Scottish Government

4. Options for a New System of Marine Planning and Coastal Zone Management

4.1 Options

4.1.1 Introduction

The options for a new system of Marine Planning in Scotland have been developed over many years through a number of initiatives, both in the UK and more locally (e.g. AGMACs, the Sustainable Seas Task Force ⁴). The most recent steer on the potential options is provided in Sustainable Seas for All ⁵.

The manner in which marine planning might be managed, and how the objectives that underpin it might be delivered through licensing and nature conservation initiatives, is closely linked to the options on other policy areas of the Scottish Marine Bill.

At this stage, there are two main options in relation to marine planning. These are:

• Option 1: no change. This represents the baseline for comparison with other options; and
• Option 2: Implement a statutory planning system.

The main features of these options, the potential risks associated with them and the information sources that will be required to support an assessment of the costs and benefits are described in more detail in the rest of this section.

4.1.2 Option 1: No Change to Current Arrangements

Main Features

Under this option, a marine planning system would not be implemented. There would be little or no formal integrated planning of activities. Although high-level marine objectives might exist, stemming from national and international initiatives ( UK Marine Bill, European Marine Strategy Framework Directive ( MSFD)), there would be no formal system to 'unpack' these and to deliver objectives at lower levels in an integrated way. Decision-makers would need to take account of the high level objectives through the various sectoral licensing systems.

Potential Risks

There are a number of risks associated with this option. These are summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Summary of Potential Risks of Option 1

Main Features

Following the recommendations of SSTF, likely features of a statutory marine planning system would include:

• A statutory basis, whereby public authorities are required to make decisions "in accordance with" the plan and appropriate policy documents "unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise";
• A three-tiered approach consisting of:
  • an international tier in terms of the MSFD and OSPAR objectives;
  • a national marine policy statement and marine objectives for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse seas and a national Scottish Marine Plan; and
  • a local level composed of 9-13 plans within Scottish Marine Regions ( SMR). We have assumed that the focus of these plans will be waters within the territorial limit (12 nm), reflecting the relative distribution of pressures. Not all areas will need plans (they are only necessary where there are activities to plan and potential conflicts, e.g. Solway, the Firths, and the West Coast);
• National marine objectives that underpin the Scottish marine plan and encompass ecosystem, biodiversity, social and economic elements. There will need to be clear high-level objectives (these should reflect the objectives being developed under MSFD, ICES, OSPAR and the UK Government's vision for Clean, Healthy, Safe Productive and Biologically Diverse Oceans and Seas), which will then be broken down in plans into lower-level objectives, performance indicators and targets. The national marine objectives themselves are part of the baseline but the ability to deliver them will be provided by the marine planning system;
• Planning responsibilities out to 200 nm. Although the majority of activities, and therefore planning focus, occurs within 12 nm of the coast;
• Responsibility for making the plan will lie with Marine Scotland (the proposed Scottish Marine Management Organisation ( SMMO) - see Section 7) for the national marine plan, with Ministers responsible for signing off the plan. At a local level, plan making responsibilities could be delivered in a range of different ways including through local arms of Marine Scotland (possibly supported by local Coastal Partnerships on community and stakeholder engagement), local authorities, or through existing river basin management planning processes under the Water Framework Directive;
• A mechanism for consultation on the draft plan as part of the plan making process and provision for enforcement of plan policies where required. There are requirements for Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA) under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004 but requirements for public inquiry into a national plan are less clear;
• The plan-making body would have responsibility for co-ordinating the management of relevant data and maintaining and making available appropriate information to support marine planning; and
• Finally, the principles of ICZM should be considered in the plan-making process. The consultation paper defines Integrated Coastal Zone Management ( ICZM) as "a management process that aims to facilitate more integrated working or partnership working on the coast by different interests, including local communities."

The SSTF supported the overall objective for marine planning set out in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Overall Objectives of Marine Planning

A Scottish marine planning system would cover all activities, constraints and obligations in the marine environment around Scotland. It could take the lead on spatial planning for an activity, not withstanding that policy and/or licensing responsibility had not been devolved:

• marine renewable energy;
• biodiversity obligations;
• marine nature conservation measures;
• sea fisheries and inshore fisheries;
• ports and harbours;
• aquaculture;
• activities covered by regimes such as marine licensing and environmental consents including pollution;
• pipelines and cables;
• sand and gravel extraction;
• historic marine environment;
• recreational activities and tourism; and
• the MSFD obligation to achieve 'good environmental status'.

