Archived decisions

Contact: Alan Inder, ext 6759 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 On 29 March 2006 the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) published a consultation document on proposals for a Marine Bill, and requested comments by 23 June. The Bill is likely to be the most significant piece of legislation to affect marine (and coastal) waters for decades. The consultation document outlines proposals for:

(i) managing marine fisheries;

(ii) planning in the marine area;

(iii) licensing marine activities;

(iv) improving marine conservation; and

(v) a possible marine management organisation.

There are close and complex links between these themes, and the options for a marine management organisation depend on the outcome of the other proposals.

1.2 This report is in two parts: the first summarises the most important aspects of the consultation document, and the second sets out the suggested response from the County Council. In broad terms it is recommended that the County Council welcomes and generally supports the proposals, and forwards to Defra a range of comments on the main themes. A separate but related report is being submitted to the River Hamble Harbour Board dealing with the implications for the County Council as Harbour Authority.

Part 1: Summary of the Marine Bill Consultation Paper

2. Introduction

2.1 On 29 March 2006 Defra published a consultation on proposals for a Marine Bill, and requested comments by 23 June. Organisations from a variety of sectors and interests have been pressing for many years for comprehensive new legislation for the nation's coastal and marine areas, and the prospect of a Marine Bill in the next Parliamentary session presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Although the likely impact of the Bill on Hampshire County Council will be largely indirect rather than direct, there are a number of implications that must be considered, particularly in relation to the future planning and management of inshore waters such as the Solent.

2.2 A copy of the consultation document can be viewed in the Environment Department Library, or on Defra's website:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/marine bill/index.htm

References in parentheses are paragraph numbers in the consultation document.

2.3 The 312 page document has a number of introductory sections and five sections which concentrate on the key themes being considered:

(i) planning in the marine area;

(ii) licensing marine activities;

(iii) improving marine nature conservation;

(iv) the potential for a marine management organisation; and

(v) improving fisheries.

2.4 Each of these themes also has an accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) as an annex which provides an initial assessment of the social, economic and environmental impacts (risks, costs and benefits) of each measure proposed.

2.5 The document includes 141 specific questions which relate to each of these themes. As these cover relatively detailed matters it is proposed that officers provide a separate submission to Defra with responses to those questions that are relevant, in line with the general comments made in this report.

3. The Need for a Marine Bill

3.1 Unlike the situation on land, the marine environment lacks a strategic and comprehensive forward planning system. Policies are developed and decisions taken on a sectoral basis, and the inadequacies of the current system become more exposed year by year, as the range and intensity of activities increase, and the deterioration of marine biodiversity accelerates. A number of important reviews and reports in recent years suggest that, as the pressures on the seas increase, there is a lack of the necessary tools to reconcile conservation goals with the demands placed on marine areas to help meet economic and social needs. Therefore there is fairly widespread support for the need for a Marine Bill, although debate will undoubtedly rage over its form and content.

4. Purpose of the Bill

4.1 The stated purpose of the Bill is "to improve the delivery of policies relating to marine activities operating in coastal and off-shore 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...." [Summary, paragraph iv]. The Bill is seen as making an important contribution to delivering the Government's strategy for sustainable development. Also, it will help to discharge national obligations under international and European law.

5. Underlying Principles

5.1 The Bill will have some important underlying principles that are spelt out in Section 4. In summary these are:

(i) The principles of sustainable development, the purpose of which is to enable people "to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations" [paragraph 4.3].

(ii) The ecosystem approach, to help reconcile and integrate conservation objectives with sustainable social and economic development goals.

(iii) The principles of good regulation, ie proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted.

(iv) The precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle.

6. Context

6.1 The proposals in the Marine Bill will apply to all UK waters out to 200 miles including the internal waters such as estuaries and harbours.

6.2 Attention is drawn to a number of international and European obligations that the Bill must help to meet, in particular the OSPAR Convention and EU Directives (eg Birds, Habitats, Water Framework, Strategic Environmental Assessment) but also non-statutory agreements on integrated coastal zone management, climate change, etc.

7. Marine Spatial Planning

7.1 The need for a strategic and comprehensive system of spatial planning in the marine environment has been emphasised in several important reviews and reports in recent years. This is reflected in the consultation paper in the strong and clear intent of introducing a system of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) "to create more rational organisation of the use of marine space and the interactions between its uses, to balance demands for development with the need to protect the environment, and to achieve social and economic objectives in an open and planned way" [paragraph 6.6]. MSP is "expected to be the principal function of the Bill" [paragraph 6.5]. MSP would provide the framework for the marine licensing system considered later in the document.

