Publication - Corporate report

Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan - Sustainability Appraisal

Published: 15 June 2015
Topic: Marine and fisheries
ISBN: 9781785443992

This report summarises the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal undertaken on the draft pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan incorporating a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) required under Directive 2001/42/EC and the Env

Supporting documents

Appendix A: Assessment Tables for General Policies

Legend:	+	Positive effects
	+/-	Mixed effects
	-	Negative effects
	0	No significant effects
	?	Uncertain

General Policies 1A – 1C and 2: Sustainable Development, Supporting Sustainable Economic Benefits, Safeguarding the marine ecosystem, and Supporting the Well-being and Quality of Life for Coastal Communities

General Policies
1A: Sustainable Development		Development and/or activities will be supported by this Plan when it can be demonstrated that: It will not have significant adverse direct or cumulative social, environmental or economic effects; it will maintain and, where possible, enhance, existing built, natural and culture heritage resources; it will make efficient use of marine space, maximise opportunities for co-existence between marine users and, where appropriate, support the multiple use of marine space; it will not create an unacceptable burden on existing infrastructure and services that cannot be resolved. Public authorities should adhere to the following sustainable development principles in the determination of any authorisation or enforcement decision: Maximise opportunities for lasting social, environmental and economic benefits balancing these considerations through the consenting process; maximise the efficient use of existing infrastructure and services (e.g. port and harbour infrastructure); support the efficient use of marine space and co-existence between marine users.
1B: Supporting Sustainable Social and Economic Benefits		Development and/or activities will be supported by this Plan when the proposal can demonstrate: Sustainable employment benefits; that opportunities to support local supply chains and create skilled employment in local communities have been maximised; that any adverse social, economic and operational effects on existing activities have been avoided, or where avoidance is not possible, adverse effects have been appropriately mitigated; that opportunities to support synergistic benefits between development and activities have been maximised. Developers should undertake early engagement with the local authority, and any other relevant bodies, if there are likely to be significant impacts on local infrastructure or services.
1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem		The integrity of coastal and marine ecosystems should be safeguarded. The Plan will support proposed development and activities when they: Contribute towards the MSFD objectives to promote enhancement or improvement of the environmental status of the marine environment; demonstrate how any significant disturbance and degradation of coastal and marine ecosystems has been avoided or appropriately mitigated.
2: The Well-being, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities		Development and/or activities will be supported by this Plan when it can be demonstrated that: Significant adverse effects on the well-being, quality of life and amenity of local communities have been avoided, and where appropriate, mitigation measures to address any adverse effects have been incorporated as part of the development and activity proposals and agreed with the consenting authority; Local stakeholders, relevant Community Councils and interested community groups have been engaged at an early stage in the development process when assessing any potential impacts on the well-being, quality of life and amenity of local communities.
Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	In general terms, further development and increased use of resources in the PFOW has the potential to result in a range of environmental effects. Amongst others, these may include: Biodiversity impacts (i.e. the loss of additional coastal and seabed habitat, disturbance and displacement of marine fauna and seabirds, spread of invasive species and disease, creation of barriers to movement for key marine species, creation of reef effects, etc.). Population and human health impacts (i.e. increased vessel and collision risk, disturbance, etc.). Climatic factors impacts (e.g. increased GHG emissions, etc.). Cultural heritage and landscape/seascape impacts (i.e. increased likelihood of visual and setting impacts, etc.). Impacts to water quality (i.e. localised turbidity from some activities, pollution/contamination, etc.). Impacts to Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes (i.e. changes to sediment dynamics, coastal erosion/accretion, etc.). However, the adoption of the Pilot Plan is unlikely to promote further development in the PFOW, but rather promote the sustainable management of any future development and activities. It is also noted that existing processes and mechanisms are in place to manage the potential for effects associated with planned developments and activities, including, where appropriate, their management through the use of appropriate mitigation (e.g. identified in consenting processes underpinned by environmental assessment, etc.). Thus, in the context of the Pilot Plan, no adverse environmental effects are considered likely from these four policies. General Policies 1A, 1B, 1C and 2 provide the overarching theme for the Pilot Plan, and set the broad aims for ‘sustainable development and use’ of the PFOW area. They also set out ambitions for safeguarding its many resources and provide support for local communities through the promotion of the consideration of the social, economic and environmental aspects. In general terms, the focus on ‘sustainability’ and ‘safeguarding’ is likely to have positive effects for many environmental and socio-economic topic areas; principally through promoting greater awareness of these important considerations in the future development and use of the PFOW marine area. It should also provide guidance for the delivery of these ambitions at the project/local levels. In the environmental context, the focus on ‘safeguarding’ the marine environment, promoting co-existence in marine space and shared use of infrastructure, and more efficient management of existing resources (i.e. port facilities, cable runs, etc.) could reduce the need for new infrastructure. This has the potential to enable the avoidance of adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with new infrastructure development (e.g. direct, indirect and secondary impacts on biodiversity features; effects on the setting of cultural heritage features and landscape/seascape; noise disturbance to nearby human receptors; and adverse impacts on soil and marine geodiversity impacts and water quality, etc.). The potential for economic benefits has also been identified; particularly associated with General Policy 1B. The promotion of ‘sustainable development’ has the potential to contribute to the growth of new industries in the region, which may in some instances have the potential to lead to conflicts between different industries (i.e. those that are not compatible, potential for displacement effects, etc.). This is reflected in the grading to the left for material assets. However, the focus on the development of sustainable industries and maximising opportunities for communities will likely have overall positive effects, provided that these are not at the expense of existing sustainable activities; many of which are known to be important in supporting local communities (e.g. fishing, tourism, etc.). The potential for conflicts between the policies was also noted, particularly the potential for ‘trade-offs’ in balancing social, environmental and economic considerations in the future use of the region. The potential for the policies to contribute to the promotion of early community engagement and involvement in the development process, and potentially increasing the involvement of communities themselves in the growth of the region was also noted. Further, the policies may also promote the consideration and involvement of these stakeholders, most notably in relation to existing processes such as the consideration of development and marine license applications.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	+
Landscape/Seascape	+
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		4A: Nature Conservation Designations 4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity	4D: Landscape and Seascape 4E: Geodiversity 5A: Water Environment	6: Historic Environment 7: Integrating Coastal and Marine Development
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA found that together, the four overarching policies are likely to have overall positive effects for many of the socio-economic and environmental topic areas, largely through the promotion of a broad and region-wide focus on ‘sustainable development’, ‘sustainable benefits’ and the consideration of economic, environmental and social aspects in decision-making. The SA considered that the draft Pilot Plan also presents an opportunity to reduce the risk of adverse social, economic and environmental impacts that may be associated with future growth in the PFOW area, In particular, the promotion of sustainable development and the efficient management and sharing of existing resources and infrastructure were identified as having the potential to avoid negative impacts (i.e. adverse impacts that may be associated with the construction of new or additional infrastructure, promoting appropriate development and activities). Potential benefits for population and human health were also identified with the promotion of the long-term sustainability objectives of the group of policies, and through supporting social and economic benefits and promotion of economic and wellbeing considerations. The potential for enhanced involvement of communities in the future growth of the use of the PFOW area was seen as a key positive effect, particularly in relation to the consideration of potential social and economic impacts and opportunities for fostering further community involvement in the decision-making process. However, the SA also identified the potential for negative effects associated with balancing social, environmental and economic ambitions in the future, particularly in the identification of the likely potential for trade-offs between these ambitions in the future growth of use of the PFOW area. Further, having developers, marine users and local communities themselves ‘buy in’ to the draft Pilot Plan was seen as being an essential part of implementing the ambitions of the Pilot Plan and ensuring the delivery of any potential benefits.

