The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

REVIEW OF INTEGRATION AMONG PLANS FOR THE COAST IN SCOTLAND: Analysis of the SCF Coastal Plans Inventory

CHAPTER FOUR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLANS AND STRATEGIES

4.1 The Coastal Plans Inventory is intended to be a register of statutory national and local plans governing the coast and all principal non-statutory plans. Within this framework, the documents are registered with supporting information on their coverage (UK level to local), their status (non-statutory, statutory and international obligation) and their geographical extent (based on the local authority areas that are covered).

4.2 The first stage of the research project was to evaluate the significance of each plan in relation to influencing the management of the coastal zone. Plans and policies may not show a level of integration with other plans due to a variety of reasons, which may include the date of publication, the legal status of the document and the extent to which the plan has a direct influence on ICZM.

4.3 Some plans will have a more significant impact on the coastal zone, and are therefore critical to the delivery of ICZM. These plans would be expected to show the highest level of integration in an ideal scenario. Plans could also be statutory or non-statutory, and therefore the links and level of consideration in other plans can be judged. In addition, many of these plans may have a planning cycle, i.e. are reviewed and updated on a regular basis, and there may be an "ideal" timing under which integration may occur.

4.4 All of these points are considered to assess the completeness of the system, i.e. integration depends on the nature of the system. Significant gaps in the system itself may prevent integration in some critical areas. These gaps in the system relate to policy and geographic coverage across time.

4.5 This section presents an analysis of the relationships between plans based on their hierarchy and links, their importance towards delivering ICZM and their planning cycles.

Statutory Influence

4.6 An assessment has been made to try to indicate the position of the plans in the Inventory in a hierarchical statutory framework, as it applies in Scotland. As noted above there are various plans that are statutory plans produced by regulatory authorities, as well as many other non-statutory plans produced by statutory bodies or non-governmental groups and local landowners. The graphic below attempts to put all of the available plans in a hierarchical framework, and to illustrate the links between different plans and policies. In general the categories detailed in Table 1 have been used, though the national policy documents have also been expanded upon, in order to show the statutory links between documents. The graphic does not show individual links between different sectors, but attempts to group plans into those which would be expected to have more direct relationships, such as planning, nature conservation and waste.

4.7 The text in bold refers to statutory plans, those required under legislation or under national policy. The national level refers primarily to the Scottish level, though some are required under UK-wide legislation. Many policies and legislation pre-date devolution.

4.8 The diagram shows that the "hub" of planning for the coastal zone should centre on the ICZM plan. However, as shown by the linkages, it is obvious that coastal planning is actually currently focussed on the development plan process. This is to be expected, as most planning for the coastal zone appears currently to stem from land use planning. The activities with no direct relationship to land use planning are not to be considered as less important. It could be the case that these plans are the major drivers for ICZM or are the main contributors to the delivery of ICZM on the ground.

4.9 Direct links from the ICZM plans have not been shown to individual plans, as the theory would be that all policies and plans would have a link to this document and therefore the diagram would become very cluttered with connections. There are also some connections that are currently unknown or unclear and have not been included, and areas where there is possibly an indirect relationship, though it is not defined through legislation.

Figure 1: Plans Hierarchy

Level of Integration Expected in Policy

4.10 In a perfect world, the level of integration between plans would be high, with co-ordinated and cohesive policies across the board. However, given the wide variety of interests in the coastal region, there are some plans that should show a higher degree of integration as they are more significant in achieving on the ground improvements and controlling impacts. The diagram below illustrates the levels of integration that may exist in ICZM:

4.11 There are some cases where the degree of integration may depend on the relevance of the type of plans being considered. For example, given our category of Codes of Practice, the category contains a wide variety of plans that for some sectors are very relevant and must be integrated into plans, but for other sectors the code of practice may only relate to a small section of their operations and therefore may not be as significant. In these cases, an AB or BC rating can be given.

4.12 Therefore, the plans which should cross reference at the highest level of integration should be assessed in great detail. Other plans would only be expected to give a minor acknowledgement of some of the suite of plans identified, and in particular should be referencing other plans within their sector or with direct impact on their sector. It should be borne in mind that when the assessment of integration is undertaken, some plans would be expected to show a low level of references to other plans. The above is the "ideal" situation, rather than what the statutory framework as it stands in Scotland at present requires or allows. Therefore the indicators chosen in the methodology should also recognise this factor, and thus the method of assessment does not diminish the role that these plans play in the integration of coastal management activities.

4.13 The table below details the assessment made of the level of integration to be expected between plans. The levels were determined through the writers' experience of the planning process and the statutory and non-statutory hierarchy and not on existing academic research.

Table 2: Prioritisation of Plans

4.14 From the table above, a count was undertaken of the number of BC and C level scores that each type of plans are expected to achieve, and is noted on the table below:

Table 3: Ranking of Integration Scores

4.15 Plans within Rank 1 would be expected to show a high level of integration across all policy areas. Therefore the Rank 1 plans include the coastal management initiative plans, development plans, shoreline management plans, nature conservation, SAC plans and Planning Guidance and Advice. Rank 2 plans are still expected to heavily influence each other, but are unlikely to need to acknowledge all plans, especially outside their own sector. These include biodiversity and NHZ plans, the landowner, landscape and Local Agenda 21 plans, tourism and subject plans, and the fishery plans. Looking at this list, it seems likely that BAPs have been under evaluated, and should perhaps be a Rank 1 plan. The ranking system does not weight the plans by their importance to the statutory planning process, and since BAPs have an important role within this, therefore should be within Rank 1. Rank 3 plans are only expected to acknowledge plans within their own sector, but show a high level of influence within their sector, such as the plans relating to ports, codes of practice and archaeology plans. It should be emphasised that the ranking outlined above has been developed to numerate integration and in no way indicates the importance or otherwise of the plans.

« Previous | Contents | Next »