7.2 Nevertheless, whilst the current framework for managing the seas has limitations that are widely acknowledged, and MSP would deliver some worthy objectives [8.33] and bring a wide range of benefits [8.37], there will be concerns about the introduction of another type and layer of planning with associated bureaucracy. However, it has the potential to improve the speed and quality of decisions based on an agreed plan, and to provide greater certainty for developers.

7.3 The need for any new MSP system to have a clear and integrated relationship with other planning systems, notably the land use planning system, is recognised. This raises significant issues for Hampshire County Council and all other local authorities with a coastline, particular with regard to the landward boundary of the MSP system and any overlap with the land-based spatial planning system, and other matters associated with the interface between land and sea. The Government's current view is that terrestrial planning controls should continue to apply to the mean Low Water Mark regardless of the extent of the application of a new marine spatial planning system [8.54]; however, possible overlaps need further consideration.

7.4 MSP has the potential to operate at different spatial levels: national, regional and sub-regional. The paper indicates that, at the national level, there would be a `strategic marine planning policy statement' and accompanying guidance, though it is not clear who would prepare or approve it. This might include policy statements for different sectors. The main level at which MSP would apply would be regional. The Government has sponsored a pilot MSP in the Irish Sea, and this concludes that the approach is most appropriate for `regional seas'. Although the consultation document says nothing about the division of UK marine waters into regional seas, recent work by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) to divide the UK into regional seas, based on biogeographical data, suggests that the Hampshire coast and the Solent would fall within the `Eastern English Channel'. The document outlines how the production of a national marine planning policy paper and regional marine spatial plans could be the responsibility of a possible new marine management organisation, operating at a national level.

7.5 The paper also says that "where appropriate or necessary, sub-regional or local plans could be produced. This level of plan would more likely be required in heavily used or congested areas, or in areas of high conflict, where a more detailed plan might be beneficial" [8.73]. Clearly the Solent, which is one of the most intensively used and extensively

designated areas of inshore waters in the UK (though relatively well-managed), is an obvious candidate for the application of MSP at sub-regional level. This raises many important issues, such as who would lead production of a possible sub-regional MSP, who would fund it, what status it would have, etc.

7.6 The consultation document puts forward a number of options for marine spatial plans, and invites comments and an indication of preferred option:

(i) Do nothing.

(ii) Information only - draw marine data and information into a single system for use by developers and decision makers as an evidence base or information tool.

(iii) Non-binding plan - would include the collation of marine data and information, accompanied by the setting of marine objectives and priorities. Spatial plans would indicate where, and to what extent, different areas of sea space would be best or worst suited to different purposes and uses. However, there would be no statutory requirement for decision-making authorities to adhere to the plan but they might face the risk of legal challenge.

(iv) Binding plan - as (iii) above, but would have a statutory requirement for decision makers to act in accordance with the plans.

8. Licensing Marine Activities

8.1 The current system for granting consents and licences for new developments and activities in coastal and marine waters is notoriously complex. It can be costly and confusing, both for businesses and regulators. (For this reason the County Council has commissioned the consultants Atkins to find ways of streamlining coastal consents procedures, within the Rural Pathfinder programme; this work is nearing conclusion.)

8.2 The consultation paper fully recognises the shortcomings of the current system and expresses the Government's commitment to better regulation, including legislative and administrative simplification. The aim is to reduce the risk and costs to businesses. However, it is clear that the scope of the improvements likely to emerge through the Bill will be limited to "the principal marine controls that are currently the responsibility of central government departments" [9.22]. Consequently it does not address controls that are under the remit of other regulators, such as local and harbour authorities and the Environment Agency.

8.3 Even within the defined scope, it is evident that a number of types of consent or licence could be rationalised, affecting four Government Departments:

(i) Defra - Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) 1985 (construction and disposal in the sea);

(ii) Department for Transport - Coast Protection Act (CPA)1949 (impact of works on navigation); Harbours Act 1964 (port and harbour development); Transport and Works Act 1992 (major infrastructure projects);

(iii) Department for Trade and Industry - Electricity Act 1989 (off-shore electricity generation); Telecommunications Act 1984 (sub-sea cables); and

(iv) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister - `Government view' on marine minerals extraction.