General Policy 3A: Climate Change

General Policies
3A: Climate Change		The Plan will support development proposals that demonstrate: The mitigation measures taken to adapt to effects of climate change. How they may impact upon climate change adaptation measures elsewhere. How resilience has been built into the project over its lifetime. All proposals for development must minimise, as far as practicable, emissions of greenhouse gases and clearly demonstrate mitigation measures taken.
Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	The policy aims to promote the consideration of climate change adaptation to developers and other marine users alike, including promoting resilience and adaptation as key components in both proposed developments and in other coastal/marine activities. It is likely to provide guidance for developers and marine users in the consideration of climate change issues in the development process, and as a consequence, should have overall positive effects for the sustainability and future-proofing of marine sectors in particular. Support for developers to demonstrate climate change resilience in the application process could also help to contribute to wider adaptation ambitions, and promoting the reduction of GHG emissions is likely to have positive effects and contribute to Scotland’s emissions reduction targets and low carbon energy ambitions. The potential for indirect or secondary effects was also identified in the SA, particularly as a consequence of improved consideration of climate change adaptation at the project level. For example, improvements in resilience and coastal protection may result in associated positive effects for coastal ecosystems and species (e.g. improved protection of coastal ecosystems and species that use them, etc.), soil and coastal geology (e.g. reduced coastal erosion/accretion, etc.), cultural heritage in the coastal environment, and water quality (e.g. reduced turbidity in coastal areas). In the instance of coastal development, protection works could also help to preserve coastal areas for other users, particularly those identified as being vulnerable to coastal erosion. The potential for these works to open up areas for recreational use was also noted, with the potential to provide benefits for local communities and human health. However, the assessment also considered that the realisation of any such benefits is likely to rely on having the ‘buy in’ of developers, coastal and marine users, and other stakeholders (e.g. communities, etc.). In some instances, the potential for mixed effects was also noted. For example, the potential for changing coastal processes/sediment dynamics and shifting erosion/accretion to neighbouring areas was identified as a potential impact from undertaking adaptation and protection works. However, it is anticipated that such issues are likely to be considered at the project level within existing consenting processes such as Marine Licensing and Town and Country Planning, both of which are likely to be underpinned by environmental assessment processes such as the EIA and HRA. Thus, in the context of the Pilot Plan, no adverse environmental effects are considered likely. The potential for additional costs associated with demonstrating adaptation and resilience have also been noted, and as a consequence, the potential for mixed effects have been shown in the grading for Material Assets to the left. However, in some instances these may be offset at the project and regional levels through ensuring the sustainability and future-proofing of the relevant marine sectors. It is also noted that the scale and significance of any potential benefits are likely to depend on a range of project-specific and locational factors; notably the scale and type of development, its location, and the vulnerability of the location and surrounding areas to the effects of climate change, amongst others. As a consequence, the assessment identified the potential for any such impacts as likely to be important considerations at the project level.
Climate change	+
Cultural heritage	+
Landscape/Seascape	+
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities 4E: Geodiversity 5A: Water Environment	5B: Coastal Processes and Flooding 6: Historic Environment 9: Invasive Non-native Species
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified opportunities for positive effects through improving the resilience of developments to the expected effects of climate change and promoting climate change adaptation across the full spectrum of marine users in the PFOW area. Providing additional guidance for marine users through this policy, particularly developers and consenting authorities, could aid in the identification of opportunities to improve adaptation and aid the future protection of vulnerable coastlines (e.g. future-proofing coastal and marine infrastructure, infusing coastal protection measures and resilience into coastal development). Whilst likely benefits for climate change adaptation and sustainability of marine sectors was identified as a key potential outcome, the potential for associated benefits such as making further contributions to wider adaptation ambitions were also noted (e.g. reducing GHG emissions). The potential for positive secondary and indirect environmental effects for a number of topic areas associated with greater consideration of likely climate change impacts in undertaking coastal development works and coastal use was also considered likely. For example, the potential for improved protection of coastal ecosystems and species, reduced coastal erosion/accretion, improved protection for cultural heritage in the coastal environment, and reduced turbidity in coastal areas, amongst others. Whilst the potential for mixed effects was also identified, principally through inappropriate development or coastal use (e.g. impacting coastal processes, shifting erosion/accretion), it was considered that existing mechanisms such as current consenting processes, generally underpinned by environmental assessment, are likely to remain a primary means of identifying and mitigating any such impacts at the project level. As such, the ability of the policy to significantly influence change amongst developers and marine users is likely to be closely linked to the requirements of these existing processes. This is also likely to depend upon achieving ‘buy in’ from stakeholders (i.e. developers, marine users, government agencies (i.e. SNH), consenting authorities and local communities) and this was identified as a key challenge for the Pilot Plan and for future marine regional planning in the PFOW.

General Policies 4A – 4C: Nature Conservation Designations, Protected Species and Wider Biodiversity

General Policies
4A: Nature Conservation Designations	The Plan will support development and activities where due regard is given to the importance of international, national and locally-designated nature conservation sites: Internationally designated sites – Development likely to have a significant effect on a site designated or proposed to be designated as a SPA, SAC (collectively known as Natura 2000 sites) or a Ramsar site, alone or in combination and not directly connected with, or necessary to the conservation management of that site, must be subject to an Appropriate Assessment in order to assess the implications for the site’s conservation objectives. The development will only be permitted in circumstances where the assessment ascertains that: It would not adversely affect the objectives of the designation or the integrity of the site; or there is no alternative solution; and there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. Nationally designated sites – Development that affects a Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area ( NC MPA) will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the relevant public authority that the proposal will not significantly hinder the achievement of the conservation objectives of the NC MPA. Where there is no alternative that would have a lesser impact on the conservation objectives of the NC MPA and the public benefit outweighs the environmental impact, the applicant will arrange for measures of equivalent environmental benefit to offset the anticipated damage. Development that affects a SSSI or GCR site will only be permitted where (for SSSIs) the objectives of designation and overall integrity of the area, or (for GCR sites) the reasons for selection, will not be compromised, or where significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated/selected are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. Locally designated sites – Development that affects a Local Nature Conservation Site ( LNCS) or Local Nature Reserve ( LNR) will only be permitted where can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the consenting authority that any significant adverse impact on the integrity of the site, or the qualities for which it has been designated, have been appropriately addressed or mitigated or any such impact is clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits and there is no satisfactory alternative. In addition, in all cases where development affecting a nature conservation sites can be consented, satisfactory mitigation measures will be required to minimise any potential adverse impacts during the construction, lifetime and decommissioning of the development. Where the impact of a development on an international, national or local natural heritage resource are uncertain, but there are good scientific grounds that significant irreversible damage could occur, the precautionary principle will apply.
4B: Protected Species	The Plan will not support development or activities that would likely have an adverse effect on a European Protected Species unless the relevant consenting or planning authority is satisfied there is no satisfactory alternative; the development is required for preserving public health or public safety or there are other imperative reasons of overriding public interest; the development would not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a European Protected Species concerned at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. Where the impacts of a development or activities on an internationally or nationally protected species are uncertain, but there are good scientific grounds that significant irreversible damage could occur, the precautionary principle will apply. Development and activities will only be permitted where they comply with any licence granted by the appropriate authority required for the purpose of species protection. Development likely to have an adverse effect on other species protected under current wildlife legislation, individually and/or cumulatively will only be permitted if those effects can be mitigated to the satisfaction of the relevant consenting or planning authority, or if they are satisfied that legislative requirements to proceed can be met.
4C: Wider Biodiversity	The Plan will not support development and activities that result in a significant adverse effect on the status of Priority Marine Features. Where development or activities are likely to have an adverse impact on species of regional or local importance to biodiversity, proposals should demonstrate: The public benefits at a local level clearly outweigh the value of the habitat for biodiversity conservation; the development or activity will be sited and designed to minimise adverse impacts on environmental quality, ecological status or viability; any impact will be suitably mitigated.

Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	In general terms, further development and increased use of resources in the PFOW has the potential to have significant effects on all environmental topic areas. However, the inclusion of these three policies, alongside those of the other general and sectoral policies, will seek to safeguard the marine environment and the recognised features that contribute to the wide biodiversity in the PFOW area. Together, the three policies build upon the ambitions of the overarching policies to increase awareness of existing mechanisms for the protection of the marine environment and also the recognition of the importance of biodiversity to the PFOW area, and the many industries and communities that is supports (i.e. General Policies 1A and 1C). The potential for the three policies to increase awareness and provide guidance for future developers on their responsibilities for considering biodiversity in the development process was identified as a key benefit. The Policy will reinforce the importance of biodiversity features in sustainable development for all marine users, and could potentially help to reduce the risk of adverse effects on some. The potential for overall positive effects, particularly for designated habitats and species (e.g. seabirds and seals, amongst others) in the PFOW area has been identified, alongside the potential for associated positive effects for wider biodiversity, water, and coastal and marine geodiversity. Similarly, the potential for positive indirect effects for those sectors and users with close interactions with coastal and marine ecosystems (e.g. the fishing sector, wildlife tourism, etc.) and the communities that they help to support were also noted in the SA. The information collated for the SA and the RLG that accompany the Pilot Plan also have the potential to increase awareness of the value and importance of biodiversity in the Pilot Plan area. For example, they identify key biodiversity sensitivities and concerns in the PFOW area, and with the buy-in of stakeholders, have the potential to improve awareness amongst marine users and local communities of biodiversity sensitivities (e.g. seabird populations, grey and harbour seal vulnerabilities, etc.). In itself, this can be seen as a positive effect. However, the SA also noted that the protection of nature conservation designations and biodiversity features are currently considered with a range of existing mechanisms (e.g. consenting processes underpinned by project level EIA and HRA, etc.). Further, it was noted that the inclusion of these Policies and the RLG will not replace existing requirements of developers and marine users in relation to these processes, but rather provide additional information and guidance as a material consideration. As such, the SA found that the potential for impacts to biodiversity will still need to be appropriately considered at the project level. The SA considered that the policies were unlikely to result in significant impacts in relation to other environmental topic areas (i.e. climate change, cultural heritage or landscape/seascape).
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	0
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	+
Material Assets	+
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem	5A: Water Environment 9: Invasive Non-native Species
Outcomes and recommendations
While existing mechanisms and methodologies are currently in place to consider the potential for impacts to biodiversity features in the PFOW area, the SA identified the potential for overall positive effects associated with the inclusion of these policies in the draft Pilot Plan, and also through the development of the RLG. While it was also noted that the consideration and protection of designated sites and species is currently a legal requirement and is a key consideration of existing consenting processes (e.g. Marine Licensing, Town and Country Planning and supporting environmental assessments such as EIA and HRA), the SA identified the potential for positive effects in improving the awareness of existing environmental protection requirements and the likelihood of future considerations (i.e. the identification of draft marine SPAs covering much of the Pentland Firth and Orkney) amongst developers, marine users and consenting authorities. The SA found that this could help to promote greater consistency in the consideration of the marine environment at an early stage in the development process, particularly for the preservation and/or enhancement of protected and otherwise recognised biodiversity features. The potential for the policies to help to facilitate early monitoring (e.g. seabird surveys, seal counts) and early consideration of options for avoidance or mitigation of potential impacts was also noted (e.g. by starting the HRA process early, alternative siting). If implemented with the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders, there is the potential for significant positive effects for biodiversity, water quality (e.g. improving the ecological status of the water environment) and soil and marine geodiversity (i.e. preserving the character and diversity of the seabed). However, the SA also identified that delivery of any such benefits would likely be dependent on having the ‘buy in’ of these stakeholders (i.e. developers, marine users, Government agencies (i.e. SNH), consenting authorities, environmental bodies). Associated benefits for a range of marine sectors associated with the protection of the marine environment were also identified, particularly alongside the promotion of sustainable development, and for those industries with a close relationship with biodiversity (e.g. fishing, wildlife tourism). The potential for associated benefits for local communities relating to further contributions in preserving the integrity of the marine environment and supporting sustainable industries was also identified.

General Policy 4D: Landscape and Seascape

General Policies
4D: Landscape and Seascape		The siting and design of any proposed development should demonstrate how the proposal takes into account visual impact and existing character and quality of landscape and seascape. Development and activities that affect National Scenic Areas ( NSAs), Wild Land Areas ( WLAs), National Parks, World Heritage Sites and Special Landscape Areas ( SLAs) should only be permitted where: They will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or its special qualities for which it has been designated, or Any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance for NSAs and local importance for SLAs Where a development could impact on qualities of coastal wildness, largely undeveloped coast, areas subject to significant constraints or largely unspoiled and isolated areas of coast, Scottish Planning Policy should be considered when planning and for decision-making.
Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	0	The policy aims to increase awareness and promote the consideration of visual impacts associated with future developments and activities in the PFOW coastal and marine environment. It should provide guidance for marine users and developers on the consideration of visual impacts, and strengthen existing processes and methodologies for considering landscape and seascape character and impacts in the relevant consenting processes. In this way, it has the potential to aid in promoting greater consistency in the consideration of potential impacts, whilst also providing the potential for associated benefits on the setting of cultural heritage and historic features. Given the many recognised landscape/seascape and areas in the PFOW area, and that many are recognised for both their visual and cultural importance (e.g. west Mainland Orkney and Northern Hoy), the policy has the potential for significant positive effects for both. The relationship between human health and the natural environment, particularly in the enjoyment of landscape/seascape and cultural heritage assets, is well-documented. In Orkney and along the North Sutherland Coast, landscape/seascape and cultural heritage are widely seen to play key roles in the sense of place and the lifestyles in local communities. With the ‘buy in’ of developers, marine users and with the support of local communities, there is the potential for realising significant positive effects for population and human health, particularly through promoting opportunities for benefits at the community level. The potential for fostering further enjoyment of these assets amongst these communities was also identified. The inclusion of a requirement in the non-statutory policy that developers demonstrate the consideration of visual and landscape/seascape impacts should provide further guidance for improving transparency in the development process. This could also help to foster future engagement with stakeholders and local communities, particularly if undertaken at an early stage of the consultation process of a proposed development. The SEA considered that the policy was unlikely to result in significant impacts on water quality, climatic factors or soil and marine geodiversity; nor is it likely to significantly contribute to the objectives in these topic areas.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	+
Landscape/Seascape	+
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	0
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	0
Material Assets	+
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities	6: Historic Environment 7: Integrating Coastal and Marine Development
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA found that while existing consenting processes currently include the consideration of impacts to visual amenity, landscape and seascape, and a number of methodologies have been developed to consider these, there is the potential for overall positive effects associated with this policy. The potential for the policy to promote greater consistency in the consideration of visual impacts in the development process, and in the early stages of consenting processes was identified as one such example. As a consequence, the potential for significant benefits for the many recognised landscape/seascape areas in the PFOW area were identified in the SA. Close links between landscape/seascape and the setting of cultural heritage features was also noted in the assessment, particularly as many of the valued landscape and seascape areas are also recognised for their cultural importance (e.g. west Mainland Orkney and Northern Hoy). The potential for positive effects for communities, population and human health was identified, largely in relation to enjoyment and use of the natural environment and its visual assets. The potential for positive indirect effects for many coastal and/or marine industries was also noted (e.g. recreation and tourism). However, the SA also identified the importance that this policy and the Pilot Plan be supported by stakeholders including developers, marine users, Government agencies such as SNH and local communities themselves, for any such benefits to be realised. This was considered to be a key area of opportunity for the policy, with the SA also noting that this could aid in improving engagement between different stakeholders in the future consultation processes both at the strategic level (e.g. future regional marine planning) and in the engagement over the consideration of visual issues at the project level (e.g. developer-led consultation).

