Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

That is helpful information, and I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not claim to be an expert on the intricacies of the Planning Act. The point I was making is that there is a difference between the marine policy statement and the national policy statement that applies as a result of the Planning Act. The marine policy statement and plans will also affect decisions by a much larger number of organisations and a much wider range of projects than will be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. As I said earlier, we expect the vast majority of decisions to be taken fully in accordance with the MPS and plans. I shall now deal with Amendment 89A, although much of what I have to say applies to Amendment 90A as well. I agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that many of the relevant considerations that they have suggested in these amendments, such as specific local or site circumstances, new data, evidence of adverse impacts, other legal obligations and so on, would be exactly the kind of relevant considerations that I expect planners and decision-makers to take into account. However, these lists are, and will almost always be, incomplete, even if supplemented by guidance. I take the point made by the noble Baroness about the importance of guidance, and I will certainly see what further information I can provide to noble Lords about the nature of the guidance that will be issued. However, it is not possible to foresee and determine in guidance all the potentially relevant circumstances that might result in a planner needing to depart from the strict requirement to conform to the marine policy statement. The considerations and factors relevant to any decision will always depend on the circumstances. The relative merit that needs to be given to each factor will also vary, depending on the case. The danger of placing such lists in legislation is not only that they are inevitably incomplete, but that it tends to imply that more weight should be given to the listed considerations because we, as legislators, saw fit to draw specific attention to them. On subsection (5B) in Amendment 89A, we are happy to commit to providing guidance to the Marine Management Organisation and other decision-makers on matters that may be relevant considerations. That is already common in terrestrial planning where planning and consenting decisions are made by a different body to that which develops and adopts the strategic policy framework. We will also draw on existing case law developed on application of material considerations in terrestrial planning although, as noble Lords have intimated, the sea is a very different environment. We doubt that a specific statutory duty to provide guidance is either necessary or appropriate, especially in relation to conformity between the MPS and marine plans, as the authorities responsible for adopting both documents are the same. In essence, they would be producing guidance for themselves. This is an important matter, and the debate will aid clarity. The safeguards that I have provided are, first, that use of the ““relevant considerations”” clause will not be taken lightly. Indeed, if there was evidence that it was being used frequently, that would in itself call into question either the marine policy statement or the relevant marine plan and, I am sure, lead to calls for its review. Secondly, in the next clause, the Bill makes clear that any departure must be brought to our attention, and therefore will be in the public domain. The problem with trying to define relevant considerations more tightly than in the Bill is that it simply leads to greater inflexibility, which we want to avoid.