A local marine plan might deliver the following features:

• strategic local vision for marine and coastal areas;
• local interpretation of national marine plan and priorities;
• consultation and stakeholder engagement;
• development of local management policies for specific sectors and activities;
• identification of areas of potential conflict and resolving conflict;
• a framework for the granting of development consents;
• identification of areas of sea for potential activity/development;
• identification of areas and actions needed for conserving biodiversity;
• local decision-making for the application of marine nature conservation measures;
• construction of shared principles that could be applied by local public sector organisations in their approach to carrying out activities in the marine area;
• coordination with existing local management plans and existing regimes (which may not be marine in their focus) to ensure joined up delivery of a shared local vision for the marine area; and
• local data and information gathering and coordination to inform the development of the plan.

Potential Risks

There are a number of potential risks associated with this option.

Implementation of a system of marine spatial planning represents a considerable investment and there is always a risk that it will not achieve the anticipated benefits. This risk can be mitigated by ensuring that the planning process is adaptable with regular review throughout the plan process and provision for consultation and public hearings.

A second risk is that the system may become overly complex or bureaucratic, leading to uncertainty and delay (with associated costs) for developers and excessive costs to Government during the initial plan-making process; or that plans, once produced, are not adhered to. The risks of delay during plan preparation can be mitigated by ensuring that a robust planning process is established, with clear responsibilities and time scales for plan preparation.

Implementation of a statutory system of planning, with a requirement on decision-makers to follow the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, should ensure that the requirements of plans are generally adhered to. Ensuring that relevant stakeholders are fully engaged in the preparation of plans and that a participative process is developed to support their implementation will improve acceptance and understanding of plan objectives.

Incompatibility among policies may occur between neighbouring marine and terrestrial plans and may cause confusion for users of the system, and reduced effective management. In addition, the boundaries for marine spatial planning are administrative ones (i.e. Scottish and regional borders, seaward limit of 12 nm). Such boundaries may be artificial from an ecological perspective and, as a consequence, it may be difficult to deliver an ecosystem approach and integrated nature conservation planning. Ensuring a broad level of early consultation on plans and continued involvement in UK and international planning initiatives will improve the integration of Scottish marine plans with neighbouring marine and terrestrial ones.

4.1.4 Comparison of the Options

Table 4.3 summarises the features of the two options.

Table 4.3: Summary of Options for a New System of Marine Planning and Coastal Zone Management

There is a further potential option, of implementing a non-statutory planning system. This would still involve collation of marine data and information, accompanied by the setting of marine objectives and priorities. Spatial plans would be developed largely as outlined above, but there would be no statutory requirements for decision-making authorities to act in accordance with them. The plan may only require that public authorities must "have regard to" the plan in making decisions. Public hearings on the plan would also not be part of the process.

The main potential risk with a non-statutory system of planning is that plans, once produced, might not be adhered to. It might be possible to limit this risk to some extent, by ensuring that relevant stakeholders are fully engaged in the preparation of plans and that a participative process is developed to support their implementation. However, as the process and costs involved in preparing a plan are largely the same as for a statutory planning system but with fewer benefits, this option has not been assessed in detail here.

4.2 Sectors and Groups Affected

As noted above, a planning system (or lack of) affects all activities and interests in the marine environment around Scotland.

Key industry sectors affected include:

• marine renewable energy;
• fisheries (finfish and shellfish);
• ports and harbours;
• shipping;
• aquaculture;
• oil and gas extraction and related pipelines
• telecommunication and power cables installation and operation;
• sand and gravel extraction;
• recreational and tourism, and
• other activities covered by regimes such as marine licensing and environmental consents (see Section 5).

Affected public sector organisations include those that are responsible for managing and licensing the activities listed above, not all of which are devolved to the Scottish Government. They include not just Scottish Government departments and Agencies (such as Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage), but also local authorities and regulators, as well as the UK Government.

Other groups affected include recreational users of the marine environment, non-governmental organisations with interests in the marine environment and the general public.

4.3 Benefits

4.3.1 Option 1: No change

There are no additional long-term benefits from Option 1. There may be some short-term benefits, in that policy makers, businesses and marine users will not have to modify their activities. However, it is likely in the longer term, that political and economic pressures on the marine environment will ultimately require alternative solutions and consequent modifications in activity.

4.3.2 Option 2: Statutory Marine Plan

Studies by AGMACS, the SSTF and the Irish Sea Planning Pilot identified a range of potential benefits of marine planning. These are summarised in Table 4.4.

There are potential benefits for the full range of stakeholders from marine planning. The scale of the benefits is impossible to quantify accurately, as it will depend on the way in which planning operates in practice and the specific features of each plan. However, planning could significantly reduce the costs of conflicts, delays and compensatory measures associated with the current system, which can cost from several hundred thousand pounds to millions of pounds per development (see Section 4.4).

For example, the value of Scottish marine renewable energy generation is forecast to reach over £200 million per year by 2017 ⁶. If marine planning resulted in more rapid approval of marine energy projects, so that this value was achieved by 2015 instead of 2017, the net present value would be increased by around £5.5m⁷. There could also be benefits in terms of increased tax revenues.

