« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Questions in the Consultation Paper and Summarised Responses
Question 1: Are you content that marine boundaries should be defined for all relevant waters adjacent to Scotland?
6. With the exception of one consultee who expressed concern about possible impacts on navigation, all respondents were content that marine boundaries be defined for all relevant waters adjacent to Scotland. Additionally, a consultee questioned the status of the development plan and recognised the need for transboundary issues such as cumulative impacts to be considered while another raised issues regarding the potential for single authorities for loch systems.
Question 2: Do you have any comments on the way in which these anomalies have been resolved?
7. While most respondents had no comment to make on this, those that did mostly accepted the way these anomalies had been resolved, although there was a notable objection relating to the Scotland/England border. Issues were again raised regarding single authorities for loch systems and it was suggested that single loch authorities would be preferable. It was also suggested that possible changes to marine boundaries may arise from erosion and deposition, particularly in relation to shifting sandbanks on the Solway Firth and Tay estuary; and there is a need to be aware of the extent to which erosion or alluvion can mean that boundaries as defined on maps can quickly cease to reflect the physical reality. Given this, it was suggested that there may be an argument for making some general provisions to cope with such eventualities without the need for further legislation.
Question 3: Do you consider that the National Park Authority marine boundary is appropriately defined?
8. Most respondents broadly agreed that the National Park marine boundary was appropriately defined, although it was suggested that there may be an issue at Echaig Bridge that warrants closer scrutiny. Other issues were raised, including a suggestion that the National Park Authority should be the authority for the whole of Loch Long and again issues were raised regarding single authorities for a loch system and the need for cooperation on development plans. There was a call for policy guidance to bind local authorities to work in partnership although it was also suggested that the National Park Authority should have precedence.
Question 4: What issues should we be considering in implementing the extension of the boundary for marine fish farming to the 12 mile limit?
9. Responses to this question were mixed. Some respondents expressed concerns that any extension would serve no practical purpose and therefore not be relevant to fish farming as it is unlikely that finfish developments would go out this far and shellfish farming is always likely to be coastal. Conversely, other respondents suggested the benefits of extension as it would create a single regulatory system but highlighted the need for additional data to base forward planning decisions and the need to consider the possibilities of further anomalies. It was suggested that, when implementing the extension of the boundary for marine fish farming to the 12 mile limit, issues to be considered would include the safety of navigation (Coast Protection Act 1949, Section 34), freedom of navigation ( UNCLOS) and fishing rights. It was also noted that full implications without changes in WEWS would need to be considered and explored and the need for training and support was noted.
« Previous | Contents | Next »