Archived decisions
Hampshire County Council River Hamble Harbour Management Committee 3 May 2006 Marine Bill Report of the Director of Environment |
Item 9 |
Contact: Emma Beagley, tel 01489 576387 email: [email protected]
1. Summary
1.1 This report gives a brief overview of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation document `A Marine Bill', and outlines the proposed way forward for the River Hamble Harbour Authority to respond to the consultation.
2. Corporate Strategy
2.1 This report supports Aims 1 to 5 of the Corporate Strategy (Maximising Life Opportunities, Stewardship of the Environment, Building Strong and Safe Communities and Improving Services) by contributing to the statutory duties entailed in the management of the River Hamble.
3. Background
3.1 The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is currently developing policy in a number of areas that will lead to new legislation directing the way human activity is managed in the marine environment. To ensure all interested parties have a chance to contribute their opinions Defra published a consultation document `A Marine Bill' on 29 March 2006.
3.2 The consultation document can be downloaded from the Defra website at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/marinebill/index.htm alternatively a paper copy of the document can be obtained by contacting the Marine Legislation Division at:
Area 2E
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
3-8 Whitehall Place
London SW1A 2HH
Call : 020 7270 8711 or 020 7270 8707
Email : [email protected]
This consultation and the resulting legislation will have far reaching implications for the management of the marine environment.
3.3 The Marine Bill will impact upon many of the activities carried out by the Harbour Authority. It will also have implications for the initiatives that the Harbour Authority initiated and/or are partners in. These include the River Hamble Estuary Management Plan Implementation Forum and the River Hamble Streamlined Consents Group.
3.4 To help understand the basics of some of the current legislation and management practices in place, and also those which are up and coming, an Aide Memoire produced by the Solent Forum is attached as Appendix 1.
Rural Pathfinder Project
3.5 As part of the Rural Pathfinder project Hampshire County Council commissioned Atkins Limited to undertake a locally focused project aiming to:
(i) identify opportunities for streamlining the process for dealing with the various forms of marine consent;
(ii) raise awareness and understanding of the range of consents that need to be obtained to undertake development, works, activities, etc in coastal areas (coastal land and associated inshore waters); and
(iii) simplify procedures for organisations and individuals who are seeking consent.
3.6 The project focused on the marine consents process in Chichester Harbour and on the River Hamble. The findings of this report are due to be finalised in May 2006. Atkins Limited will be formally submitting the conclusions to Defra as part of the consultation, and the River Hamble Harbour Authority, Chichester Harbour Conservancy and Hampshire County Council will be including elements of the findings in their responses.
NB The findings will also be reported to the Harbour Board and Management Committee in July 2006.
4. The Marine Bill Consultation Document
4.1 As the consultation document is over 300 pages in length the consultation documents summary has been reproduced, adapted and presented in Section 5 to give an overview of the content of the document.
4.2 Throughout the document Defra asks specific questions relevant to the issue being discussed but also seeking guidance on the strategic direction the Bill should take. All 141 questions posed in the consultation document are given in Appendix 2 of this report.
5. Summary of the Marine Bill Consultation Document
5.1 The UK Government has committed to bring forward proposals for a Marine Bill that will introduce within its area of responsibility a new framework for the seas, based on marine spatial planning, that balances conservation, energy and resource needs.
5.2 The consultation document, A Marine Bill, discusses the aims and scope of the Marine Bill. It sets out the main reasons why the UK Government thinks that new legislation is required. It outlines the background to and the proposed contents of the Bill, summarising its main components and how they are expected to fit together. No final decisions have been made on what might eventually be included in the Bill. The consultation therefore invites the views of anyone with an interest and forms a significant part of the process of shaping the scope and content of the Government's final policy proposals.
Why Have a Marine Bill?
5.3 The arrangements in place for managing marine activities and protecting marine wildlife and the marine environment are complex and can be confusing and costly for all involved. New activities, changes in technology and a deepening understanding of the surrounding seas and the way they are affected have also exposed some gaps and limitations in this system. Recent reports and reviews suggest that as the pressures on the seas increase and change, there are insufficient tools to reconcile and integrate conservation goals with the full range of demands placed on the marine area to help meet economic and social needs.
