Planning Scotland's Seas: Draft Planning Circular. Consultation Analysis Report

1 Executive Summary

Background

1.1 The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 is aligned with the wider UK Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) and provides the management and legislative framework for the marine environment. The Act provides a framework to help balance competing demands on Scotland's seas and introduces duties to protect and enhance the marine environment.

1.2 The main measures include: marine planning, marine licensing, marine conservation, seal conservation and enforcement.

1.3 The Draft Planning Circular outlines the details of the new relationship between the statutory land use planning system and marine planning and licensing. The Circular is in draft form, and accompanies the consultation on the draft National Marine Plan ( NMP) for Scotland. The Draft Circular will be issued in final form concurrently with the final National Marine Plan.

1.4 Marine Scotland consulted on the Draft Planning Circular as part of a wider consultation from July 25 ^th until 13 ^th November 2013. The consultation involved 3 core questions:

1.5 Question 1 asked: Is the Draft Circular on the relationship between the land use and marine planning systems helpful?

1.6 Question 2 asked Does the Draft National Marine Plan appropriately set out the requirement for integration between marine planning and land use planning systems?

1.7 Question 3 asked: Do you agree with the suggestions for good practice in paragraphs 30-39, and do you have any other suggestions?

1.8 A total of 38 consultation responses were received; 1 from an individual and 37 from organisations.

Common Themes

1.9 A small number of key themes emerged across all questions, in addition to a wide range of issues relevant to individual groups or organisations. The main issues common across the consultation were:

• A widespread recognition of the need for more specific information on the integration of marine and terrestrial regimes;
• A need to ensure language in the Draft Circular is unequivocal - 'common sense judgements' was a particularly widely questioned term;
• A need to outline specific roles and responsibilities of the various authorities involved in the process;
• A need to diagrammatically outline the relationship between terrestrial and marine planning system that should include the National Marine Plan, Scottish Planning Policy, National Planning Framework and their respective hierarchies, the areas where they interact and an overall framework for integration.

Draft Planning Circular

1.10 Question 1 of the consultation asked 'Is the Draft Circular on the relationship between the land use and marine planning systems helpful?'. Thirty-three responses contained an affirmative response in the sense that they said 'yes' or commented that it was 'welcome' or 'helpful' and in some cases 'comprehensive'. Eighteen of these responses sought some level of amendment or further clarification.

1.11 Some respondents commented on the need for a diagram or schematic to effectively map out the marine and terrestrial planning frameworks, and how they interact with one another. They felt the document should demonstrate the relationship between terrestrial planning and marine planning and licensing, in addition to clearly explaining the relationship between the legislation, policy ( i.e. the Draft NMP) and other non-statutory guidance ( i.e. the Sectoral Marine Plans; the Marine Protected Areas and the Priority Marine Features).

1.12 A local authority proposed that the diagram detailing the relationship between the two regimes should outline specific roles and responsibilities. Others agreed, commenting on the need for the Draft Circular to outline the roles and responsibilities of the two planning regimes.

1.13 The need to outline specifics on roles and responsibilities was sometimes borne of anticipated conflict and / or confusion.

Integration between the two regimes

1.14 Question 2 of the consultation asked 'Does the Draft National Marine Plan appropriately set out the requirement for integration between marine planning and land use planning systems?'

1.15 Of the 38 total respondents, thirty-three directly answered Question 2. There were 13 positive responses, albeit three were a qualified yes. Six respondents said 'no' to the question. The remaining 14 responses provided a wide range of additional comments relating to possible amendments or points of clarification whilst offering no explicit support for or rejection of the question.

1.16 Some felt that there was a need for the Draft NMP to include clearer and stronger references to the Draft Circular in terms of information on integration whilst others commented on the need for better consistency between the two.

1.17 An organisation commented that key elements of the National Planning Framework, where it has a bearing on the marine environment, should also be referenced in the Draft NMP and in future, each should accord broadly with each other.

1.18 Seven responses commented at Question 2 that there was insufficient information in terms of how integration was going to be achieved and when.

1.19 One of the main concerns was lack of specificity and the potential for conflict. Some respondents questioned how decision makers could feasibly determine which plan's policies should be given priority for individual developments.

1.20 There was a suggestion that the Draft NMP should set out specific protocols to direct interactions between marine and terrestrial planners in terms of day-to-day processes for working between relevant authorities.

Good practice in paragraphs 30-39

1.21 The final question on the consultation focused on paragraphs 30 - 39 of the Draft Circular and asked 'Do you agree with the suggestions for good practice in paragraphs 30-39, and do you have any other suggestions?

1.22 The majority of responses received were positive with 19 responses declaring broad support in principle. Only one respondent said 'no' to the question. The remaining respondents made comments or suggested amendments to specific aspects of the document rather than addressing support for the broader question itself.

1.23 The need for integration between marine and terrestrial frameworks was highlighted or affirmed by several responses in this section.

1.24 A small number of respondents highlighted the importance of managing the alignment of the Draft NMP with Regional Marine Plans and the terrestrial development plans. Some felt there is a need to provide further support for local authorities in fulfilling their roles and others suggested that the structure and governance of Marine Planning Partnerships ( MPPs) could be further clarified.

1.25 Some felt that if the Scottish Government intends for MPPs to become statutory consultees in the preparation of Local Development Plans, the required legal provisions should be explained in this section of the Draft Circular. A public sector / regulatory body suggested that MPPs need to be involved in the relevant terrestrial planning.

1.26 A local authority stated that it is important that Regional Marine Planning Partnerships should be included in the list of key agencies set out in planning regulations. They felt that that at the moment paragraph 30 is one-sided in that it does not cover the involvement of strategic and local planning authorities.

1.27 The inclusion of an outline timescale was welcomed however there was some doubt from respondents as to how pragmatic and achievable this is.

1.28 There were a significant number of comments received about the section relating to consistency between policies and proposals in marine and terrestrial plans. A majority of those commenting saw consistency as crucial.

1.29 Some felt there was a need to provide significantly more detail on how this would be ensured, however there were others who were aware that planning systems and policies for integration would evolve over time.

1.30 The three key issues arising in this section can be summarised as follows:

• How will this consistency and interaction between terrestrial and marine plans be achieved in practice?
• How will prioritisation of competing objectives be handled in the decision-making process?
• How will socio-economic impacts as well as environmental impacts be incorporated into the decision-making process in the event of conflict between positions?