Marine related industries and goods and services are estimated to contribute over £2 billion annually to the Scottish economy (see Table 4.5).

Table 4.5: Economic Value of Marine-related Industries and Goods and Services

If reducing conflicts between uses and delays is assumed to increase gross added value by as little as 1%, this would be equivalent to around £20 million per year, or a net present value of £294 million over the 20 year assessment period.

4.4 Costs

4.4.1 Option 1: No Change

Continuing with the current system of marine management will not result in any additional costs. However, if the risks identified in section 4.1.2 are realised, they may give rise to costs for government, businesses, society and the marine environment. These are discussed below.

Costs of Conflicts of Use

Costs may result from the need to resolve conflicts between different users, marine resources and ecosystem components. For example, the Consultation Document identifies the following potential conflicts among interests in Scotland's seas:

• conflict between the need for development at fixed sites for aquaculture and renewable energy generation and the obstruction this might cause to ease of navigation;
• concerns surrounding the economically important but relatively un-regulated harvesting of seaweeds and potential impacts for fisheries, nature conservation and coastal defence.
• protecting habitats of species like dolphins and other marine mammals against the needs of commercial operations to exploit the resources of the seabed;
• the need to develop undersea infrastructure against the needs for safety of fishing;
• the need to dredge to keep ports open against the impact on shellfish and aquaculture; and
• needs of green tourism against the impact of commercial exploitation.

Resolving such conflicts will require time and resources for the organisations involved to negotiate and resolve. In extreme cases, they may result in court hearings with costs met by, for example, government, regulators, developers and businesses, Scottish Natural Heritage and environmental NGOs and local fora.

The costs associated with resolution of conflicts are, by their nature, case-specific. Table 4.6 (at the end of this section) summarises a number of examples of conflicts between different economic sectors and between economic activities and environmental objectives. Further detail on these examples is provided in Annex 1. The costs include:

• loss of the value of marine resources (e.g. aggregates) that cannot be exploited because of the presence of conflicting developments (e.g. pipelines), which can amount to millions of pounds;
• costs involved in resolving conflicts (e.g. costs of meetings and consultation, costs of relocating one or more conflicting activities);
• costs to environmental organisations of campaigning against developments that conflict with nature conservation.

Costs of Modified, Delayed or Refused Development Applications

Conflicts among users and unclear environmental requirements may also result in further modifications to development designs, and delayed or refused applications. In the absence of a plan, decision-makers could face significant difficulties in evaluating whether proposed new developments did or did not support the achievement of high-level objectives. This might result in additional requirements being placed on developers to seek to demonstrate how development activities were consistent with the achievement of high-level objectives, leading to uncertainty and delay.

Most of the costs of delays, modifications or refusals will tend to fall on developers. As the example of Dibden Bay illustrates (see Table 4.6), the costs of refusal of major development applications can be very high. In this particular case, costs of £40 million to £50 million were incurred for the consents and public enquiry process. Significant costs are also incurred by the Government through consultation and negotiation on proposals prior to their refusal.

For some projects, it may be possible to accommodate delays within the overall planning and construction timetable for the project. However, for projects on a critical time path, such delays could be extremely costly and jeopardise the viability of the project. An example of this is the Port of Mostyn, where damages of £9 million were awarded for revenue lost due to delays (see Table 4.6).

Stakeholders responding to the consultation indicated that delays in granting planning permission are a particular issue for the aquaculture industry, potentially leading to significant costs through loss of revenue. The lack of a clear planning framework makes it difficult for businesses to identify preferred locations and for local authorities to evaluate applications.

Costs of Compensatory Measures

Conflicts among users and unclear environmental requirements may also result in the need for compensatory measures. There are few examples of industry or Government providing compensatory measures in the marine environment. Where compensation has been provided, this has generally been specifically to meet the requirements of the Habitats and Birds Directives. The main reasons for such requirements have tended to be scientific uncertainties over the scale of impacts, leading to provision of compensation areas significantly larger than the predicted damage. In these cases, the costs are incurred primarily by the developer.

Examples are summarised in Table 4.6 with further detail provided in Annex 1. The major cost is associated with land purchase and scheme construction, which amounted to £3.2 million in the case of Immingham and Hull ports. Licensing and monitoring costs generally add around 10% of the total cost.

Costs of Cumulative Impacts

Lack of an integrated assessment of the cumulative impact of sectoral activities on each other, on the environment and on society may result in unforeseen consequences for all interests. An example is provided in Table 4.5 of where information on cumulative impacts would help in the assessment of risks to environmental objectives.