5.4 The Bill will help implement the UK Government's strategy for sustainable development. It will create a fit-for-purpose framework founded on the principles of good regulation and modern government. Its purpose will be to improve the delivery of policies relating to marine activities operating in coastal and offshore waters and to marine natural resource protection, in particular by providing an integrated approach to sustainable management, enhancement and use of the marine natural environment for the benefit of current and future generations. It will enable the Government to deliver its economic, social and environmental objectives in a modernised, rational and more effective way.
5.5 The UK Government and devolved administrations are working together to achieve the best means for managing the marine area around the UK and the consultation document is designed to stimulate ideas to facilitate that. However, the UK Government is committed to the devolution process and it will therefore be for the individual administrations to decide whether to consider or to take any of these ideas forward and the most appropriate way to do so within their respective areas and competence.
5.6 The framework must be compatible with and sufficient to discharge the UK's obligations under international law and European law. The UK's obligations as a result of relevant international and European obligations will continue to apply whatever the scope and nature of the legislation brought forward through this Bill.
The Main Themes
5.7 The UK Government is developing policy for the Bill in five significant areas. None of these stands alone; there are close and complex links between them all.
Managing Marine Fisheries
5.8 The consultation does not make any specific proposals or invite responses on managing marine fisheries but sets out a number of general areas where it is considered that changes to existing primary legislation or new legislation may be required, to deliver Government commitments to strengthen the way that fisheries are managed and fisheries policy developed. These include modernising inshore fisheries management arrangements; a more active approach to managing recreational and hobby fishing activities around the coast of England; the need to update or strengthen enforcement powers; and charging for the costs of managing marine fisheries. As policy is developed in these areas over the coming months Defra will consult stakeholders, including where Defra aims to take powers in the Bill.
Planning in the Marine Area
5.9 The consultation proposes creating a new system of marine spatial planning to enable a more rational organisation of the use of marine space and the interactions between its uses. It is proposed that the system should take account of all sectors and activities and ensure an integrated approach at the land-sea interface. The objective is to enable efficient, forward-looking and holistic decision-making, delivering sustainable development and supporting an ecosystem approach. An agreed plan should provide a firm basis for rational and consistent decisions on licence applications, and allow users of the sea to make future decisions with greater knowledge and confidence.
Licensing Marine Activities
5.10 The consultation proposes a number of possible options for simplifying and streamlining the UK Government's regulation of marine activities, to help ensure sustainable development. The proposals aim to result in a licensing system which is more efficient and transparent, resulting in less risk, delay and cost to business. Three alternatives in addition to no change are considered - merging the two principal licensing systems which consider cross-cutting environmental and navigational issues; simplifying the licensing processes within each sector; or creating a single, integrated licensing system for all marine activities.
Improving Marine Nature Conservation
5.11 The consultation proposes a number of possible approaches for the reform of marine nature conservation legislation. This includes new mechanisms for the conservation of marine ecosystems and biodiversity, including protected areas for important species and habitats. Proposals are also put forward on marine ecosystem objectives; controls on unlicensed activities; species conservation; and environmental enforcement.
The Potential for a New Marine Management Organisation
5.12 The consultation outlines the rationale in considering whether a new Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is required. No decision has yet been taken on whether such a body should be established or the status it would have. It is clear, however, that any MMO would need to operate according to the principles of sustainable development. The consultation maps the range of possible functions that could be undertaken by an MMO, if one were established.
6. Production of the River Hamble Harbour Authority's Response
6.1 Currently the Environment Department is taking the lead in formulating the response for Hampshire County Council. Due to the Harbour Authority's role as a municipal harbour authority through Hampshire County Council, close liaison between the departments responding to the consultation will occur. The response of the Harbour Authority may have to take a different view from that of Hampshire County Council in some cases due to the statutory remit of the Harbour Authority.
6.2 The closing date for receipt of responses to the consultation is 23 June 2006. The next round of meetings for the River Hamble Harbour Board and Management Committee falls outside of this date making it impossible to consider the River Hamble Harbour Authority's response at these formal meetings. It is proposed that the River Hamble Harbour Authority staff will formulate a draft response which will be circulated by email to the Members of the River Hamble Harbour Board and Management Committee for comment. Once comments have been incorporated, the final response of the River Hamble Harbour Authority will be submitted to Defra.
6.3 It is requested that any comments for consideration and inclusion as part of the River Hamble Harbour Authority's response are forwarded to the Assistant Harbour Master (Environment) as soon as possible.