General Policy 4E: Geodiversity

General Policies
4E: Geodiversity		Development and activities may only be supported by this Plan where they: Do not have a significant adverse effect on geodiversity interests of international, national and regional/local importance Provide mitigation to minimise any adverse effects on such features.
Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	The policy is likely to provide overarching guidance, and through this, has the potential to promote and improve the consideration of geodiversity amongst developers and marine users in the PFOW. With the ‘buy in’ of developers, consenting bodies and coastal/marine users, the Policy could help to improve consistency in how geodiversity is considered and addressed in current systems (i.e. Marine Licensing, Town and Country Planning, Regional Marine Planning, etc.) and in underlying assessments (e.g. EIA, HRA and SEA). As a consequence, the potential for positive effects for soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes have been identified. The potential for indirect or secondary effects on a number of other environmental topic areas was also identified in the SA. In particular, the potential for significant benefits to other topic areas through likely interactions between the preservation of geodiversity, habitats and biodiversity, and landscape/seascape were noted. Links between biodiversity and geodiversity are well established, particularly in the coastal and marine environments. Likewise, the dramatic landscapes and seascapes across the PFOW are framed, at least in part in coastal areas, by geological features. Further secondary effects, such as the potential for positive effects for the coastal and marine tourism sector and for communities, population and human health associated with the preservation of and ensuring continued access and enjoyment of outdoor recreation sites with geodiversity interests were also noted (e.g. North West Sutherland Geopark, much of the Caithness and North West Sutherland coastline), particularly for areas identified for their geological heritage. Landscape and seascape is widely seen as playing a key role in the sense of place and the lifestyles of local communities in both Orkney and along the north Caithness and Sutherland coasts, and the potential for indirect positive effects have also been identified. As such, the potential for benefits in improving the consideration of geodiversity features in the future could translate to associated positive effects for these topic areas. Coastal change has been identified as a key pressure to coastal geodiversity along many of the coastlines in the PFOW area. However, it is considered that the inclusion of this policy in isolation would be unlikely to significantly affect coastal resilience. This is discussed in further detail under General Policies 3 (Climate Change) and 5B (Coastal Processes and Flooding). The SEA also considered that the inclusion of the policy would be unlikely to result in significant impacts on water quality or cultural heritage, nor is it likely to significantly contribute to the SA objectives in these topic areas.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	0
Landscape/Seascape	+
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	0
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 3: Climate Change 4A: Nature Conservation Designations	4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity 4D: Landscape and Seascape 5B: Coastal Processes and Flooding
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA found that with the support of developers and marine users, the policy would have the potential to strengthen geodiversity considerations in the development process and within existing consenting processes (e.g. Marine Licensing, Town and Country Planning development applications), in future regional marine planning and also in associated assessment work (e.g. EIA, HRA and SEA). Primarily, increased awareness of geodiversity value in the PFOW area has the potential to contribute to the recognition and preservation of coastal and marine geodiversity at the project level (e.g. identify need for seabed surveys, early consideration of options for avoidance or mitigation of potential impacts). The implementation of the Policy and ambitions of the Pilot Plan, particularly around ensuring a consistent approach is taken to the consideration of environmental concerns and their assessment, was seen as a priority in working towards sustainable development. In this context, the policy is seen to sit alongside those promoting the protection of the rich biodiversity, and the wide and varied landscapes and seascapes in the PFOW area. As a consequence, the potential for secondary and indirect benefits for biodiversity (e.g. associated benefits for benthic and coastal habitats), landscape/seascape, and communities, population and human health (e.g. access and appreciation of geodiversity) were also identified. As for other policy areas, the SA identified that working with stakeholders (i.e. developers, marine users, Government agencies (i.e. SNH), consenting authorities, local communities) was likely to be a crucial component in ensuring that any potential benefits of the policy are both realised and maximised.

General Policy 5A: Water Environment

General Policies
5A: Water Environment		The Plan will support development in the marine environment when the proposal: Does not cause any water body to deteriorate in status nor prevent the achievement of established objectives set out in the River Basin Management Plan for the Scotland river basin district. Contributes, where possible, towards objectives to improve the ecological status of coastal water bodies and the environmental status of marine waters. Does not cause deterioration in the standard of waters designated under European Commission Directives such as Bathing Beaches, Shellfish Water Protected Areas or Shellfish Harvesting Waters. Is accompanied by sufficient information to enable a full assessment of the likely effects, including cumulative effects, on the water environment. Has taken into account existing activities in the proposed location for development and undertaken early consultation to ensure that activities that may not be compatible (e.g. development of an incompatible activity near an established legitimate activity, such as a licensed discharge) are not located together.
Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	Whilst promoting the importance of preservation of environmental and ecological water quality, the policy seeks to increase awareness amongst future developers and marine users of their obligations for the protection of the water environment in the PFOW. Improvements in efficiency in the development process are also likely outcomes, and the potential for improved consistency in the consideration of impacts to water quality, including cumulative impacts, in development and consenting applications have also been identified (i.e. support for developers to “provide sufficient information to enable a full assessment”, etc.). In addition to providing guidance, the policy may present an opportunity to engage with developers and marine users for contributing to meeting water quality objectives such as Scotland’s water quality targets under the WFD and MSFD. At present, offshore developments and many coastal and marine activities (e.g. offshore renewables, installation of grid infrastructure, port/harbour works, aquaculture, etc.) address water quality issues via current consenting processes and through compliance with license conditions (i.e. CAR, Pollution Prevention Control ( PPC), etc.); many of which are likely to be supported by environmental assessments (i.e. EIA, HRA). With the ‘buy in’ of developers and marine users, the SA identified the potential for both water quality improvements and for secondary or indirect benefits for other SA topic areas such as biodiversity, soil and marine geodiversity. The potential for indirect benefits for population and human health was also identified in the SA, including the potential for contributing to a reduction in risk of adverse environmental and socio-economic impacts on recreational sectors (e.g. surfing, swimming, diving, etc.). The potential for benefits in relation to human health for recreational marine users with improved water coastal and marine quality in the PFOW area was also noted. The potential for positive effects associated with increased awareness of water quality considerations and legislative requirements for coastal and marine users has also been noted in the SA; particularly amongst those lying out with existing processes (e.g. recreational users such as boating, sea angling, coastal or terrestrial land users, etc.). However, it is also noted that many of these users are unlikely to currently be significant contributors to the deterioration of water quality in the PFOW. It is also noted that as any water quality improvements associated with specific developments or activities are likely to be localised, albeit subject to currents, flow dynamics and coastal processes. Similarly, any associated positive effects for biodiversity, soil/marine geodiversity and for population and human health are also likely to be localised; particularly for those in direct contact with the resources (e.g. swimming, diving, recreational angling, etc.).
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	0
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	+
Material Assets	+
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities 4A: Nature Conservation Designations	4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity, 4D: Landscape and Seascape 4E: Geodiversity	5B: Coastal Processes and Flooding 8B: Waste and Marine Litter
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified the potential for overall positive effects associated with the policy, largely through increased awareness of the importance of water quality and support for existing water quality obligations under current planning and consenting processes. The potential for improved consistency and efficiency in addressing water quality issues by marine users and developers was identified as a key positive effect. For example, the inclusion of “sufficient information to enable a full assessment of the likely effects, including cumulative effects, on the water environment [for a proposed development]” aligns with similar findings identified in the assessment of other general policy areas. While the potential for benefits to water quality were clearly identified, the potential for secondary or indirect positive effects for biodiversity, soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes were also considered likely from adoption of the Pilot Plan. The assessment found that the policy also presents an opportunity to further engage with developers and marine users, and in working with them to contribute to meeting Scotland’s water quality objectives (i.e. under the WFD and MSFD). It may also present a good opportunity to engage with those out with existing consenting processes (e.g. recreational users, fishing vessels, shipping) in addition to those under existing consenting regimes (e.g. aquaculture, renewables). As a consequence, communication and engagement with stakeholders (e.g. developers, marine users, Government agencies (i.e. SNH and SEPA), consenting authorities, environmental bodies, and local communities) was considered to be a key recommendation of the SA, particularly in ensuring that ‘buy in’ of stakeholders can contribute to efforts to meet the established water quality objectives, and in the realisation of other potential benefits.