Table 4.5: Example of the Costs of Cumulative Impacts - Boat Traffic on the Moray Firth

As pressure for the use of marine resources increases, a lack of planning may lead to the inefficient use of marine resources. Spatial planning can investigate the potential for interests to overlap and reduce the amount of marine resource that is 'sterilised' (i.e. excluded from other uses). For example, cables and pipelines may exclude the extraction of marine aggregates and fish through dredging. This may result, for example, in the sterilisation of aggregate assets worth millions of pounds (see Table 4.6).

Costs from Deterioration of the Marine Environment

The costs of deterioration relate to the loss of goods and services provided by the marine environment. A number of current risks of deterioration are identified in "Scotland's Seas: Towards Understanding their State" and are discussed further in Section 6 on marine nature conservation.

A summary of the type of costs and potential magnitude is given in Table 4.6 overleaf.

4.4.2 Option 2: Statutory Marine Planning system

Costs to the Scottish Government

Option 2 will give rise to costs for the Scottish Government in preparing plans at the international, national and local level.

Tasks involved in international planning are likely to include:

• consultation with national and international cross border partners;
• interacting with other planning authorities, particularly over reserved activities; and
• delivering international commitments to e.g. the MSFD.

The majority of these functions would be required regardless of the implementation of a marine planning system. Therefore, the costs incurred largely in consultation (attending meetings and writing responses) can be considered to be part of the baseline.

Marine planning is a new and developing initiative worldwide and there is therefore limited accessible and comparable data on costs. Some data are available on the costs of preparing terrestrial plans. However, these data need to be used with caution, as terrestrial plans differ from marine plans in a number of key areas:

• terrestrial planning systems benefit from a legacy of over 50 years experience of the planning process resulting in a stream-lined and cost effective system;
• experience has resulted in a large number of detailed policies being developed at national level to avoid and manage potential conflicts between different uses and between different uses and the environment;

Table 4.6: Examples of the Impacts of Conflicts, Delays and Compensatory Measures in the Marine Environment

• public acceptance of planning policies over the years has meant that it has been less necessary to collect data to resolve potential conflicts because they are effectively resolved by the policy;
• patterns of 'ownership' of the marine area differ from those in the terrestrial environment and maritime areas are perceived to be a public rather than a private resource;
• the scope of terrestrial planning is also more limited than the arrangements proposed for the marine area in the Marine Bill. For example, some key areas are not addressed by terrestrial planning such as policies relating to the environmental impacts of agriculture and there are fewer environmental objectives for land compared to the marine environment; and
• the environmental information requirements for marine plans are arguably greater because of the more open and connected nature of marine systems.

Two terrestrial plans provide a potential example of the costs of a national marine plan for Scotland. These are:

• the National Planning Framework for Scotland; and
• the Wales Spatial Plan.

These plans have a similar scope to that for marine planning, with a focus on sustainable development and are based on broad economic, social and environmental objectives. These plans are described Tables 4.7 and 4.8.

The tasks likely to be involved in preparing a national Scottish marine plan include:

• collation and management of data;
• plan preparation, including setting a marine policy statement, national marine objectives, policies and priorities;
• appraisal of the impacts of the plan;
• implementation of the plan; and
• review of the plan every five years.

Table 4.7: The National Planning Framework for Scotland

Table 4.8: The Wales Spatial Plan

These tasks would largely be carried out by the plan-making body (potentially Marine Scotland, see Section 7) but there would also be costs to other stakeholders (including government departments) in responding to the various consultation documents associated with the plan. Scottish Ministers anticipate that it will take somewhere between 12 to 18 months to draft marine objectives and construct a national marine plan. Allowing time for consultation suggests that the first Plan and objectives could take up to two years to produce.

Data Management

Effective management of the marine environment, both at a national level and local level, is dependent on sound science. Marine planning is likely to require spatially expressed information on a range of marine resources, including historic marine resources, and activities. Although data will also play a role in assisting decision-making in the licensing system and managing nature conservation interests, the costs for both data collation and management are assessed here.

According to the UK Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform ⁸, the average cost for each of the eight offshore energy SEAs (including oil and gas and, more recently, offshore wind) which have been carried out since 1999, and which cover the whole of UK continental shelf, was £2.4 million. This included data collection, which may represent up to 90% of the SEA costs. A significant amount of broad-scale information, including information on the historic marine environment, is therefore already provided through SEA ( SEA regions 4 to 7 include Scottish waters out to 12 nm from the baseline) and other data initiatives.

The UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy ( UKMMAS) is putting in place arrangements to improve the co-ordination and reporting of marine assessments, to ensure that they are fit for purpose and to inform progress towards achievement of marine objectives. Furthermore, the Marine Environmental Data and Information network ( MEDIN) aims to deliver a data management system, supported within Scotland by funds of £150,000 per year from the Scottish Executive. As part of this initiative, a Geographic Information System ( GIS) has been identified as a priority providing a front end portal for users to access data relevant to their areas of interest. These costs may therefore be considered to be part of the baseline.