7. Impact Assessments
7.1 This report provides a position statement only, therefore an impact assessment, in terms of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, has not been undertaken.
Recommendation
That this report be noted and that the River Hamble Harbour Board be recommended to advise the Assistant Harbour Master (Environment) to formulate a response on behalf of the Harbour Authority which will be circulated to the Members of the River Hamble Harbour Board and River Hamble Harbour Management Committee for comment before submission to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the deadline of 23 June 2006.
Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers | |
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. | |
NB the list excludes: | |
1. |
Published works. |
2. |
Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act. |
TITLE |
LOCATION |
None. |
908/EB
APPENDIX 1
STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITIES WORKSHOP: AIDE MEMOIRE
INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is a process which seeks to integrate the different policies and actions that have an effect on the coast, and at the same time bring stakeholders together to inform, support and implement these policies and actions in a coordinated and transparent way.
In May 2002 a Recommendation concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe was adopted by the EU Council and Parliament. The recommendation set out five key tasks for Member States:
· To adopt a strategic approach to management of their coastal zones
· Adopt the principles of ICZM
· Conduct a national stocktaking
· Based on the stocktaking, develop a national strategy to implement the principles of ICZM
· Enter into dialogue with neighbouring countries to establish better coordination for cross boundary issues.
The UK stocktake was completed in March 2004 (Atkins 2004) and analyses the current framework for managing the coastal zone in the UK including legislation, institutions and stakeholders. Defra Marine Policy Team is currently preparing a consultation paper on ICZM.
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
One of the key areas that the Marine Bill will focus on is Marine Spatial Planning (MSP).
Marine spatial planning is a process by which the sustainable exploitation of marine resources can be planned and managed. While the process will result in the preparation and adoption of a marine spatial plan, the emphasis is likely to be as much on the process of planning and ongoing management as on the development of the plan itself. The expected benefits of MSP are: integrated and holistic management; protection of the marine environment; facilitation of marine development where appropriate; provision of greater certainty about where and how development might be directed and a framework for marine consents. It has the potential to be beneficial to both the economy and the environment.
However, the practicalities of such a plan and how it will function in the coastal zone need to be considered. In particular: how it will interact with terrestrial planning and the land-sea interface? Will there be distinct boundaries or an overlap? There is also the question of scale; will MSP operate solely at the regional seas level, as the Irish Sea pilot study has or will it require, as regional plans have done, sub-regional strategies for multi-use areas such as the Solent?
Timeframe: The Irish Sea pilot project proposed a 20 year timeframe with annual monitoring affording adaptive management when required. This will be considered along with all other views.
Scope: Regional Seas Level/sub-regional plans for particular areas.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Shoreline management plans provide a strategic approach to developing broad policies for the sustainable management of flood defence and coastal protection for a section of coastline. Although they are policy documents solely for coastal defence management planning, it is intended that they take account of other existing planning initiatives and legislative requirements, and inform wider strategic planning.
Coastal defence strategies are a detailed review and evaluation of these policies and how they would be implemented sustainably over different epochs up to 100 years.
First generation SMPs were reviewed by government and revised guidance was produced for future SMPs. This has been accompanied by procedural guidance and is being tested by three SMP2 pilots. The process of preparing the remaining SMP2s is expected to start shortly.
Timeframe: 100 years
Scope: Shoreline management plans provide a strategic approach to developing broad policies for the sustainable management of flood defence and coastal protection for a section of coastline.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING SYSTEM
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 brought significant changes to the planning system including a new development plans framework made up of regional spatial strategies(RSS) and local development frameworks (LDFs).
The Act places considerable emphasis on a sub-regional approach to addressing strategic cross boundary issues both within the region and with other regions. The South East Plan set out sub-regional policies and proposals to address issues that cannot be dealt with either by individual or joint development plan documents or by other policies in the Plan. The sub-regional Strategies which are applicable to the Solent are the South Hampshire Sub-Regional strategy and the IOW Special Policy Area.
LDFs refers to the portfolio of documents which local planning authorities must produce in order to deliver the spatial planning strategy for their area. The LDF consists of Development Plan Documents (DPDs) of which the core strategy (vision) and site specific allocations of land are specifically required, whilst an adopted proposals map and area action plans are optional. In addition local authorities must prepare a Statement of Community Involvement and an annual monitoring report.
