1 J South
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
Mr J Mackinnon
Chief Planner
Scottish Executive
3-H06
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh
EH6 6QQ
Telephone: 0131-244 1540
Fax: 0131-244 4071
martyn.cox@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
coastalforum@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Your ref:
Our ref:
Date:
28th April 2003
_____
_____
Dear Mr Mackinnon
SCOTTISH COASTAL FORUM INITIAL VIEWS ON PLANNING POWERS BEYOND LOW
WATER
In June 2002 the Scottish Coastal Forum (SCF) hosted a seminar to debate “Planning beyond low
water?” The event was prompted by a growing recognition in the Forum that extension of statutory
planning powers might provide a means for practical delivery of Integrated Coastal Zone
Management (ICZM) and therefore should be debated. However, it was not a rehearsal of the
arguments for and against planning for fish farming because these had been aired during several
earlier consultations by the Executive. Rather it was an exploration of the issues involved in a
possible broad extension of planning powers to cover installations and certain activities in the marine
area. This was intended to assist SCF in deciding its position on this subject.
I enclose a copy of the seminar proceedings on which SCF has held an initial discussion. SCF is not
yet in a position to make a recommendation on the extension of planning powers in general and the
debate will therefore continue. Nevertheless, SCF thinks there are valid points to make to
Government and feels it is timely to do so given that a Planning Bill is almost certain to be part of the
legislative programme during the second term of the Scottish Parliament. The preparation for such a
Bill, as well as for the introduction of legislation to cover aquaculture (started recently in the Water
Environment and Water Services Act), and the preparation for the emerging national planning
framework, present an ideal opportunity to consider the need for spatial planning for the marine
environment. SCF thinks that the extension of planning issue needs to be considered carefully and
urgently. Scotland has taken the lead in coastal planning at certain times in the past. Most notably in
the development of the 1970’s guidelines for the oil and gas industry. Since then other countries
such as Norway have done much more to provide a statutory and operational basis for spatial
planning in inshore waters.
Existing regulation in the marine environment is complex as the seminar’s “Background and
Overview” paper by David Tyldesley, and other case studies, demonstrated. In addition, as new
technologies emerge in the fields of aquaculture and renewable energy development the pressure for
change will increase reflecting competition for space. Indeed, the existing regulatory regimes are
already coming under increased scrutiny in terms of their ability to deliver forward planning,
development control, assessment of cumulative impact and strategic environmental assessment. They
are also sometimes found to be wanting in terms of properly integrated management of our coastal
resources.
Coastal Project Officer: Martyn Cox
Chairman: Captain A H F Wilks MBE, FNI
Secretariat: Manson Wright
1
www.scotland.gov.uk/environment/coastalforum
As competition for space in inshore waters increases, the need for marine spatial planning is
growing. Research into what this could mean for Scotland, based on thinking in the UK and
elsewhere, is needed urgently. Government has indicated acceptance of marine spatial planning as a
possible approach through the 2002 Bergen Declaration. Paragraph 76 of this paves the way for
greater emphasis on spatial planning to prevent and resolve the potential problems created by
conflicts between development, conservation and restoration of the marine environment and the
different uses of the North Sea.
When considering the question “do we need marine spatial planning?” the SCF has concluded that
the answer is ‘yes’ - it is a useful and potentially important tool for resource management which is
already being used in certain localised areas or in an early form for licensing certain activities on a
wider scale (e.g. the latest round for offshore wind farms). However, it still requires to be much
better developed. We need to determine how best to deliver it and assess how extension of aspects of
the terrestrial land use planning system could play a part, and what modifications or other
mechanisms may be necessary. SCF believes that the Executive should initiate both research into,
and debate of, the following questions.

What is the purpose of marine planning? As with the terrestrial planning system, SCF sees the
purpose of the new system as being two fold: (a) to secure sustainable and integrated
development which balances, and where appropriate advances, economic, social and
environmental objectives and considers the implications of the ecosystem approach; and (b) to
allocate space in inshore waters in a rational manner which minimises conflicts of interest and
maximises synergistic relations. In addition, as the Water Framework Directive is implemented,
River Basin Management as it applies to the coast and coastal waters will have to be integrated
with a form of marine spatial planning.

What does marine spatial planning need to embrace? It is important that the system provides
a framework for both forward planning and control because one without the other would be
inherently weak. However, we need to consider the extent to which marine spatial planning
should concern itself with "development" in the marine environment (eg installations or
excavations), and the extent to which it can also embrace “activities” in the marine environment
(eg commercial fishing, recreation, nature conservation). A holistic approach may seem more
ambitious but it also may lead to fewer anomalies.

Would the extension of the terrestrial planning system be sufficient and, if not, what are the
alternatives? SCF believes that a simple extension of the Town and Country Planning acts to the
marine environment may not necessarily provide the most appropriate regime. Rather we need to
investigate what form of spatial planning and mechanisms for co-ordinating development control
are the most appropriate for inshore waters (out to the 12 nautical mile limit) - an area that is
different in character from the land but often intimately connected with it physically and
functionally. Any new system should be fully integrated with the existing Town and Country
Planning regime.

