaeology.

Noted.

AP308: Ensure Caithness & Sutherland sites given due consideration.

1a Sustainable Development

HIE urges Marine Scotland to adopt the preferred option. We would welcome further information around how this policy will be crafted and how it will become a sustainable development policy which fits with Stakeholders policies which are currently in place.

Alternative: The alternative approach - do nothing which is not an option, this is a necessary component of the overall policy.

Noted. HIE are part of the Advisory Group, which assists with the Plan drafting process.

4a Cultural and Historic Environment

HIE urge Marine Scotland to develop guidance in relation to what is already out in the marketplace with the inclusion of marine renewables clearly stating what the legal requirements are.

Noted.

AP309: Take these comments into account when drafting the Plan.

Comments in Question 19 box.

Noted.

Proposed Policy 8a: Safeguarding existing pipelines, electricity and telecommunications cables.

National level guidelines already exist for both developing and protecting cables, (electrical or telecoms) and pipelines. Any Regional Marine Plan would need to take these into consideration.

Alternative: The wholesale application of safety zones to these structures would be both unnecessary and burdensome to the catching sector, better to work with established systems such as FISHSAFE and Kingfisher.

Noted.