They may also prepare Supplementary Planning Documents which, unlike the DPDs, are not subject to independent scrutiny although they do have to be subject to community involvement. As well as greater community involvement, there is greater emphasis on integration with other strategies such as biodiversity and environmental protection than there has been with the current local plans.
Timeframe: When adopted, the South East Plan and sub-regional strategies within it will run to 2026 (15 year timeframe). Local Development Frameworks are currently being prepared for adoption and have a 10 year timeframe.
Scope: for the purposes of planning and development, local authority jurisdiction extends to the Mean Low Water Mark. This is a spatial plan not a land-use plan, it has the potential to encompass more than the previous land-use plans.
WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE/RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANNING
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) sets out a detailed framework for the improved protection and management of water, from source to sea, and requires all inland and coastal waters to reach 'good ecological status or potential' by 2015. It aims to do this by establishing river basin districts within which environmental standards and objectives will be set, including ecological targets for surface waters.
The WFD requires the identification of river basin districts (RBD). River basin districts are made up of groups of catchments (rivers, streams, lakes and the land that drain into them). Groundwaters, rivers, estuaries (transitional waters), coastal waters and artificial waters (such as canals) are assigned to the most appropriate districts. For each RBD the water bodies have been identified according to the biology, hydrology and physio-chemical characteristics, following guidelines from the Directive. Environmental standards and objectives will be defined for these water bodies.
For each RBD there is a statutory requirement to produce a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) by 2009. In England, the Environment Agency has responsibility for producing these Plans in collaboration with external stakeholders. These will be strategic management documents developed via a planning process for the integrated management of water. This will be a cyclical process, where RBMPs are prepared, implemented and then reviewed every six years. The South East RBD incorporates the Solent.
Timeframe: 6 yearly cycle
Scope: In the Water Framework Directive, transitional waters are those surface waters partly saline. Coastal waters are defined as extending from the seaward limit of transitional water or the lowest astronomical tide up to one nautical mile offshore from the UK Territorial Baseline (or 3 nautical miles in Scotland).
APPENDIX 2
Specific questions `A Marine Bill' the Defra consultation document asks
Planning in the marine area (pages 31 -59) |
Question 1 Is it appropriate for the UK Government to consider creating a new system of marine spatial planning? |
Question 2 If so, should Government consider statutory provisions within the Marine Bill in order to implement a new system of marine spatial planning, or should alternative methods be considered? |
Question 3 Do you have any views on the broad objectives of marine spatial planning laid out above? |
Question 4 What are your views on marine spatial planning as a context or framework for decision-making? |
Question 5 To what extent, if at all, should plans be `binding' on decision makers and decision making? (see the initial Regulatory Impact Assessment at Annex 5A for further information.) |
Question 6 Do you have any views on the broad underlying principles for marine spatial planning, as laid out above? |
Question 7 Do you have any views on the potential increase or reduction of regulatory burden on Government or business, at either the planning stage or during subsequent licensing stages, as the result of a system of marine spatial planning? |
Question 8 Do you have any views on the geographical application of any new system of marine spatial planning? |
Question 9 Do you have any views on ways in which regulatory efficiency could be improved in the intertidal zone, if a new system of marine spatial planning were created? (See also paragraphs 8.98 to 8.101.) |
Question 10 Is this overall approach, involving a strategic marine planning policy statement, followed by spatial plans, appropriate? |
Question 11 Are there particular aspects of, or experience gained from the terrestrial or any other planning system, which should be considered when developing a marine planning system? |
Question 12 Do you have any views on the elements of a strategic marine planning policy framework statement laid out in this section? |
Question 13 Do you have any views on the way in which a strategic marine planning policy framework statement should be developed and the timeframe it should cover? |
Question 14 What are your views on the nature and role of the planning body which would undertake the development of spatial plans? |
Question 15 What are your views on the scale, location and possible boundaries of the areas used for spatial plans? |
Question 16 Do you think that Marine Spatial Planning should apply in the same way in all parts of UK waters? |
Question 17 What are your views on the need for planning at sub-regional or local level? |
Question 18 What are your views on the activities, developments and resources within the marine area, which might be considered within spatial plans? |
Question 19 Are there any anticipated future types of marine use, or technological advances, which you think the UK Government should consider when developing the strategic marine planning policy statement or in the marine spatial plans? |