8.4 The paper sets down proposed objectives and underlying principles of a reformed licensing system and puts forward four options:

(i) Do nothing.

(ii) Merged environmental and navigational regime (ie merging FEPA and CPA controls).

(iii) Simplified sectoral regime (ie licensing regimes for all major sectors with obligations for comprehensive impact assessments).

(iv) An integrated regime (ie bringing all together into a single marine system).

8.5 Because the current system is widely condemned it is probable that `do nothing' will not be favoured and that the integrated regime will be most broadly favoured. There are obvious links here with the proposals for marine spatial planning and the marine management organisation.

9. Improving Nature Conservation

9.1 The Government's Review of Marine Nature Conservation, published in 2004, documented significant declines in many aspects of marine biodiversity and failings in the current system for nature conservation in the marine environment. It argued that new legislation was required to underpin effective protection of marine habitats and species and management of activities that were giving cause for concern (eg recreational craft). The consultation puts forward relevant proposals within five main policy areas:

(i) marine ecosystem objectives;

(ii) marine protected areas;

(iii) controls on unlicensed activities;

(iv) species conservation; and

(v) enforcement.

Marine Ecosystem Objectives

9.2 Having made the case for a system of planning and management based on the ecosystem approach, it is not surprising that the need to develop marine ecosystem objectives is stressed. The paper lists several examples of current ecosystem objectives, and the need to rationalise them is evident. It outlines three possible options for these objectives:

(i) Policy guidance - requiring objectives to be a material consideration.

(ii) Changes to marine management regimes - objectives to be part of licensing requirements, Environment Impact Assessments, etc.

(iii) Statutory duty requiring all public bodies to take account of objectives in the way they fulfil their functions. This would give legal force to the consideration of objectives and enable public bodies to be legally challenged if they failed to consider them adequately.

Marine Protected Areas

9.3 The proposal is to introduce a mechanism for the designation and protection of areas through UK marine waters, which could either sit alongside legislation on Marine Nature Reserves (which has been notoriously unsuccessful) or replace it. The mechanism could be used to protect geological/geomorphological features, seascapes, spawning and nursery areas and historic sites as well as nature conservation features. This could include a range of sites from areas of minimal restriction through to highly protected marine reserves.

9.4 The importance of suitable site selection criteria is recognised, and it is possible they would include socio-economic as well as environmental considerations. The mobile nature of the coastal and marine environments is also recognised, as are the problems caused by fixed site boundaries, and so there is a suggestion that flexibility be built into site designation to enable adaptation to changes in site features.

9.5 The paper also acknowledges that site designations will not be sufficient in themselves, and that mechanisms for wider marine management might be needed, for example though licensing or fisheries management regimes.

9.6 One of the issues for authorities and agencies around the Solent is where the landward boundary for marine protected areas would be (high or low water mark, or the limits of local authority jurisdiction), and what degree of overlap there would be with Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). There is a suggestion [10.72] that the Bill will be used to clearly define the seaward boundary of SSSIs.

Species and Conservation Measures

9.7 The proposals intend to protect marine species that are vulnerable to human impacts and three options are included:

(i) maintain current coverage in territorial waters;

(ii) extend species protection legislation to UK waters if it could be justified on the basis of threat; and

(iii) repeal existing species protection legislation if a combination of European species protection, voluntary and sectoral approaches, protected areas and wider maritime management were considered to provide sufficient protection for marine species, so as to make criminal offences for damage to species disproportionate to the conservation benefits.

Control of Unlicensed Activities

9.8 This is the least developed area. There are some activities in the marine area that are neither regulated by domestic management regimes nor international bodies and conventions. This section of the consultation is looking at what measures might be required to control these impacts. This might be done through the introduction of new bye-law making powers. Consideration is being given to whether these should be tied to protected areas or available for wider application.

Enforcement

9.9 The consultation considers the measures required to ensure that marine nature conservation legislation is effectively and efficiently enforced in UK waters. Consideration is being given to:

(i) whether enforcement authorities have the powers and function required to enforce nature conservation measures and whether new legislation is required;

(ii) whether enforcement functions can be rationalised by improving coordination of existing structures or whether legislative change is required; and

(iii) how any new measures might operate across country boundaries.