New data collection is likely to focus on informing areas where potential conflicts are anticipated or where there are gaps. The amount of information required will therefore be largely dependent on the issues and priorities involved in the planning system and are likely to be specific to each Scottish region. The costs of new data collection are therefore included within the costs of local plan preparation (see Table 4.15 below). However, a cost of £150,000 per year to support a national database has been assumed as part of the costs of the National Plan.

Plan Preparation

The costs presented in Table 4.9 are the direct costs to Marine Scotland for the preparation of a national marine plan. We have assumed that the process and costs are likely to be comparable to that required for WSP. The core team required to develop a national marine plan is likely to be comparable to that for NPF (Table 4.7), excluding the costs of an SEA specialist (the costs of SEA are considered separately below).

Table 4.9: Potential Costs of Preparing the Scottish National Marine Plan ¹

The cost of developing objectives and policies for sustainable development and nature conservation is assumed to be included in the plan process above. This assessment does not differentiate between the development of objectives for the plan and those that may be required under other UK-level and international obligations (e.g. MSFD). Extensive work has already been carried out on marine ecosystem objectives as part of the MSFD and UKMMAS initiatives. Therefore, there may be cost savings in the development of objectives.

Appraisal of the Impacts of the Plan ( SEA)

As for the NPF, an SEA of the Scottish marine plan will be required by the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. SEA is a systematic method for considering the likely effects of plans, programme and strategies on the environment. SEA integrates environmental factors into policy preparation and decision-making. It also has an important role to play in increasing public participation and facilitating openness and transparency in decision-making. From experience with the Wales Spatial Plan and its associated Local Area Statements, it is advisable that SEA is started early enough in the planning process in order to influence development and that the same processes for assessment are used throughout ⁹.

As noted above, the average cost for each of the eight offshore energy SEAs, which cover the whole of UK continental shelf, was £2.4 million per SEA. If the data collection element is removed, an SEA can be estimated to cost £240,000. The full RIA¹⁰ undertaken for transposing the SEA Directive into UK law provides an estimate of £50,000 for an SEA of a regional (terrestrial) plan. The Strategic Assessment for the South West Regional Spatial Strategy was estimated at £70,000 - £80,000.

An SEA of a national marine plan will require more detailed consultation and analysis than that for a regional SEA or terrestrial SA. Taking these examples into account, and allowing for the scope of a national plan and the complexity of marine systems, £250,000 for an SEA at a national plan level (covering staff costs of £42,400 and consultation) provides a more realistic and conservative estimate.

Annual Running Costs

The Scottish Government has suggested that 30 to 35 staff would be required overall to resource planning. This includes two coordinators per local plan (i.e. 18-26, costs allocated to local planning below) leaving a small core for national and international planning (i.e. 9-12 staff). Some of these staff will be involved in the ongoing review process. We have therefore assumed that the team required to implement the Scottish national marine plan is likely to be closer to that for the WSP and will consist of a dedicated team of six (Table 4.8). The costs are set out in Table 4.10, based on Scottish Government pay band ranges for 2006 ¹¹.

Table 4.10: Annual Costs of the Possible National Scottish Marine Planning Team ¹

Review of the National Plan

Scottish Ministers intend to review and revise the National Marine Plan and objectives on a five-yearly cycle. The UK Marine Bill RIA assumed that review of plans will involve a full repetition of the process involved in initial plan development and is likely to include an SEA.

The full cost of plan preparation probably overstates the more specific requirements of plan revision. However, in the absence of relevant data this is provided as a maximum estimate, i.e. £750,000 per review including SEA. Assuming that it will take two years to develop the plan, over a period of twenty years there will be two full reviews.

Overall Costs to Government of National Plan

A summary of these costs over the 20-year period of this impact assessment is presented in Table 4.11. Further detail of the timing of costs is given in Annex 2.

Table 4.11: Summary of illustrative costs of National Scottish Marine Plans over 20 years, (Present Value Costs, 2008 prices)

Although the specific format of local marine planning has not been prescribed it is likely to be developed at the scale of 9 - 13 Scottish Marine Regions ( SMRs) and involve the following tasks:

• setting up of steering groups or SMR boards;
• plan preparation: setting local marine objectives, policies and priorities;
• appraisal of the impacts of the plan ( SEA);
• public enquiry;
• data management;
• ongoing operation; and
• plan review.

We have assumed that the focus of these plans will be out to the limit of Scottish territorial waters, on the basis that human pressures are most concentrated in this area. The national marine plan could be used to manage the generally lower levels of pressure offshore.

A steering group or board is likely to be appointed to deliver local planning and may include local authorities, marine industries, Local Coastal Partnerships, Inshore Fisheries Groups, RBMP Area Advisory Groups and various recreational interests.