Question 20 What are your views on data and information availability in relation to marine spatial planning? |
Question 21 What are your views on the plan making process? |
Question 22 How should conflicting demands on marine space be addressed in the development of spatial plans? |
Question 23 What are your views on the allocation of `preferred areas' for certain activities, future development or protection of resources? |
Question 24 What are your views on the process of developing maps or charts as part of the marine spatial planning process? |
Question 25 Do you have any views on the need to consider the sustainability and environmental impacts of spatial plans, including the use of SEA in the process? |
Question 26 In what ways could Government ensure that marine spatial planning would be open, transparent and inclusive? |
Question 27 What are your views on the way in which the rights of individuals or organisations may be affected by the planning process? |
Question 28 What are your views on establishing a forum or scrutiny process to test the soundness of the plans? |
Question 29 Do you have any views on the implementation, monitoring and review of plans? |
Question 30 Do you have views on how the duration of time for which plans should apply, and how often plans should be formally reviewed or modified outside of such reviews? |
Question 31 Do you have any views on how UK Government can ensure marine spatial planning works effectively with other planning systems, particularly in the coastal zone, in order to achieve the aim of integrated coastal zone management? |
Licensing marine activities (pages 60 - 87) |
Question 32 Do you have any views on whether it is appropriate to use the Marine Bill to simplify and streamline the licensing system for marine activities? |
Question 33 Are there any particular emerging trends, new technologies or novel types of activity, which any future licensing system should address? |
Question 34 Do you have any views on the inclusion or exclusion of certain regimes from the scope of the proposed licensing reforms in this consultation? |
Question 35 Do you have any views on improvements that might be made to the process and administrative aspects of marine licensing, which UK Government could consider throughout the development of proposals for the Marine Bill? |
Question 36 How can we ensure that the Marine Bill reduces regulatory burdens within Government and on business within the licensing system? |
Question 37 Are the objectives for a reformed licensing system laid out above sensible? |
Question 38 Are there any other key principles that should be considered as part of any changes to the regulatory system? |
Question 39 Are these appropriate options to consider in this consultation? Are there alternatives to, or variations on the above options, which should be considered? (The initial Regulatory Impact Assessment in Annex 5B which accompanies this section of the consultation invites your views on the costs and benefits of the proposed options.) |
Question 40 What are your views on the advantages or disadvantages of the `Do Nothing' option? |
Question 41 Would Option 1 address the objectives and key underlying principles for an updated licensing system, as set out in paragraphs 9.38 to 9.43 of this consultation document? |
Question 42 What are your views on the advantages or disadvantages of Option 2, to `merge the environmental and navigational controls'? |
Question 43 Would Option 2 address the objectives and key underlying principles for an updated licensing system, as set out in paragraphs 9.38 to 9.43 of this consultation document? |
Question 44 What are your views on the advantages or disadvantages of Option 3, a simplified sectoral regime? |
Question 45 Would Option 3 address the objectives and key underlying principles for an updated licensing system, as set out in paragraphs 9.38 to 9.43 of this consultation document? |
Question 46 What are your views on the advantages or disadvantages of Option 4, an integrated regime? |
Question 47 Would Option 4 address the objectives and key underlying principles for an updated licensing system, as set out in paragraphs 9.38 to 9.43 of this consultation document? |
Question 48 Do you have any views on the storage of natural gas in sub-sea bed geological structures and the provision of facilities to unload gas that has been transported by ship? |
Question 49 Do you have any views on the proposal to create a fit-for purpose licensing proposal for the storage of natural gas that has been transported from elsewhere, in sub-sea bed geological structures? |
Question 50 Do you have any views on the capture and subsequent storage of carbon dioxide in naturally occurring sub-sea bed geological structures to alleviate the effects and impacts of climate change and ocean acidification? |
Question 51 Do you have any views on the creation of fit-for-purpose licensing provisions for the capture and storage of carbon dioxide in naturally occurring sub-sea bed geological structures? |
Protecting the marine environment (pages 88 -115) |
Question 52 Which marine management regimes or processes should include the consideration of marine ecosystem objectives? |
Question 53 Should the consideration of objectives be required through policy guidance, changes to management regimes or a statutory duty? |
Question 54 Do you agree that a new mechanism for the designation of protected areas should be introduced in the Marine Bill? |
Question 55 Should the new mechanism complement or replace legislation on Marine Nature Reserves? |
Question 56 Which of the purposes listed should the new mechanism cover? Are there any others that should be considered? |
Question 57 What are your views on site protection measures being used to protect interests other than those for which a site is primarily designated? |