10. Managing Marine Fisheries

10.1 The fisheries aspects of the Bill are being taken forward through the processes already in place for implementing the "Net Benefits" and "Fisheries and Environmental Enforcement" reviews. There has therefore already been some consultation on fisheries issues that form the fifth area that will be covered by the Bill and these are not included in the consultation package. However, there are important implications for fisheries management in the four themes that are covered. It is likely that consultation on fisheries' proposals for the Marine Bill will take place later during 2006. The main areas where changes to existing primary legislation, or new legislation, may be required include:

(i) modernisation of inshore fisheries management arrangements and consideration of the powers, duties and area of coverage required. This includes looking at the role of Sea Fishery Committees;

(ii) the need to update or strengthen the powers of the British Sea Fishery Officers to enable enforcement of administrative penalties;

(iii) a more active approach to management of recreational and hobby fishing; and

(iv) charging for management, enforcement and stock assessments.

11. Marine Management Organisation

11.1 The potential for a Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is being considered because some new activities introduced by the Marine Bill might best be delivered by a new body, which could also help join up the management of marine activities in different sectors. Where this would involve the transfer of existing functions to an MMO, the effects on the existing organisations would need to be assessed.

11.2 The Marine Bill team has mapped out existing Government functions in the marine area and added new functions that might be created through the Bill. The focus is on the marine environment and specifically excludes local authority functions. Potential MMO functions were divided into core and non-core.

11.3 Two important core functions are suggested:

(i) marine spatial planning - the MMO could have responsibility for collation of data, mapping, Strategic Environmental Assessment, consultation, monitoring and review; and

(ii) delivery of an integrated licensing regime - the operation of a coordinated licensing system.

11.4 The paper outlines how Government will need to consider which existing marine organisations could be included in an MMO and it suggests that the new Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA) is the most likely candidate, although others are also listed.

11.5 Non-core functions under consideration for an MMO include:

(i) marine protected areas;

(ii) Natura 2000: identification; consultation; possibly designation;

(iii) management of recreational fisheries;

(iv) enforcement of nature conservation measures;

(v) enforcement of marine licences and minerals extraction licences;

(vi) marine research, and monitoring;

(vii) coordination of existing data collection, and targeted additional collection;

(viii) Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) support and guidance;

(ix) EU Marine Strategy Directive (forthcoming) - implementation; and

(x) some Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) activities.

11.6 The paper indicates that the current functions of statutory nature conservation bodies (such as Natural England) and of English Heritage would remain unchanged.

11.7 The importance of the interface between any new marine regime and the terrestrial regimes is recognised, as is the need for any MMO to work closely with relevant land-based bodies such as local authorities.

Part 2: The County Council's Comments

12. General

12.1 The County Council acknowledges the need for a Marine Bill, and supports the purposes and principles set out in the document. The opportunity to comment on what promises to be a landmark piece of legislation is welcomed. Defra's Marine Bill team is to be congratulated on presenting such complex and inter-related issues and proposals so comprehensively and clearly. The County Council's general comments on the main themes are set out below, together with comments on integrated coastal zone management.

13. Marine Spatial Planning

13.1 The County Council supports in principle the introduction of marine spatial planning, and believes it ought to be on a statutory basis in order to be effective. However, the administrative and financial burden of producing marine spatial plans must be kept to the minimum in order to ensure that the undoubted benefits outweigh the costs and that regulators and business can appreciate their worth. In order to make it work the Government ought to provide funds for strategic information gathering, and GIS and data systems.

13.2 It will be important for the MSP at regional and sub-regional levels to operate within a clear national policy framework, which could be provided by the proposed strategic marine planning policy statement. There ought to be a statutory requirement to develop the statement through consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including local authorities, and it should include clear sectoral policy statements such as national ports policy, marine aggregate policy, etc.

13.3 It is evident that MSP is intended to operate primarily at regional level, as trialled in the Irish Sea. As a large local authority with a significant length of important coastline, Hampshire County Council would wish to be a statutory consultee regarding the development of the relevant MSP, especially with regard to marine aggregates extraction. The County Council may wish to review its partnership arrangements with its continental counterparts (eg Arc Manche) in the light of the emergence of MSP on a statutory basis.

13.4 The County Council strongly believes that the ecosystem-based approach to MSP applies with equal justification at the sub-regional level in areas like the Solent, where there is intensive use by a range of activities in a heavily designated environment. As a local authority with many functions and a long and varied coastline, the County Council would want to be a leading player in the development of an MSP for the Solent (as it was in the development of the Solent European Marine Sites Management Scheme), subject to the availability of resources.