It is not yet clear who will meet the full cost of developing local plans. We have assumed here that the costs of setting up and running boards for SMRs will be met by the Scottish Government.

The costs presented in this section represent the direct costs for the creation and operation of local marine plans. Examples of costs are drawn from the costs involved in comparable existing plans such as:

• Irish Sea Marine Spatial Planning Pilot ( MSPP);
• River Basin Management Plans ( RBMP);
• English Regional Spatial Strategies ( RSS);
• inshore Fisheries Groups;
• the Sustainable Scottish Marine Environment Initiatives ( SSMEIs), particularly those in the Clyde;
• the Scottish Coastal Forum;
• the Solway Local Partnership; and
• Area Advisory Groups ( AAGs) under the WFD¹².

Setting-up and Running of SMR Boards

Possible models for the SMR Boards include the Boards of National Park Authorities and liaison panels for River Basin Management Plans ( RBMP) under the Water Framework Directive.

The Board of the National Park Authority is the principle decision-making body. The Boards are typically composed of locally elected representatives and Scottish ministerial appointments. The Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park Board has 25 members and cost £250,000 to run in 2004/05 ¹³. SNH notes that the composition of the SMR Board will be important and should balance the need for local representation with the need to include expertise and experience on inshore fisheries management, aquaculture and maritime shipping/ports.

The Environment Agency estimated that it incurs costs of £64,000 (personal communication, 2006) to set up each liaison panel associated with RBMPs. This includes the costs of venues, catering, running stakeholder workshops and training courses for staff. Liaison panels have no more than 15 members, except the cross border panels, which may have up to 18. These costs do not take account of time contributed by existing Environment Agency staff or overheads, nor do they cover the costs of developing communication strategies, thus they may represent an under estimate.

For local marine planning, there may be opportunities for cost savings where existing coastal partnerships are already well-developed, e.g. the Solway Local Partnership and fora established for the SSMEIs. Therefore, a cost of £100,000 per year is estimated for each SMR Board to cover workshops, training and annual running.

Plan Preparation: Setting Local Marine Objectives, Policies and Priorities

Estimates of the cost of plan preparation were drawn from experiences with the Clyde SSMEI Pilot Project, the Highland Regional Council and the Marine Spatial Planning Pilot ( MSPP) in the Irish Sea and the Highland Regional Council, as shown in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12: Examples of the Costs of Local Plan Preparation

Given the examples above, it seems likely that the cost of plan preparation could range from £0.75m to £1.5m, covering the broad range of planning requirements in the different Scottish marine regions. Although each plan is likely to be developed by an independent SMR Board, it is likely that overall direction will come from the national plan-making body (potentially Marine Scotland - see section 7). There are therefore likely to be efficiency savings in plan development over time from the increase in experience within the plan-making body. This saving could amount to around 10%, potentially reducing the cost of this component to £680,000 to £1.35 million per plan.

Public Inquiry

Public Inquiry is a mechanism to allow interested parties to raise objections to proposals contained in local terrestrial plans in Scotland. An approach similar to this process could be incorporated into marine planning in Scotland. In order for the process to be unbiased and effective, there needs to be sufficient separation between the original plan-makers and those undertaking the review. It is our understanding that in Scotland, the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporter's Unit ( SEIRU) or Secretary of State ¹⁴ meets the cost of Public Inquiries on plans developed by local councils and appoints an independent inspector. It is likely that a unit such as SEIRU will also be responsible for running public inquiry on marine plans.

A comparison may be provided by the Examination in public (EiP) process for Regional Spatial Strategies ( RSS) in England. The responsibility for running the EiP on RSS is borne by the Planning Inspectorate ( PINS). Examples of the costs are provided in Table 4.13 and are based on discussions with a senior PINS official.

However, the scope of such an inquiry for a local marine plan will be somewhat different from that of a local terrestrial plan. While marine bodies are likely to deal with geographical areas of a comparable size to a terrestrial region, the issues that they deal with are unlikely to be as fine grained and detailed, although they could be more significant, and the number of interested parties is expected to be considerably fewer. It is therefore expected that the costs of running an inquiry for a local marine plan will be at the bottom end of the range in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13: Estimated Average Costs to the Planning Inspectorate of Examinations in Public for English Regional Spatial Strategies

In addition, the SMR Boards (or the plan-making body) will incur costs for appearing at the Public Inquiry, addressing the consultation responses, undertaking further research and evidence gathering where necessary. The cost to the South West Regional Authority of this activity for EiP was estimated at £600,000. Similar costs could be incurred in Scotland; if so, this could be a significant additional cost for the SMR boards or the plan-making body.