General Policy 5B: Coastal Processes and Flooding

General Policies
5B: Coastal Processes and Flooding		The Plan will support proposals for development and activities, including any linked shore-based requirements, that demonstrate, potentially by way of a flood risk assessment: That they will not exacerbate present or future risks of flooding or erosion. That sensitive uses, such as accommodation, will not be located in areas shown to be at risk of flooding. How resilience and adaptation strategies have been incorporated within proposed developments over their lifetime to adapt to the effects of climate change, coastal erosion and coastal flooding. Any development must not compromise the objectives of the Flood Risk Management Act.
Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	The ambitions of the policy are closely linked to those for climate change adaptation and resilience outlined in General Policy 3 (Climate Change). It aims to increase awareness of flooding and coastal erosion issues for future developers and marine users, and together with the General Policy 3 and those detailed in Local Development Planning within the PFOW area, seeks to promote and improve the adaptation and resilience of future developments and coastal and marine activities to the expected effects of climate change. Further, it aims to ensure that future development does not exacerbate present or future risks of flooding or coastal erosion. The SA identified that existing consenting processes for coastal and marine development are in place, and that these are likely to be supported by underlying assessments (e.g. EIA, flood-risk assessment, where appropriate). These are currently the primary mechanisms for the identification, assessment and where necessary, the avoidance and/or mitigation of any potential flooding or coastal erosion impacts associated with coastal or marine development. Neither General Policy 3 nor 5B are expected to significantly change these processes, but instead are aimed at providing guidance and support for developers and coastal/marine users in the consideration of potential issues and adaptation. The primary effects of the Policy are likely to be positive in promoting adaptation and resilience to the effects of climate change and in contributing to reducing the risk of adverse impacts on water quality. However, the potential for secondary or indirect impacts on other topic areas were also identified, due largely to the close relationships and interactions with water quality (e.g. soil and marine geodiversity, population and human health). With the ‘buy in’ of developers and marine users, there is the potential for greater and more consistent consideration of coastal flooding impacts in future development in the PFOW area, and in working towards ensuring climate change resilience for future activities in the coastal and marine environment. Given the predicted effects of climate change; particularly relating to the potential for an increase in storm events and flooding, sea level rise, and increased wave size, amongst others; the SA found that there is likely the potential for significant benefits for both developers and marine users in the future. The inclusion of policy that developments “will not exacerbate present or future risks of flooding or erosion” is also likely to have a positive effect through helping to reduce the risk of adverse impacts on a number of topic areas at the local level (i.e. soil and marine geodiversity and coastal biodiversity). Similarly, the potential for a reduction in the risk of creating or exacerbating the potential for adverse impacts on landscape/seascape and the setting of coastal cultural heritage features and damage from flooding events were also noted in the assessment. Further, positive effects in adaptation and resilience could have associated benefits in preserving current opportunities for Communities, Population and Human Health in the PFOW area (e.g. reduced risk of loss of coastline and recreational areas, flooding impacts on accommodation, etc.). However, it is considered that any such effects are likely to be location-specific, and as such, these are still likely to require consideration at the local and project level. In some instances, the potential for mixed effects for Material Assets was also noted. For example, the potential for affecting coastal processes/sediment dynamics and shifting erosion/accretion to neighbouring areas was identified as a potential effect associated with development in some areas. However, it is anticipated that such issues are likely to be considered at the project level within existing consenting processes (e.g. Marine Licensing, Town and Country Planning where applicable) and underpinned by environmental assessment processes. Thus, in the context of the Pilot Plan, no adverse environmental effects are considered likely. However, the potential for additional costs associated with demonstrating adaptation and resilience to climate change were also identified. In many instances, any such costs may be offset at the project and regional levels through ensuring the sustainability and future-proofing in the relevant marine sectors. As a consequence, the potential for mixed effects have been shown in the grading for Material Assets to the left. The SA also found that the policy is unlikely to significantly alter the predicted effects of climate change.
Climate change	+
Cultural heritage	+
Landscape/Seascape	+
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities	3: Climate Change 4D: Landscape and Seascape 4E: Geodiversity	5A: Water Environment 6: Historic Environment 7: Integrating Coastal and Marine Development
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified the potential for overall positive effects for the Policy, principally through its ambition to increase awareness of potential coastal erosion and flooding issues, and obligations under the Flood Risk Management Act. In particular, it identified the potential for benefits in the development process or in proposing undertaking new coastal and marine activities, if considered at an early stage. The SA identified close links between the ambitions of this policy and that of General Policy 3 (Climate Change), particularly in ensuring that any future development or new coastal or marine activities are ‘future-proof’. Given the predicted effects of climate change, the SA considered that there is likely the potential for significant benefits for both developers and marine users in considering how these issues could aid in improving adaptation and resilience at the project level. However, the SA also recognised that current consenting processes underpinned by assessment work (e.g. EIA, socio-economic assessment, flood-risk assessment) will remain the primary mechanisms for identifying, assessing, and where appropriate, avoiding/mitigating any potential adverse effects. While the potential for positive effects were identified through protecting water quality and promoting climate change resilience, adaptation and reducing the risk of exacerbating flood and erosion issues, the assessment also noted the potential for positive secondary or indirect effects. Positive effects for all environmental topic areas were noted in the assessment (i.e. biodiversity through reduced risk to coastal or flood-prone habitats, and reduced risk of adverse impacts on soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes, in particular). However, the potential for mixed effects for Material Assets was noted in the SA. In particular, the potential for additional costs associated with future developers to demonstrate adaptation and resilience to climate change were identified. However, in many instances, such costs may be offset at the project and regional levels in ensuring the sustainability and future-proofing of the relevant marine sectors. The SA considered that the ability of the Policy to significantly influence developers and marine users in increasing their consideration of these issues is likely to be linked to the requirements of existing consenting processes. Obtaining the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders in these ambitions (i.e. developers, marine users, Government agencies (i.e. SEPA), consenting authorities, environmental bodies, and local communities), is likely to be a critical factor of the delivery of any potential benefits.