13.5 The Marine Bill must clarify the powers and duties of relevant authorities with regard to MSP. If it is considered appropriate and necessary for a sub-region like the Solent, the relevant authorities must be empowered to produce a MSP, and perhaps ought to have a duty to do so. It is unlikely that the relevant authorities would have sufficient resources to fund MSP, and so provision should be made for the Government to grant aid the process, perhaps through the MMO. Further guidance would be useful to determine whether there should be a sub-regional MSP (as it is likely there will be mixed feelings amongst the relevant authorities) and how boundaries are determined.

13.6 One of the main issues to be resolved is how MSP will interface with other planning systems, particularly the new land-based spatial planning system but also shoreline management plans (with the second round about to commence) and river basin management plans (for assisting implementation of the Water Framework Directive). Many associated issues could be addressed through regulations and guidance, but the Bill must address issues such as overlapping systems of planning and regulation. In this regard it will be important to determine the boundaries for MSP. It would seem that the most appropriate landward boundary would be the high water mark, providing the overlap with the land-based planning system presents no insurmountable obstacles. Consideration ought to be given to the inclusion of shoreline management plans because, if the boundary of MSP is high water mark, it would include most flood and coastal defences and issues related to managed realignment.

13.7 It would seem appropriate for the Marine Bill to require those responsible for MSP to take into account fully the policies and/or proposals of other plans. For the County Council this will be particularly important with regard to minerals and waste planning; eg to ensure that policies and decisions regarding extraction of marine aggregates fit into the wider picture of the UK's total demand for minerals and an appropriate balance of supply from the various sources (land-won, recycled, secondary and marine dredged). The allocation of `preferred areas' for mineral extraction would give the industry more certainty; currently the lack of certainty with regard to a number of applications for sand and gravel dredging in the eastern English Channel makes it hard to plan for minerals supply locally.

13.8 One of the suggested core functions for an MMO is MSP. However, it is unclear what its role would be at sub-regional level, where it would seem to be a distant organisation lacking local accountability. Local authorities would be well placed to undertake this role at the sub-regional level and many already have a high level of expertise in this area through work in coastal partnerships, management schemes for European Marine Sites and other work. They would also be well placed to consider the overlap between terrestrial and marine planning that would be present should the MSP boundary be high water mark. It would be helpful if the Bill provided clarity on this point.

14. Licensing Marine Activities

14.1 There is no doubt that the current system for granting consents and licences for new developments and activities in coastal areas is extremely complex; and it can be confusing, time consuming and costly for regulators as well as applicants. For this reason the County Council has commissioned within Hampshire's Rural Pathfinder programme a study aimed at streamlining and simplifying the coastal consents processes.

14.2 The County Council considers that the Marine Bill presents a rare opportunity to reform the coastal and marine consents system that must be taken, and it supports Option 4 - the integrated regime that brings all types of consents and licences for which Government Departments are responsible together into a single system. The County Council would go further and suggest that consideration be given to improving integration of consents for which other authorities and agencies are responsible (eg local and harbour authorities, Environment Agency, etc) in ways which do not detract from the powers and duties of those bodies.

14.3 A one-stop shop for licensing should also be implemented at a local level, possibly through local authorities in line with the Government's commitment to improved local governance.

15. Improving Nature Conservation

15.1 The County Council welcomes the proposals for providing better conservation of marine biodiversity, and believes that a system of marine protected areas is needed, set within the context of better management of activities in the wider sea, based on the ecosystem approach that underpins MSP. The MPAs should be used to protect geological/geomorphological and historic/archaeological features as well as nature conservation interests. However, the need for MPAs is primarily in off-shore waters, and their designation ought to be used sparingly in in-shore waters like the Solent where there is already a plethora of designations.

15.2 The Bill ought to place a statutory duty on all public bodies to further marine ecosystem objectives in the way they carry out their functions.

15.3 It is important that the Bill deals with planning and management problems caused by the fixed boundaries of designated sites in the highly dynamic coastal and marine environment, by taking the opportunity to allow some flexibility to respond to natural changes. The Bill should be used to clarify the seaward boundaries of SSSIs.

16. Managing Marine Fisheries

16.1 Defra is not inviting comments on fisheries proposals as part of this consultation, because there has been extensive consultation with stakeholders in connection with a number of reviews. There will be further opportunities to comment as proposals on fisheries management are developed and, as an authority with representatives on the Southern Sea Fisheries Committee, the County Council may wish to comment accordingly.