Question 58 Do you agree that, where options exist, a range of factors including social and economic considerations should be taken into account in choosing between sites? |
Question 59 Should we include provision for altering site boundaries, or de-designation of sites? Under what circumstances? |
Question 60 Do you agree that different marine nature conservation sites will need to have different levels of objectives? |
Question 61 What are your views on a flexible site mechanism where levels of protection can be altered to meet site needs and objectives? |
Question 62 What are your views on whether marine protected areas should directly control activities managed at the national level, or provide protection through wider marine management mechanisms? What would be required to make each approach effective? |
Question 63 Are there any other mechanisms that we should consider introducing for site protection? Should we introduce a requirement for an appropriate assessment to be carried out where activities are likely to cause significant damage to a site? |
Question 64 Do you consider that the seaward boundary of SSSIs should be clarified? |
Question 65 Which option would you prefer for the interface between the two regimes? What are the key considerations? |
Question 66 What do you consider are the best options for the landward boundary for marine protected areas and the seaward boundary for SSSIs and why? |
Question 67 Are there threats to the conservation of marine species in the offshore area or elsewhere that are not addressed by existing measures and controls? Please give examples. |
Question 68 Which option for species protection in the Marine Bill would be most compatible with the principles described in section 4? Are there any other options that should be considered? |
Question 69 Do you consider that unlicensed activities currently threaten the conservation of marine ecosystems and biodiversity? If so which activities are of most concern and why? |
Question 70 What are your views on the introduction of byelaw-making powers for the control of unlicensed activities? |
Question 71 Are there alternative regulatory approaches to the control of such activities that we should consider? |
Question 72 Should any powers to control unlicensed activities be related to marine protected areas, or capable of wider application? |
Question 73 What do you think are the most important improvements that the Government could make to the prevention of marine nature conservation offences and the enforcement of relevant legislation? |
Question 74 What are your views on which organisations should (or should not) carry out different stages of marine nature conservation functions arising from the Marine Bill to ensure that the principles in section 4 and those in paragraphs 11.16-11.25 are delivered? |
Question 75 Do decisions on which organisations fulfil which roles affect any of your answers on other questions in this consultation document? If so, how? |
Question 76 Do you consider that any changes to functions, powers or duties of delivery organisations are needed to facilitate the implementation of nature conservation legislation in the Marine Bill? |
The potential for a Marine Management Organisation (pages 116 - 131) |
Question 77 Have we correctly identified the functions that are `core' to deciding whether to create an MMO? |
Question 78 Are there other functions that you consider `core' to an MMO? Why? |
Question 79 Do you consider that the Marine Fisheries Agency should be merged into an MMO, if established? |
Question 80 Do you consider that CEFAS should remain outside an MMO, if established? |
Question 81 Have we identified the right marine organisations for potential inclusion in an MMO? |
Question 82 Are there other marine organisations that we should be considering merging into an MMO? |
Question 83 Do you wish to make any points to be included in our consideration of whether individual non-core functions should be delivered by an MMO? |
Question 84 Do you agree that we should exclude the potential transfer of statutory (marine) nature conservation advisory roles to the MMO from further consideration? |
Question 85 Are there any other `non-core' functions that we should be considering for inclusion in an MMO? |
Question 86 Are there functions that you consider incompatible - i.e. they should not be undertaken in combination - whether by an MMO or another body? |
Question 87 Are there functions that you consider should be grouped together - i.e. undertaken within the same organisation? If so, should this be the MMO or not? |
Question 88 Do you have views on the most appropriate status for an MMO? |
Question 89 Do you have views on the nature of the relationship that an MMO would need with other bodies? |
Question 90 Do you have any further information that would assist us in developing the RIA? |
Question 91 Are there any other comments you want to make regarding the potential creation of an MMO? |
Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment - Marine spatial planning (pages 171 - 186) |
Question 92: Do you have any views on the risks associated with the current control system? |
Question 93: Do you have any evidence that either supports or contradicts the risks of the current system as laid out above? We would welcome additional examples, quantified where possible. |
Question 94: Do you have any examples of where conflicts have arisen between different marine activities, developments or resources? We would appreciate information about the costs incurred in any such situation. |
Question 95: Do you have any examples or information regarding the costs to business of applying for licences that are later refused? |
Question 96: Do you have any views on the risks or unintended consequences of any of the proposed options for a system of marine spatial planning? |
