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

5 Good Practice in Paragraphs 30 - 39

5.1 This question focused on paragraphs 30 - 39 on good practice for marine planning. Question 3 of the consultation asked

Q3. Do you agree with the suggestions for good practice in paragraphs 30 - 39, and do you have any other suggestions?

5.2 Of the thirty-eight total responses received, thirty-five responded to Question 3. Three responses did not answer. Nineteen responses were positive in their support of the paragraphs, whilst only one respondent said 'no' to the question. The remaining fifteen responses did not directly answer yes or no, but simply offered suggested amendments or sought points of clarification.

5.3 One respondent commented on support for the spirit of consistency, collaboration and coordination inherent within this section. Whilst, as shown in the previous questions, some sought more information, one respondent praised the Draft Circular for its brevity and flexibility which they felt would allow good practice to develop. There was general agreement for the need to ensure both systems interact together effectively and one local authority highlighted the Clyde estuary as a good working example.

General Comments

5.4 The need for integration between marine and land use frameworks was highlighted or affirmed by several responses at this section and one environment / conservation organisation suggested that the Draft Circular would benefit from a separate section on 'integration'. Some felt that this would need to be a section which outlines the specific mechanisms for integration as many suggestions highlighted were lacking in specificity.

5.5 There were a small number of comments affirming the need for a diagram or schematic outlining how the relationship between land use and marine planning systems as raised in response to Question 1. Again it was suggested that this should include the NMP, Scottish Planning Policy, National Planning Framework and their respective hierarchies, the areas where they interact and an overall framework for integration.

5.6 A small number of respondents highlighted the importance of managing the alignment of the NMP with Regional Marine Plans and the terrestrial development plans. In many respects, this coordinates effectively with the central themes of the responses, related to the need for managing roles and responsibilities, avoiding conflict and outlining best practice. Some felt that there is a need to provide further support for local authorities in fulfilling their roles. Others thought that the structure and governance of MPPs could be clarified further. One local authority highlighted that as local authorities are responsible for LDPs, they are therefore central to MPPs.

5.7 Some urged the need for continued consultation at all stages whilst there were continued requests for the NMP to be directive and state clearly what decision makers should have to consider.

Liaison between terrestrial and marine planning authorities

5.8 A number of comments were received at this stage relating specifically to the roles of Marine Planning Partnerships. Two local authorities / planning authorities commented 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 Circular. A public sector / regulatory body suggested that MPPs need to be involved in relevant terrestrial planning activities.

5.9 The two authorities mentioned above also sought clarification from the Circular that LDPs are the sole responsibility of the land use planning authority to ensure no ambiguity of specific responsibilities in this area. An energy organisation stated that they support closer linkages between frameworks but recommended that the Circular directs planning authorities to involve the energy industry developers at all stages.

5.10 In terms of these roles and responsibilities, there was one comment from a public sector / regulatory body that they were still unclear on their own role in terms of input at MPP level and expressed concerns that the NMP will not provide an appropriate level of detail to ensure consistency in the approach towards regional planning.

6 A local authority stated that it is important that MPPs 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.

6.1 A community group felt it was important to point out that inclusion of local authorities may actually be a threat to many projects on the basis that their experience shows onshore planning authorities are unqualified as they have no commercial marine experience.

Timing of Plans

6.2 Four responses supported the inclusion of detail on the timing of the plans. However two of these expressed doubt or concern on how this would come about and expressed a need to see more specific detail on the timeframe. One local authority suggested that to make it work it would be advisable to ensure one lead body in the process, such as a local authority. Another suggested there would be difficulty in aligning marine and land use planning where more than one planning authority is present adjacent to a marine region.

6.3 Similarly, a public sector / regulatory body commented that this may be unachievable in certain areas, e.g. major Firths with large numbers of terrestrial planning authorities. They added that NPF3 Main Issues Report (2013) 'Areas of Coordinated Action' would be a high priority for co-ordinating consistency of approach across the land-sea interface.

Plans which take into account both terrestrial and marine impacts

6.4 Four responses referenced paragraph 32 specifically. One energy organisation simply noted full support for this section, whilst another energy organisation expressed a need for more information in terms of the timescales of development and duration.

6.5 A local authority stated that plans should be produced in an outcome focused manner with key outcomes agreed early on between the two regimes, whilst a public sector / regulatory body noted that the requirements for skills in marine and land use planning will develop over time and with operational experience.

Consistency between policies and proposals in marine and terrestrial plans

6.6 There were a significant number of comments received relating to consistency between policies and proposals in marine and land use plans. The majority of those commenting made a point of the fact that they support the notion of consistency and that it is crucial. 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.

6.7 A community group commented that consistency will be difficult to achieve on the basis of their view that at present the two regimes don't completely understand each other.

6.8 In terms of additional information required, two respondents requested that the Circular highlights the legal requirements for consistency between marine and terrestrial plans. One recreation / tourism organisation added that more reference to the importance of tourism would be valued. Another recreation / tourism organisation stated that this section could usefully add a reference to the relevant policy provision for the land use impact of marine development (and vice versa) in addition to the existing reference to provision necessary to support a development proposal. They argued that it is important that such implications are taken into account as part of policy formulation.

6.9 A small number of wording amendments were suggested. A public sector / regulatory body argued that at paragraph 33 the term 'should be consistent with' should be amended to say 'have regard to'. A local authority suggested at paragraph 41 the wording be amended to say that changes should be made where possible or appropriate. Four respondents referenced the well documented ambiguity of 'common sense judgements' at paragraph 36 seeking an amendment to this.

6.10 An energy organisation listed three summative points for clarification, which effectively summarises the key issues in this section. These are :

• 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?

Integrated Coastal Zone Management ( ICZM)

6.11 In terms of the section on ICZM, a public sector / regulatory body registered their support for this section. They added that consideration should be given to how current proposals for a European Parliament Directive on establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management could affect the requirement for coastal zone management.

6.12 Two local authorities / planning authorities argued that the joined up approach referred t, would be better achieved if local planning authorities were given the option to deliver marine planning and consenting alongside land use planning and consenting. Another public sector / regulatory body noted that the use of ICZM could be used to address complex or competing interests but that this should not be assumed for all areas and other supporting mechanisms may need to be developed.

Sharing the evidence base

6.13 The establishment of mechanisms for sharing evidence was welcomed, specifically by one local authority, an aquaculture organisation, a historic / heritage organisation and one other, whilst two respondents expressed a desire for a greater level of coordination of environmental and other baseline information to be provided at a national scale to inform regional marine and land use planning.