General Policy 6: Historic Environment

General Policies
6: Historic Environment		Development which has the potential to have an adverse effect on the archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic significance of heritage assets, including their settings, will be expected to demonstrate that all reasonable measures will be taken to mitigate any loss of significance, and that any lost significance which cannot be mitigated is outweighed by the social, economic or environmental benefits of the development. Preservation in situ will always be the preferred form of mitigation. The results of any mitigation measures must be published in an agreed format, and all supplementary material lodged with an agreed publicly accessible archive. Heritage assets of very high significance should be protected from all but minor adverse effects to their significance unless there are overwhelming social, economic or environmental benefits from the development. For these sites the highest levels of mitigation will be required. This includes all sites where there is a substantial likelihood of the survival of human remains, and all sites protected under the following Acts: Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 (as amended); Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended); Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (as amended); Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. For those sites which are designated, licences or consents are likely to be required from the relevant authority before the commencement of development. Receiving these consents may be a condition of marine licence approval. Proposals for development and use that may affect the historic environment should provide information on the significance of known heritage assets and the potential for new discoveries to arise. They should demonstrate how any adverse impacts will be avoided, or if not possible minimised and mitigated. Where it is not possible to minimise or mitigate impacts, the benefits of proceeding with the proposal should be clearly set out. Whilst requirements of navigation and safety take precedence over the conservation of the historic environment, they do not remove the need for development proposals to comply with this policy so far as is reasonable.
Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	0	The Policy seeks to increase awareness amongst future developers, marine users and consenting authorities of their obligations for the protection of the historic environment in the PFOW. It is a safeguarding policy, and will likely provide further guidance on the consideration of cultural heritage issues in the development process, and build upon that provided by existing mechanisms such as Marine Licensing and associated EIA process, current Scottish policy (i.e. Scottish Historic Environment Policy ( SHEP) 2011, the Marine Historic Environment Strategy for the Protection, Management and Promotion of Marine Heritage 2012 – 15, etc.), and existing requirements outlined in legislation (i.e. Protection of Wrecks Act 1979, Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, etc.). As a consequence, the potential for overall benefits through greater consideration of Cultural Heritage and Material Assets have been identified. While designated features such as the Neolithic Heart of Orkney WHS and designated wrecks are currently subject to numerous layers of protection, the assessment noted that the policy may have particular benefits for the preservation of undesignated features (i.e. undiscovered coastal or marine archaeology and undesignated wreck sites). It could also provide further guidance to developers and marine users on their responsibilities for considering the potential for direct, indirect or cumulative effects on these features. Whilst not specifically focused on landscape/seascape preservation, the potential for benefits through improving awareness on cultural heritage and historic setting issues for future developers and coastal/marine users has the potential to deliver associated benefits for visual amenity and landscape/seascape. In particular, areas such as West Mainland Orkney, Hoy and the north Caithness and Sutherland coast containing large areas of important historic and landscape/seascape designations, may have the highest potential for benefits. The potential for associated benefits for population and human health were also noted in the SA; principally given the importance of cultural heritage in communities across the PFOW and encouraging the continued enjoyment and appreciation of heritage and historic features in coastal and marine areas (e.g. the WHS, listed buildings in coastal areas, etc.).
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	+
Landscape/Seascape	+
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	0
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	0
Material Assets	+
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1B: Supporting Sustainable Economic Benefits 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities	4D: Landscape and Seascape 5B: Coastal Processes and Flooding
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA recognised the importance of cultural heritage in the PFOW and for the many communities in the area. It also noted the range of existing legislative mechanisms and processes that are in place for the protection of cultural heritage and historic environment features in both the terrestrial and marine environments. The SA found that the policy likely presents an opportunity to further promote the importance of cultural heritage sites, both designated and undesignated, and raise awareness for future developers and marine users in their obligations for the preservation of these valued features. The potential for positive effects for the preservation of heritage assets was noted and the potential for secondary and indirect environmental effects for a number of topic areas was also identified (e.g. landscape/seascape and visual amenity, and communities, population and human health). The SA considered that current consenting processes underpinned by specific assessments (e.g. EIA incorporating an assessment of cultural heritage/historic environment in relation to a proposal) are likely to continue to be the primary mechanism for identifying and mitigating any such impacts at the project level. The implementation of the Policy and the ambitions of the Pilot Plan, particularly around ensuring a consistent approach is taken to the consideration of these concerns and their assessment, are likely to support these processes. However, the SA also identified a need to engage with stakeholders, including developers, marine users, Government agencies (e.g. Historic Environment Scotland), consenting authorities and local communities, and nominated this as a key recommendation in ensuring that the potential benefits identified in the SA are realised, and where possible, maximised.

General Policy 7: Integrating Coastal and Marine Development

General Policies
7: Integrating Coastal and Marine Development		For developments that require multiple licences, permissions and/or consents, applicants should undertake early pre-application engagement with the consenting authorities and relevant stakeholders. For developments that require an Environmental Impact Assessment and multiple licences, permissions and/or consents, applicants should produce a Consultation Strategy at the scoping stage. Where appropriate, a single EIA should be carried out for marine and terrestrial components of a development project that are inextricably linked to the main works. Proposals for construction projects should be supported by a construction environmental management plan which covers both the terrestrial and marine environment. MS-LOT and other relevant consenting authority should consult one another at an early stage to improve the efficiency of the consenting process and, where appropriate, coordinate and streamline the various consenting requirements.
Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	In general terms, the ambitions outlined in the policy should aid in streamlining and improving efficiency in the licensing and consenting processes for developments with both onshore and offshore elements. The SA also identified an opportunity in further promoting a ‘joined up’ approach to the consideration of potential environmental and socio-economic impacts in these processes. If taken forward with the support of developers and consenting authorities, the primary effects are likely to be improved co-ordination between developers, marine users and various consenting/licensing bodies within the Plan area. For example, the potential for greater consideration of other marine and coastal users and the opportunity to identify synergies between them have been identified as potential positive outcomes (e.g. potential for co-existence through shared use of marine and coastal space, multiple use of onshore infrastructure, etc.). The promotion of methodologies in the Policy, such as production of a Consultation Strategy at an early stage in the development process, may also lead to more efficient and transparent communication and engagement between developers and stakeholders (i.e. other marine sectors and marine users, local communities, etc.). This has potential for a range of positive effects, including the early identification of environmental, social and economic risks, and early opportunities to overcome any potential obstacles. This may also present an opportunity for developers to discuss potential synergies and mutual benefits associated with their proposals with stakeholders (e.g. sharing infrastructure with other marine sectors and coastal/marine users, community benefits, sharing monitoring strategies, etc.). However, the SA also noted that any such benefits or opportunities for streamlining should not outweigh the requirements of the specific consenting processes. While many developments have previously considered both on and offshore impacts through an integrated EIA process, support for the consideration of all components of a development project in a single EIA in the Draft Pilot Plan has the potential to deliver more consistency in the consideration of cumulative effects to in the development process at the regional scale, particularly for those with separate, yet linked, marine and terrestrial components. The potential for associated benefits to coastal and marine geodiversity, coastal processes, biodiversity, landscape/seascape and the setting of cultural heritage features, in particular were noted. However, it is acknowledged that this is likely to ultimately rest with the applicant. Further, the realisation of any such effects is likely to depend on achieving ‘buy in’ from developers, marine users and licensing/consenting bodies in particular, and the maximisation of any benefits is also likely to depend on the level of communication and engagement at the regional and project levels between developers, marine users and local communities.
Climate change	+
Cultural heritage	+
Landscape/Seascape	+
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	+
Material Assets	+
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1A: Sustainable Development 1B: Supporting Sustainable Economic Benefits 1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities 4A: Nature Conservation designations 4B: Protected Species. 4C: Wider Biodiversity	4D: Landscape and Seascape 4E: Geodiversity 5A: Water Environment 5B: Coastal Processes and Flooding 6: Historic Scotland 8B: Waste and Marine Litter
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified the potential for positive effects through promoting greater efficiency and streamlining in the development process through seeking opportunities to combine aspects of these processes for the consideration of its onshore and offshore elements. The likelihood of benefits for developers, stakeholders and licensing/consenting bodies alike was identified, and the potential for more consistent and transparent engagement between these and other stakeholders was also seen as a key potential benefit. While efficiencies for each were noted, the SA also noted that any such benefits or opportunities for streamlining should not outweigh the requirements of specific consenting processes. As a consequence, working with stakeholders and obtaining their ‘buy in’ was noted as an essential aspect of this policy. The engagement of developers and marine users with consenting authorities and local communities in particular was considered likely to be a determining factor in achieving any potential benefits and also in opportunities for co-ordinating consenting requirements. The potential for further benefits through the consideration of direct and cumulative environmental effects through an integrated process were considered to be of particular note where there are potential interactions between coastal and marine environments (e.g. coastal and marine geology, coastal processes, biodiversity, landscape/seascape and the setting of cultural heritage features). Similarly, potential opportunities for early identification of synergies and mutual benefits for marine users and local communities were also identified as key findings of the SA (e.g. sharing infrastructure with other marine sectors and coastal/marine users, community benefits, sharing monitoring strategies, linking construction works with other development activities).