Question 97: Do you have any views on the potential benefits of any of the proposed options for a system of marine spatial planning? We would welcome quantified information where possible. |
Question 98: Do you have any views on how these options might offer benefits to the system for licensing marine activities? We would welcome quantified information where possible. |
Question 99: Do you have any views on the potential costs of collating existing available information about the marine environment or collecting additional information? |
Question 100: Do you have any information about the costs of existing planning systems, which may be broadly useful or indicative in considering a new system? |
Question 101: Do you have any views on the potential costs of any of the proposed options for a system of marine spatial planning? We would welcome quantified information, where possible. |
Question 102: Do you have any views on the potential impacts of any of the proposed options for a system of marine spatial planning on SMEs? We would welcome information, quantified where possible. |
Question 103: Do you have any views on issues relating to competition regarding any of the proposed options for a system of marine spatial planning? |
Question 104: Do you have any views on issues relating to enforcement,sanctions or monitoring regarding any of the proposed options for a system of marine spatial planning? |
Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment - Proposals for reform of marine licensing (pages 187 - 218) |
Question 105: Do you have any general information about the costs of the current licensing system? |
Question 106: In particular, do you have any specific evidence in relation to the applications process within the current licensing system, as follows: a. Have you had to obtain one or more licences or consents for a particular project, development or activity? If so, what costs did you incur as a result of the application process, and how long did it take? b. Does the length or speed of the application process have significant cost implications for you? c. Have you undertaken, or been involved in an advertising process in relation to a project, development or activity, either as a business or other participant? If so could you provide examples of the length of this process, and the costs that you incurred? d. Have you been involved in preparing an Environmental Impact Assessment for a project, development or activity, either as a business or other participant? If so could you provide examples and explain the costs that you incurred? |
Question 107: Do you have any specific examples of the compensation/mitigation aspects of the current licensing system? Can you provide evidence of how complex it was, and costs you incurred? |
Question 108: Do you have any views on the risks associated with the current licensing system? Evidence which supports or contradicts the risks laid out above or additional examples, quantified where possible, would be very useful. |
Question 109: Do you have any specific information with regard to the risks associated with the current system, as follows: a. Have you ever felt that you have been treated inconsistently as a result of the separation of different marine licensing regimes and the regulators responsible for them? If so please could you outline the situation that caused this treatment. b. Are there any instances where you believe the current marine licensing system was unable to take relevant environmental, social or cultural factors into account during decision making? If so could you provide examples, and quantify the environmental, social or cultural costs or drawbacks that resulted. c. Have you, or anyone you are aware of, been discouraged from investing in an area as a result of the complexity of the current marine licensing system? d. Do you believe that an excessive regulatory or administrative burden has been placed on you, or someone you know, as a result of duplication in marine licensing legislation or systems, or the need to obtain more than one licence for a particular project? If so, could you place an estimate on the excessive cost placed on your business on an annual basis. e. Has the current marine licensing system inhibited or threatened to inhibit your use of new technologies or types of marine activity? If so could you explain the cause and estimate the cost to your business. f. As an individual or business, do you believe that there is any lack of transparency or certainty within the current marine licensing system, which has adversely affected you in any way? If so could you provide examples of where this has occurred, and estimate the cost to your business. g. As a participant in the licensing system or other interested party, are there instances where you believe a lack of transparency or certainty within the current marine licensing system, has meant that you were adversely affected by a decision in relation to a particular development or activity? If so, could you provide examples of where this has occurred and estimate the economic, environmental or personal cost that was incurred. |
Question 110: Do you have any views on the risks or unintended consequences of any of the proposed options for a reformed licensing regime? |
Question 111: Do you have any views on the compliance with or enforcement of any of the proposed options for a reformed licensing regime? |
Question 112: Are there any other sectors or groups which would be affected by a reformed licensing regime? |
Question 113: Do you have any views on the potential benefits of any of the proposed options for reform of the licensing regime? We would welcome information as to the potential benefits, quantified where possible. |