17. Marine Management Organisation

17.1 The County Council acknowledges that there is a strong case for an MMO to bring together a range of Government functions in order to provide more integrated and coordinated approach to coastal and marine management. It agrees that the core functions should be the delivery of MSP and an integrated licensing regime. It would seem sensible to include support and guidance functions for ICZM; coordination of data and information; marine research on behalf of the Government; and possibly enforcement functions associated with marine licences including those for aggregates extraction. Natura 2000 functions and marine heritage advisory role are probably best left with, respectively, Natural England/JNCC and English Heritage. Whilst the case is made

for including the MFA and Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquacultural Science in a new MMO, the reasons for excluding the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are not clear.

17.2 As well as acting nationally, it is proposed that the MMO will have a role at regional and sub-regional levels. The delivery of these roles should be locally-based in line with the Government's commitment to local delivery and accountability. As such further options should be explored.

17.3 The likely operational relationship between an MMO and existing authorities and agencies needs to be clarified through the Bill. Members need to be convinced that a national, regional and sub-regional administrative structure can be fully justified for the marine environment. The Government is committed to local delivery and improved regulatory frameworks. The Government needs to consider at the same time whether the administrative structures it has put in place for the land is appropriate to cover marine affairs. It could be argued that because of the nature of the business and location of the current complex administrative arrangements, a national centre and sub-regional structure may be the most effective approach.

18. Integrated Coastal Zone Management

18.1 The County Council is disappointed that ICZM is not treated as an important and distinct theme within the consultation document. Coastal partnerships such as the Solent Forum, and those formed at estuary and harbour level, have proved their worth in countless ways, eg by improving communication and decision making, resolving conflicts, raising awareness, coordinating joint projects and initiatives, etc. In spite of their undoubted value, these partnerships survive precariously and a disproportionate amount of staff time is spent seeking funding to maintain their existence.

18.2 The absence of ICZM as a particular theme in the document gives cause for concern because it reinforces the split between the planning and management of land and sea, particularly as the paper recognises that spatial planning has the potential to help achieve some of the aims of the national ICZM strategies [paragraph 6.8] The document proposes a system of marine spatial planning system to adjoin the land-based system, but fails to recognise the vital importance of ICZM partnerships in providing integration across the land-sea divide. The Bill should provide the basis for a secure, sustainable future for coastal partnerships by including a duty on all relevant and competent authorities and agencies, with a statutory interest in the coast and inshore waters, to participate in and implement ICZM in coastal waters of national and regional importance (such as the Solent). The responsibility and statutory power for coordinating this activity would rest with a nominated local authority within the area. This proposal is based on the successful precedent set for the management of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Core funding could be provided by Government, channelled through the MMO or other national agency linked to deliverables, such as the preparation and implementation of management plans. This would free core staff to get on with the job and avoid the demoralising annual search for new funds.

19. Impact Assessments

19.1 Although the proposed Marine Bill will be far reaching, its impact on the functions and finances of local authorities is unclear until firmer proposals are put forward. It is likely that the coastal team will be required to input into national guidance and regional plans, and to ensure continuity between marine and land-based planning. The County Council would be in a good position to assist due to staff expertise and experience, derived from involvement in the South East Plan and the Solent European Marine Sites Management Scheme. As the MSP system develops it is probable that there will be a groundswell of support, if not a statutory obligation, to produce an MSP for the Solent. It is likely that the County Council would wish to play a significant part in the process in order to ensure that its many and varied interests are fully taken into account. At that stage, therefore, there would be implications for the County Council's staff and financial resources which would need to be considered in good time, before the process gets underway.

Recommendation

That the following advice be offered to the Executive Member for Policy and Resources:

That the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs be informed that the County Council:

(i) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the consultation document `A Marine Bill' and broadly supports the proposals set out in document; and

(ii) requests the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take into account the County Council's comments when drafting the Marine Bill. To summarise this includes the following:

(a) support for the introduction of marine spatial planning at regional (ie South East) and sub-regional (eg Solent) levels but would like further consideration of how it will interact with the terrestrial planning system and who will oversee its production;

(b) support for an integrated marine licensing regime that brings together all types of consents and licences for which Government departments are responsible into a single system. However would suggest that other consents should also be considered and that this should implemented at a local level;

(c) support for proposals for marine protected areas and marine ecosystem objectives; and

(d) support for a new marine management organisation to oversee a number of roles. However the County Council feels that the delivery of some of the roles should be locally based in line with the Government's commitment to local delivery and accountability.

941Rpt/AI