Improved Systems for Licensing Aquaculture Development Working Group

1. Improved Systems for Licensing Aquaculture Development Working Group Phil Thomas

2. ‘Scottish Aquaculture Strategy: A Fresh Start’ Strategic themes and Working Groups: • Improved access to finance • Better marketing and improved image • Improved containment • Shellfish Forum • Healthier fish and shellfish • Improved systems for licensing aquaculture developments (ISLAD)

3. ISLAD Working Group • Remit: To develop and manage an action plan to secure delivery of the outcomes set out in Table (L) of new Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture. • Desired outcome: Development of the right sites in the right places through transparent, streamlined and proportionate regulation and processes to minimise adverse impacts on other users of the marine and fresh water environment. • Membership: Chair; Marine Scotland; Local Authority; SEPA; SNH; Crown Estate; ASFB; Industry (Salmon; Trout; Shellfish). • Meetings: 25/9/09; 27/11/09; 5/2/10; 24/3/10; 4/5/10; 1/7/10

4. Context • The aquaculture planning/licensing involves a multi-regulation framework of approval and consultation, involving Local Authorities; SEPA; SNH; Marine Scotland and DSFB. • The planning/licensing system hampers Scottish aquaculture development and related economic growth. • Whilst the Marine Bill (Scotland) will introduce a new regional Marine Planning system, planning development and licensing will remain unchanged. • The Norton House meeting led to the ‘Delivering Planning Reform for Aquaculture’ (DPRFA) initiative.

5. ISLAD and DPRFA • Work on aquaculture planning has been taken forward under these two related strands: • Delivering Planning Reform for Aquaculture (Aquaculture Planning Task Force: Chair - Keith Bray) • ISLAD Working Group of the New Strategic Framework: (Chair – Phil Thomas)

6. ISLAD Strategic Issues

7. ISLAD Workstreams

8. Workstream: Delivering Planning Reform • Under ‘Delivering Planning Reform for Aquaculture’ work has been planned against a framework of 28 main /subsidiary outputs, on a phased timetable. • Present position: 12 outputs (43%) achieved; 11 outputs (39%) are work in progress; 5 outputs (18%) are activities pending the completion of other work/events, but in line with original plan. June 2010 milestones 15/21 = 70% Overall – very real progress but with some challenges encountered and with further progress still to make.

9. Strategic Issue: Improved availability of sites. Desired outcome: Aquaculture plans in context of marine plans and river basins plans indicating sites for development. • Points: • Local Authorities are systematically incorporating considerations • of aquaculture development into Main Issues reports, local development • plans and framework plans; statutory consultees are cooperating. • SSPO has appointed a Development Liaison Officer (DLO) to help • companies engage with the development planning process. • Ongoing work is to improve aquaculture development case handling. • Coordinated initiatives by Local Authorities, statutory agencies and industry • to improve pre-consultation, application quality and application handling. • Ongoing work is to improve planning advice to applicants, to develop clear • and proportional planning policies and enhance the knowledge and skills of • planners, statutory agencies and industry so facilitating the planning process.

10. Strategic Issue: Large number of undeveloped leases. Desired outcome: Maximise the use of available sites and develop alternatives to firebreak sites. • Points: • Whilst the ‘unused production volume’ implications of the Strategic • Framework are only partly correct, there is a low rate of utilisation of approved • sites, which acts as a barrier to further development. • Ongoing work is exploring ways in which sites may be differentially • classified by the statutory agencies on the basis of their current activity status. • The industry DLO has begun working with companies to identify sites that • could provide a prospect for future amalgamation and rationalisation. • Research on permitted development rights and ‘use-classes’ is ongoing • and will report in July. • SEPA is examining the extension of AutoDepomod for use on sites above • 2,500 tonnes biomass capacity.

11. Strategic Issue: Fitness of purpose of locational guidelines. Desired outcome: Clear guidance on environmental quality, disease control and landscape. • Points: • In 2010 MSS introduced disease control and containment as part of its • statutory planning development consultation. • In 2010/11MSS will review locational guidelines: • review of sea loch nutrient model; • update of nutrient model parameters; • revised nutrient categorisation thresholds; • review of benthic impacts in locational guidelines; • work will be integrated with research on ‘sustainability Indicators • for marine aquaculture’. • By April 2011SNH will: • revise its guidelines on aquaculture and landscape; • produce indicative nature conservation sensitivity maps for aquaculture; • coordinate two landscape capacity pilot studies.

12. Strategic Issue: Simplification of procedures and links with Marine Bill and Marine Scotland. Desired outcome: Clear indication of how freshwater and marine aquaculture will be dealt with including maximising opportunities for linkage with other marine industries • Points: • Internal changes in operational management in MSS and the allocation of • additional resources in SNH have been made. These measures should support the evolution of better systems. • The impact of the Marine Bill will be taken into consideration as its provisions are implemented. • The DPRFA ‘Working Arrangements’ document has underlined the complexity of the present system. • This relates to statutory licensing responsibilities, consultation responsibilities and the nature and detail of the consultation advice given. • Finalisation of the ‘Working Arrangements’ document will allow these issues • to be better explored.

13. Representation of Aquaculture Consent System

15. Strategic Issue: Impact of aquaculture on other users. Desired outcome: Impact on wild fisheries, biodiversity and wider environment minimised through planning and licensing • Points : • Consideration was given to defining ‘other users’. • Main identifiable ‘other users’ were groups with • business or leisure interests related to the coastal marine areas. • Future work will focus on interactions with these groups: • Boat owners and users; • Energy and utility companies; • Tourism businesses; • Mixed stocked fisheries owners and users. • Synergistic interactions occur with: the food sector; engineering • supply; manufacturing; product supply; logistics; and professional • and technical services. These have been regarded as outside the • scope of the present work.

16. The End