Appraisal of the Impacts of the Plan ( SEA)

As noted for the national marine plan, the costs of SEA can range from £70,000 to £240,000. At a local level, the same process will be required as the SEA for the national plan. Assuming some cost savings from experience gained in the process, an estimate of £200,000 per SEA is used here.

Data Management

As noted above, SEAs are likely to support a significant amount (£2.2 million per SEA) of the data collation required for marine planning. Data management is likely to take place at a national level.

Based on experience with the Marine Spatial Planning Pilot in the Irish Sea and other databases, the costs of establishing and maintaining a data and information system, which would be needed to support all the proposals in the proposed Scottish Marine Bill, including planning, could range from £200,000 to £10.5 million.

Taking into account the large amount of data provided through existing SEAs, an additional initial investment of £1 million per region is considered a sound estimate.

Annual Running Costs

As noted in relation to the national marine plan above, the Scottish Executive suggests that two full-time equivalents would be required to coordinate each local plan. These staff would be involved in preparation and implementation of the plan. The annual running costs of other local planning initiatives vary considerably. Examples are given in Table 4.14.

Table 4.14: Examples of Running Costs of Local Planning Initiatives

The annual running costs, as shown in Table 4.14, range from £20,000 to £827,000 per organisation. Some of the differences depend on whether they include or exclude costs for data collation and research, plan preparation and review, and implementation and enforcement. Costs per staff member range from £52,000 to £56,000. With two staff members estimated to be required to coordinate local planning, it is likely that £100,000 per year per plan will be needed for annual running, implementation and enforcement.

Plan Review

Scottish Ministers intend to set out the timescales for SMRs to develop and review local plans. However, in order to ensure integration with the national plan they are likely to be reviewed on a similar timescale, i.e. every five years.

At this stage, there is no basis for estimating what the costs of such reviews could be, as it will depend on the individual circumstances of each marine plan. The costs could potentially be quite significant, especially in the early years of marine planning, as the process 'beds down'. If major changes to the plan are required there could be a need for widespread consultation and even a further Public Inquiry. For example, the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan required a formal alteration in 2005. The Firth of Clyde Marine Spatial Plan has a 20-year vision and sets out a five-year framework to reach this vision. It is expected that this plan will be reviewed and rewritten after five years.

The UK Marine Bill RIA suggested that review of plans would involve a full repetition of the process involved in initial plan development. However, these plans involved a significant data component. In reality, it is unlikely that data costs will form a significant component of the review process as data will be updated regularly as part of the ongoing management and monitoring of marine objectives. Furthermore, the full cost of plan preparation overstates the more specific requirements of plan revision. If simple amendments are required, such as later on in the planning process, cost of plan revision of local plans may therefore be as low as 20 percent of the original plan preparation cost.

Assuming that it will take two years to develop the plan, over a period of twenty years three full reviews will occur. We estimate that the first review may be quite similar in cost to the original plan preparation but that later reviews will be less involved. Therefore, costs are estimated at roughly 50% of full plan preparation, i.e. £680,000 to £1.35 million.

Overall Costs to Government of Local Plans

Based on the discussions and cost examples above, Table 4.15 provides a minimum and maximum total cost estimate for the provision of local plans, based on 9 to 13 SMR plans respectively; Annex 2 provides further detail on the timing of the costs.

Table 4.15 - Summary of Illustrative Costs of Local Planning (Present Value Costs, 2008 prices)

Historic Scotland (an executive agency of Scottish Government) has identified that provision of advice on the development, implementation and review of a national marine plan to ensure that it includes satisfactory consideration for the historic environment, advising on SEAs of the national and regional plans (Historic Scotland is a consultation authority under SEA) would cost the Scottish Government around £50,000 per year.

Costs to Industry

As one of the aims of a system of marine planning is to provide better guidance to local regulators, industry is likely to benefit from the proposals. However, some industries have expressed concern that the implementation of a new system of marine planning might have the potential to delay development proposals, particularly during periods of plan preparation. A well-designed planning system should address the needs of all users of the marine environment, including industry, in resolving resource conflicts. Nevertheless, clear transitional arrangements will be necessary to ensure that delays to decision making are avoided.

A planning system may impose restrictions over currently unregulated industry activities, such as algal harvesting and tourism. Therefore, there is the potential for greater restrictions to be imposed on such activities, resulting in further costs for the industry sectors affected. This can be addressed, however, by ensuring that industry is engaged in the planning process, so that such costs can be identified and mitigated as far as possible.

Costs to Others

The direct costs to other stakeholders of marine planning will arise from their participation in the planning process (e.g. in responding to consultations and participating in consideration of plans). The size of these costs will be dependent on how far a plan affects their individual interests and how far they wish to engage in the process.