General Policy 8A: Noise

General Policies
8A: Noise		This Plan will support developments in the marine environment where: Developers have avoided significant adverse effects of man-made underwater noise and vibration on species sensitive to such effects; of man-made noise, vibration and/or disturbance on the amenity of local communities and marine users. Applications for marine development that are likely to have significant noise impacts (on sensitive species and/or people) have submitted a noise impact assessment or supporting information to describe the duration, type and level of noise expected to be generated at all stages of the development (construction, operation, decommissioning). Mitigation measures are in place to minimise the adverse impacts associated with the duration and level of significant noise activity. The cumulative effects of noise in the marine environment and on local communities have been assessed. Developers have considered whether the level of surface or underwater noise has the potential to affect a European Protected Species ( EPS) and should note that any development which has the potential to disturb an EPS (otters, cetaceans) will be required to apply for an EPS licence. Developers have consulted with the local planning authority, Marine Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage in relation to potential noise impacts as early as possible in the design and development of any marine-related project.
Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	The policy is largely aimed at contributing to the avoidance and/or mitigation against the potential for noise and vibration impacts from development and coastal/marine activities. It will likely provide guidance for potential developers and coastal/marine users on expectations for developers and marine users for the consideration of potential noise and vibration effects from development and other marine activities on key receptors at an early stage; both in relation to impacts on noise or vibration sensitive species and human health. As a consequence, it will add support as a material consideration to current consenting processes and any supporting assessments (e.g. EIA, HRA as appropriate), whilst also supporting engagement with Marine Scotland and SNH in the identification of potential noise issues at an early stage in the development process. In general terms, many marine or coastal activities have the potential for disturbance or displacement of biodiversity features, including the potential for injury from exposure to both subsurface noise for some species (e.g. injury to hearing organs of species such as seals and cetaceans from exposure seabed piling operations, etc.) and above water noise (e.g. impacts on seabirds, some of which are likely to feed in marine areas and breed in coastal or inland locations, etc.). There is also the potential for impacts to communities and human receptors such as disturbance, displacement and in some instances, adverse effects on human health from exposure to noise and vibration (e.g. ranging from direct impacts such as hearing impairments and cardiovascular effects to annoyance and reductions in the quality of life). The Policy has the potential to raise awareness and improve the consistency in how noise and vibration effects are considered and mitigated by developers and marine users (e.g. noise impact assessment). With the ‘buy in’ of developers and other stakeholders, the inclusion of this policy in the Pilot Plan may also aid in more consistency in the use of monitoring or research on the impacts of noise and vibration in the PFOW, particularly for marine fauna. Given the wide and varied biodiversity around Orkney and along the north Caithness and Sutherland coastlines, the SA found that this has the potential for significant benefits. For example, many coastal areas in the Pilot Plan area are known to support many important bird populations, vulnerable seal populations and the wide range of cetacean species that are sighted in the region; each receptor known to be susceptible to noise and vibration effects, and given their mobility, could be impacted by several different sources as they travel. There is also the potential for improved consistency in the assessment and where appropriate, mitigation of noise and vibration effects on human receptors. The potential for benefits for material assets were also identified, largely associated with the potential for improved consistency and efficiency in early identification of potential concerns, and in improved management of potential noise and vibration issues (e.g. production of a noise impact assessment, receptor surveys, etc.). The SA also identified the potential for more consistent engagement with likely receptors in coastal communities located throughout the PFOW. With the ‘buy in’ of developers and marine users, this could also aid in developing a more detailed knowledge base on the impacts of noise and vibration on human health receptors from a range of development types (e.g. offshore renewables, etc.). However, the potential for additional costs associated with the consideration of potential noise impacts were identified as a potential likely concern for some marine sectors, particularly for small operators and those out with current consenting processes. The assessment found that significant effects on the remaining topic areas were unlikely.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	0
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	0
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	0
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities	4A: Nature Conservation Designations 4B: Protected Species	4C: Wider Biodiversity
Outcomes and recommendations
Whilst recognising the role of existing processes in the identification and mitigation of potential noise issues (e.g. through Development and Marine Licence Applications underpinned by EIA and HRA), the SA identified the potential for the policy to have positive effects for biodiversity and communities, population and human health. In particular, the provision of guidance for developers and marine users for the consideration of potential noise and vibration impacts on receptors was identified a likely to contribute to positive effects. The potential for wider benefits was also noted, particularly in relation to the potential for the consistent and transparent consideration of receptors susceptible to both terrestrial and marine noise (e.g. seabirds feeding at sea and breeding in coastal or inland locations, seals utilising both marine and coastal environments), including those that can travel past different noise sources (e.g. migrating seabirds, seals, cetaceans, elasmobranchs). Benefits for material assets were also identified, largely in the potential for improved consistency and efficiency in the early identification of potential concerns and in managing potential noise and vibration issues (e.g. production of a noise impact assessment, receptor surveys). Effective communication between stakeholders (i.e. developers, marine users, consenting authorities, Government agencies (e.g. SNH), environmental bodies and local communities), was a key recommendation in ensuring the early identification of any potential issues. However, the ability of the policy to deliver these potential benefits is likely to be closely linked to the requirements of current consenting processes and conditions of any consent given. As such, the SA identified a need for further engagement between stakeholders including developers, marine users and local communities in ensuring the realisation of any potential benefits.

General Policy 8B: Waste management and marine litter

General Policies
8B: Waste management and marine litter		All developers and users of the marine environment should seek to minimise waste and discard all litter responsibly, recycling where possible. Proposals for new development or modifications to existing activities shall ensure that waste is reduced to a minimum and they do not add to marine litter. Large developments may require a waste management plan, which shall be adhered to as a condition of the development, where appropriate. Where this is the case, a draft plan should be included in the application. Where unavoidable litter is created, e.g. due to storms, a means of recovery, where reasonably practical, should be deployed. Where appropriate, a decommissioning plan should be provided to ensure removal of redundant infrastructure.
Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	The policy is aimed at managing waste and litter in the marine environment, and largely supports the ambitions of existing Scottish policy (i.e. Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, Marine Litter Strategy for Scotland developed in 2014). It will likely provide additional focus and guidance for potential developers and all coastal/marine users regarding expectations for the management of waste in the coastal and marine environment, and is aimed at supporting both the reduction of marine litter, promoting the waste hierarchy where possible, and reducing the potential for associated adverse effects to marine users and the marine environment. Greater awareness of marine waste issues and potentially, improved management of waste amongst users of the PFOW marine environment, were identified as possible benefits of the policy. For example, reductions in marine litter and effective management of unavoidable litter generated by events such as storms, have the potential to deliver a wide range benefits for the marine environment, including positive effects for several other SA topic areas. Potential benefits for landscape/seascape and cultural heritage through removing visual detractors, a reduced risk of impacts of water quality (e.g. reductions in oil and chemicals associated with litter, waste materials being released into the aquatic environment, and reduced concentrations of contaminants in the ambient environment, etc.) and reduced risk of adverse effects on the coastal environment (e.g. accumulation of waste on the shoreline, etc.) were all been identified. The potential for positive population and human health effects associated with the use and enjoyment of the marine environment by recreational users (e.g. swimming, sailing, surfing and sea angling, amongst others), the potential for reduced risk of collision by marine users and vessels between marine users and waste objects, and reduced risk of disease and bacterial contamination of water that may be associated with the accumulation of waste and contamination of water bodies, were also noted . Reductions in waste and litter releases may also have long-term benefits for biodiversity in the marine environment and at the shoreline; most notably in reducing the amount of litter which could give rise to ingestion and/or entanglement of marine fauna. The same potential for long-term benefits applying to reductions in benthic smothering and the potential for the spread of non-native species were also noted, as was the potential for associated positive effects for soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes. In terms of economic/material assets, many sectors are likely to benefit from reductions in waste and litter in the marine environment, and in the recovery of large items of waste generated by storm events and accidents. For example, sectors such as the aquaculture and offshore renewables sectors are likely to benefit from reduced risk of damage to infrastructure from large items of marine litter and from a reduced risk of adverse water quality. Others such as the fishing, shipping, recreational sailing and cruising sectors, may also experience positive effects through a reduction in collision risk between vessels and waste materials. However, the SA also noted that in many instances litter management is likely to be a condition of consent (e.g. aquaculture, renewables, etc.). The potential for additional costs associated with implementing waste management measures in line with the Pilot Plan were identified as a likely concern for some marine sectors; particularly for small operators and those out with these sectors (e.g. in the recovery of waste or litter after storm events, etc.). It was considered unlikely that the Policy would have significant effects in relation to climate change. The assessment also considered that the realisation of any such effects is likely to rely on ‘buy in’ of developers, coastal and marine users, and other stakeholders.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	+
Landscape/Seascape	+
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 2: Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Amenity of Coastal Communities 4A: Nature Conservation Designations	4B: Protected Species 4C: Wider Biodiversity 4D: Landscape and Seascape 5A: Water Environment	6: Historic Environment 7: Integrated Coastal and Marine Development
Outcomes and recommendations
Whilst recognising that existing consenting processes in the coastal and marine environment currently consider waste and litter generation and can outline conditions for its appropriate management (e.g. development of Waste Management Plans), the SA identified the potential for overall positive effects associated with this policy. In particular, the potential for improved management of waste amongst marine users was identified, and especially for coastal and marine users out with these consenting processes. However, the SA also noted the potential for mixed effects for some marine users. While reduced marine litter is likely to have benefits for many, through a reduced risk of adverse impacts to water quality, damage to coastal and marine infrastructure and vessel collision risk from larger items, there is the potential for additional cost implications associated with implementing further waste management measures for some marine users; particularly for small operators (e.g. in the recovery of waste or litter after storm events). The potential for secondary or indirect benefits for a number of topic areas associated from the promotion of ambitions to reduce litter and improve the recovery of unavoidable litter (e.g. from storm events) were also identified. This included the potential for a reduced risk of interactions between marine flora and fauna with marine litter (e.g. ingestion, entanglements, benthic smothering), reduced collision risk between vessels and marine/coastal infrastructure, and reduced risk of impacts to visual amenity, landscape/seascape and the setting of cultural heritage features, amongst others. The SA found that the realisation of any such benefits associated with the implementation of the Policy are likely to be closely linked to the requirements of current consenting processes and conditions of any consents given be contingent, and contingent on achieving the ‘buy in’ of stakeholders (i.e. developers, marine users, consenting authorities and local communities). However, it also considered that with the support of stakeholders, any actions undertaken by developers and/or marine users are also likely to contribute to wider waste reduction and management ambitions, including Scotland’s zero waste targets.