To what extent can the existing system of regulation be improved and to what extent are
wholly new structures required? A more integrated, better defined and forward-looking
approach to decision-making (and a move away from the current emphasis on sectoral
management) is needed. Any new system (whether planning or not) should aim to minimise
bureaucracy as well as deliver results on the ground.
Coastal Project Officer: Martyn Cox
Chairman: Captain A H F Wilks MBE, FNI
Secretariat: Manson Wright
2
www.scotland.gov.uk/environment/coastalforum

Who should lead marine spatial planning? Local authorities may be the most appropriate lead
bodies for coastal planning at local level but what are the alternatives, particularly at national
level and should there be different lead authorities for inshore (say 0-3 miles) and offshore (say
3-12 miles) areas? There are moves elsewhere towards a “one-stop shop” for marine
environment consents at national (or devolved administration) level. However, this means a
local democratic deficit, it diminishes the role of local communities in planning and managing
the marine and coastal resources on which their livelihoods or amenity may depend, and it
distances decision makers from the consequences of their decisions. The advantages and
disadvantages of such an approach for Scotland would need to be evaluated with particular
reference to the special geographic circumstances of the country and the role of such a body in
forward planning and development control. Much analysis is required to determine the most
appropriate lead body for spatial planning.

How should we define the ‘coast’? A recurring issue is that there is no official definition of the
coast (or coastal zone) for use in spatial planning and management as a whole. However many
accept that the definition should depend on the particular task in hand. An appraisal of some of
the options for a standard definition may be worthwhile. Also, consideration should be given to
defining what constitutes 'development' in the marine environment.
There are a number of initiatives underway which would contribute to this research into spatial
planning. First, is the national stock-take being undertaken as part of the UK’s response to the EU
Integrated Coastal Zone Management Recommendation. Secondly, the review of development
consents currently being undertaken by the Department for Transport (DfT) (the Brooke’s report one of the commitments under the Marine Stewardship Report) should give a comprehensive insight
and provide a basis for a similar review for Scotland. Thirdly, much can be learned from the
experience of the local coastal fora and the various management initiatives for marine candidate
Special Areas of Conservation. The Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Project (SSMEP),
recently initiated by the Executive could provide an opportunity to trial marine spatial planning
measures in pilot areas. SCF expects such research to be cross-cutting and to help break down the
psychological barrier which currently seems to be associated with planning below the low water
mark.
Furthermore, there are lessons that can be learned from overseas experience. For example, the SCF
seminar included brief lessons from Norway and Highland Council has explored this field via links
with the Hordaland and Rogaland County Councils there. We believe there is a need to examine the
experience of countries where local authority planning powers have been extended into the marine
area and other forms of regime.
Finally, the seminar raised many local issues and case studies that could be studied to help inform
decisions about the future shape of marine spatial planning in Scotland. For example:

The boundary of jurisdiction of planning at the coast is inconsistent e.g. mean low water
springs in some places, across river mouths in others, and it includes nearshore waters in some
areas (Orkney and Shetland).

Shetland and Orkney councils have certain powers that allow decision–making over certain
developments within their internal waters (to 12 miles) but this has outgrown its original purpose
(designed to deal with oil and gas development but now used mainly for aquaculture). Again
there is inconsistency since the powers do not cover all their waters (some harbours are excluded)
Coastal Project Officer: Martyn Cox
Chairman: Captain A H F Wilks MBE, FNI
Secretariat: Manson Wright
3
www.scotland.gov.uk/environment/coastalforum
and the legislation lacks enforcement powers. It is understood that the proposed legislation to
cover aquaculture will repeal these particular local authority powers but it may not necessarily
make the position any clearer.

The statutory powers of port authorities vary between ports. The review being undertaken by
DfT could provide a useful broad analysis of this but since much port legislation is historic and
local in nature there may well be additional variations in Scotland that need to be understood if a
truly integrated approach is to finally emerge.

Difficulties for planning authorities can emerge at a local level if they lack powers to act and
this can lead to dissatisfaction in the local community. In one instance involving Cairnryan jetty
the local authority could not take action against activity that was taking place on that part of the
jetty that was below low water and outwith the planning realm. In another example in Luce Bay,
gravel was being removed from the foreshore under a permitted development scenario, despite its
removal being a potential threat to the integrity of the coast. In Loch Kishorn the implications of
a major planning application on the coast (for development of an oilfield service base), insofar as
they related to the inshore waters that could be affected by the development, extended beyond the
Council's statutory powers. Yet the public look to the local planning authority to take the
overview in cases like this.

Highland Council has pioneered the development of non-statutory aquaculture framework
plans since the 1980's and conducted an ICZM pilot study around Skye. It has also, via an
Interreg IIC project, worked with local authorities in other countries around the North Sea to
develop principles of best practice in coastal planning. Assuming project funding can be
obtained, the Council hopes in the near future to start developing a third generation of coastal
plans which would be broader in scope. This would be done on a partnership basis and could
have useful demonstration value for other parts of Scotland, particularly in the Highlands &
Islands, as well as further afield.
There are clearly some fundamental questions to be debated and some research to be done. However,
this should not delay efforts to develop and trial new approaches on the ground. We recommend the
Scottish Executive takes a creative and constructive lead in addressing this important and pressing
issue. The SSME project has a role to play in this, but will not deliver the answers needed alone.
SCF recommends that, in the first instance, the Executive should convene an inter agency Working
Group to take forward the issue of marine spatial planning. SCF would be happy to assist in any way,
for example by drafting the terms of reference for any studies, and I would be happy to meet with
you to discuss these matters further.
Yours sincerely
AHF Wilks
c.c:
Andrew Dickson, SEERAD
Jane Dalgleish, SEERAD
Ian Duncan, SEDD
Coastal Project Officer: Martyn Cox
Chairman: Captain A H F Wilks MBE, FNI
Secretariat: Manson Wright
4
www.scotland.gov.uk/environment/coastalforum