Historic Scotland has also identified that the development and implementation by Scottish Marine Regions of regional plans should include a budget to allow for sourcing of adequate archaeological advice and information and has suggested that it would be prudent to earmark a figure of £75,000-£140,000 per year for a period of 10 years in the first instance across Scotland (i.e. if there are ten Scottish Marine Regions, this would equate to £7,500 to £14,000 per year for each). If this budget is not built into the direct cost of regional marine planning, there will be a cost to others (e.g. local authority archaeology services) of this magnitude in order to engage with the regional marine planning process.

SMR Boards

Representatives on SMR Boards may include those from local authorities, marine industries, Local Coastal Partnerships, Inshore Fisheries Groups, RBMP Area Advisory Groups and various recreational interests. There will be costs to these groups as part of their role on the board.

However, it may be argued that these functions are already carried out as part of the current marine management regime and the costs associated with this are therefore largely part of the baseline. Furthermore, as marine planning aims to streamline the management process, there may be cost savings. For example, it is possible that, with a development strategy in place, representatives will have fewer contentious development applications to respond to.

Public Inquiry

Costs to local authorities and other stakeholders of the public enquiry can be estimated by the time incurred by participants. The number of participants varies considerably, depending on the number of interested parties and issues raised. Examples of the possible costs include:

• the East of England EiP lasted for 47 days and considered nine matters. There were 18 key stakeholders involved in the consultation process throughout the preparation of the RSS and about 28 participants for each of the matters at the EiP (a total of 252 participants). If these participants each attended for two days on average (a total of 500 person-days), and assuming a daily cost of £500, the cost could amount to £250,000;
• the South West EiP List of Matters and Participants identified nine matters to be discussed; 41 local planning authorities were invited to attend, most of these will be attending for 1-2 days and will be responding to one matter. This amounts to around 54 days of the local planning authorities' time. In addition to this, representatives from the local planning authorities will also be invited to attend some matters on behalf of the strategic planning authorities. Three strategic planning authorities are invited to attend, and this amounts to 63 days. The cost to local planning authorities for participating at an EiP therefore totals 117 days. Assuming a daily staff cost of £500, this is equivalent to a cost of £58,500. There are also additional costs for research and preparing for the EiP etc; however, it is difficult to separate these costs as separate items from the authorities' everyday planning functions.

The costs to participants in public enquiries on marine plans in Scotland could be of a similar order. However, it could be argued that costs of participating in the planning process will be offset by savings in the time taken in responding to contentious development applications.

Social and Environmental Costs

These costs are expected to be minimal as the aim of Marine Planning is to provide benefits for society and the environment from more sustainable management of the marine and coastal environment. However, restriction and zoning measures associated with planning may have implications for recreational activities and the siting of marine protected areas. These impacts are assessed further in Chapter 6 on Marine Nature Conservation.

4.5 Small/Micro Firms Impact Assessment

Almost all of the industry sectors identified in section 4.2 include some small and micro-sized firms.

As one of the aims of a system of marine planning is to provide better guidance to local regulators and industry, small firms are likely to benefit from the proposals.

A well-designed planning system should address the needs of all users of the marine environment, including small-scale activities, in resolving resource conflicts. This may lead to better representation of small firms that tend to be overlooked in such negotiations, particularly if they are not members of a relevant industry body or association.

However, a planning system may impose restrictions over currently unregulated activities, such as algal harvesting and tourism. Many of these activities will be dominated by small businesses. Therefore, there is the potential for greater restrictions to be imposed on such activities resulting in further costs for small businesses. This can be addressed, however, by ensuring that small businesses are engaged in the planning process, so that such costs can be identified and mitigated as far as possible.

4.6 Competition Assessment

The benefits of a system of marine spatial planning include:

• increased transparency from clear policies
• reducing the uncertainty to developers in the marine area,
• allowing the needs of all users to be considered, and
• equal access to information and data on the marine area.

All of these benefits are likely to have a positive impact on competition, by producing a more equitable situation both across and within different industry sectors.

4.7 Enforcement, Sanctions and Monitoring

Responsibility for compliance, monitoring and enforcement of plans would be carried out by the plan-making body, which could be Marine Scotland (see Section 7). Reserved issues would continue to be addressed by the respective departments within the UK Government. The plan would be delivered through the licensing system (see Section 5) and measures for nature conservation (see Section 6).

4.8 Summary

The present value benefits and costs of the two options are summarised in Table 4.16. The annual benefits ¹⁵ and costs are presented in Table 4.17.

Table 4.18 summarises the ability of the two options to meet the overall goals of the Scottish Marine Strategy

Table 4.16: Summary of the Total Present Value Costs and Benefits of Marine Planning in Scotland

Table 4.17: Summary of the Annual Costs and Benefits of Marine Planning in Scotland

Table 4.18: Ability of the Options to Meet the Objectives of the Scottish Marine Strategy