General Policy 9: Invasive Non-native Species

General Policies
9: Invasive Non-native Species		All developers and other users of the marine environment should take into account the risk of introducing and spreading non-native species and put in place biosecurity and management measures to minimise this risk. These measures will be most effective when a co-ordinated and collaborative approach is taken by developers and users of the marine environment. Existing Codes of Practice, species control agreements and orders (under the WANE Act) and international guidelines should be used to develop these measures where relevant to the marine environment. Where non-native species are known to be present, mitigation measures (e.g. an eradication plan) or a contingency plan should be put in place to minimise the risk of spreading the species.
Topic Area		Assessment Summary
Biodiversity	+	With the inclusion of this Policy, an increased awareness of existing measures and controls for reducing the potential risk of introducing and spreading invasive and non-native species is likely. The potential for greater and more consistent consideration of invasive and non-native species amongst all marine sectors, and where appropriate, promoting the adoption of appropriate management measures, should also aid the protection of biodiversity features in the PFOW and in wider Scottish waters. The potential for particular benefits for those species and habitats sensitive or vulnerable to invasive species have been noted, particularly as this is expected to become an issue of greater concern in the future (i.e. warmer sea temperatures associated with predicted effects of climate change, etc.). The SA found that this may also limit the potential for adverse impacts on the integrity of coastal and marine ecosystems, and on the ecological status of the PFOW water environment. The potential for benefits was also identified for those marine users and local communities that rely on the unique biodiversity in the region. The policy reflects and supports ambitions and commitments made in wider policy and overarching regulations, such as those outlined in the NMP and the upcoming Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture (Scotland) Regulations 2014, amongst others. Some sectors, such as the aquaculture sector and shipping sector, have developed voluntary codes of practice or management policies that include biosecurity measures and procedures (i.e. the Orkney Islands Council Harbour Authority Ballast Water Management Policy for Scapa Flow was developed for vessels over 400 gt). However, the potential for benefits through increased awareness amongst other marine users was recognised, and there is likely to be a particular benefit for those operating in areas of the PFOW area where invasive non-native species are known to be present or in areas of significant biodiversity and socio-economic value (e.g. reducing risks associated with hulls and equipment used in the fishing and recreational sectors, cruise ships, etc.). For example, in Scapa Flow where such as Japanese skeleton shrimp and Orange tipped Sea squirt have been identified, and further ‘high risk species’ such as Chinese mitten crab and Leathery sea squirt, have been identified as posing high environmental and socio-economic risk and are the subject of a monitoring programme ^[1]. The SA noted the potential for mixed effects for a number of marine sectors. In terms of economic effects, compliance with biosecurity measures by some sectors has the potential to increase operating costs. However, the potential for positive effects of a reduced risk of adverse impacts on important and sensitive habitats, many native species, and of the PFOW marine and coastal ecosystems in general were identified as likely having overall positive effects. Further, greater consistency in actioning potential issues at the strategic and local level is also likely to provide material benefits and help to provide further protection for those sectors dependant on biodiversity in the area (e.g. fishing, wildlife tourism, etc.). The SEA considered that the policies were unlikely to result in significant impacts in relation to climate change, cultural heritage, landscape/seascape, soil and marine geodiversity.
Climate change	0
Cultural heritage	0
Landscape/Seascape	0
Soil, marine geodiversity and coastal processes	+
Communities, Population and Human Health	+
Water	+
Material Assets	+/-
The following general policies and their supporting text would also apply:		1C: Safeguarding the Marine Ecosystem 3: Climate Change	4A: Nature Conservation Designations 4B: Protected Species	4C: Wider Biodiversity 5A: Water Environment
Outcomes and recommendations
The SA identified the potential for overall positive effects associated with greater awareness of risks from invasive non-native species. It found that the Policy is also likely to strengthen and promote overarching ambitions of informing a wide range of marine users on existing guidance and on their legal requirements in relation to this issue (e.g. SNH Guidance on Marine Biosecurity Planning, Codes of Practice, NMP, regulations, Orkney Islands Council ( OIC) Harbour Authority Ballast Water Management Policy for Scapa Flow). In all, the SA identified the potential for positive effects for biodiversity, and marine ecosystems, water, geodiversity and communities, population and human health. The potential for mixed effects for a number of marine sectors was also noted; principally that compliance with biosecurity measures by some sectors has the potential to increase operating costs. However, the potential for reducing the risk of adverse impacts on marine biodiversity and marine and coastal ecosystems are also likely to be beneficial in helping to preserve those sectors dependant on biodiversity in the area (e.g. fishing, wildlife tourism) and the local communities they help to support. As a consequence, the SA found that there is the potential for any such costs to be offset, at least in part, by overarching benefits for the marine environment and the sectors that utilise its resources. However, it also found that consistency across all marine sectors is likely to be needed to minimise these risks and deliver these potential benefits. The SA noted identified that achieving ‘buy in’ of all marine stakeholders was likely to be a key factor in realising the ambitions of the Policy. As a consequence, the SA considered the policy and the Pilot Plan may present an opportunity to facilitate further engagement with a wide spectrum of marine sectors in the PFOW area (e.g. fishing sector, recreational sailing and boating, shipping and marine transport) and work towards the consistent use of biosecurity measures across all marine sectors in the PFOW by building upon those measures already in place.

Contact

Tracy McCollin

There is a problem

Thanks for your feedback

Was this helpful?

Yes

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Yes, but

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Information

Appendix A: Assessment Tables for General Policies

Contact

There is a problem