Question 114: Do you have any views on the potential costs of any of the proposed options for reform of the licensing regime? We would welcome information as to the potential costs, quantified where possible. |
Question 115: Do you have any views on the potential impacts on SMEs of any of these options for reform of the licensing regime? We would appreciate information about the possible impacts, quantified where possible. |
Question 116: Do you have any views on competition issues relating to any of the proposed options for reform of the licensing regime? We would appreciate information about the possible effects on competition, quantified where possible. |
Question 117: Do you have any views on issues relating to enforcement or sanctions regarding any of the proposed options for reform of the licensing regime? |
Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment - Improving marine nature conservation (pages 219 - 266) |
Question 118: What costs would business or others incur if further deterioration in marine ecosystems or significant losses in biodiversity were to occur? Please provide quantified examples where possible. |
Question 119: What are the benefits for businesses and others associated with improvements in the state of marine biodiversity? Please give quantified examples where possible. |
Question 120: Would businesses benefit from clearer guidance on what needs to be taken into account in environmental impact assessments? |
Question 121: What are the financial costs and benefits for businesses and others associated with certainty or uncertainty over what restrictions Government might place on development or other licences (for ecological reasons)? Please give examples. |
Question 122: To what extent do businesses currently take account of the Government's ecological objectives (such as biodiversity action plan targets) in environmental impact assessments? Please give examples. |
Question 123: What costs are involved in considering ecological objectives (such as biodiversity action plan targets) in environmental impact assessments? Please give quantified examples where possible. |
Question 124: To what extent could the costs involved in considering ecological objectives be reduced through the introduction of clearer, more coherent and accessible Government objectives and the provision of more information, data and guidance (as proposed in this consultation document)? |
Question 125: What are the costs of modifying, mitigating or compensating for development proposals, fisheries, leisure or other activities to help meet ecological objectives? Please give quantified examples where possible. |
Question 126: How far would businesses be willing to modify activities to help deliver a non-statutory set of marine ecosystem objectives? What level of take-up of measures to deliver non-statutory ecosystem objectives would you anticipate across marine industries? |
Question 127: Would there be other costs associated with the implementation of marine ecosystem objectives which should be taken into account? Please give quantified examples where possible. |
Question 128: How would you value the benefits to business and others in improvements in the state of marine biodiversity in marine protected areas? |
Question 129: What are the costs of modifying, mitigating or compensating for development proposals, fisheries, leisure or other activities to help conserve protected areas? Please give quantified examples where possible. |
Question 130: What are the costs of agreeing and implementing voluntary protected areas? |
Question 131: To what extent would businesses be prepared to modify activities to avoid causing significant damage to voluntary marine protected areas? What level of take-up of voluntary site conservation measures would you anticipate across marine industries? |
Question 132: How would you value the benefits to business and others of an improvement in the state of marine biodiversity in offshore sea areas (beyond 12nm from the coast)? |
Question 133: What are the costs of agreeing and implementing voluntary or sectoral measures for the protection of important marine species? Please give quantified examples where possible. |
Question 134: To what extent would businesses be prepared to implement voluntary measures such as codes of conduct for the protection of important marine species? What level of take-up would you anticipate across marine industries? |
Question 135: What would the costs and benefits be to businesses and others of modifying currently unlicensed activities to prevent significant impacts on biodiversity? Please give quantified examples where possible. |
Question 136: What are the costs of agreeing and implementing voluntary controls on unlicensed activities such as whale-watching codes? |
Question 137: What level of take-up would you expect to see of voluntary measures designed to prevent unlicensed activities from having significant impacts on marine biodiversity, such as voluntary restrictions on recreational activities in sensitive areas/seasons? |
Question 138: Would small businesses expect any of the nature conservation proposals in this consultation paper to impact specifically or disproportionately on your business? Please include an assessment of the financial and other impacts on your business sector. |
Question 139: Would any of the nature conservation proposals in this consultation paper be likely to affect the competitiveness of your business or sector? Please complete the competition filter test and include an assessment of the financial and other impacts on your business sector. |
Question 140: What costs would be entailed in the effective enforcement of the proposals in this consultation document? Please include an analysis of any cost estimates provided. |
Question 141: To what extent do you think there is scope for more efficient use of existing enforcement resources? Please give examples. |