Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

This is another amendment which highlights the importance of ensuring that there is a collaborative and coherent approach both to the way in which different planning authorities work together in relation to the marine environment and to the need for marine planning to work side by side with terrestrial planning. I take the point but I am not convinced that the kind of legislative approach outlined in the amendments is the right way to ensure this. We have discussed the approach that is needed to ensure that there is one marine policy statement for the whole of the United Kingdom in which all the devolved Administrations have ownership. The way to achieve this is partly through the encouragement contained in the Bill, partly because it is to the advantage of all the policy authorities to come together and partly because our experience of the discussions that have taken place between the different Administrations and the UK Government lead us to believe that there is a determination to make all these arrangements work together. I accept the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the need for a sense of ownership. The question is the extent to which that ownership is arrived at because of the encouragement that is given, and whether you can legislate to determine it. I certainly think that the Bill is an encouragement to that kind of ownership. It provides a number of reassurances that neighbouring planning authorities will co-operate with one another in preparing marine plans. I know that noble Lords think that Schedule 6 does not really meet their requirements. However, it makes it clear that, before planning commences, notice of intent to plan must be given to any neighbouring planning authority. Steps must be taken to ensure that plans are compatible with any other related marine plan or land plan. There are various other provisions in that schedule about involving all interested parties in consultation. On Amendment 89B, we come back to the issue that we debated regarding the Bristol Channel. Nothing in the Bill prohibits two marine plan authorities from working together to plan collaboratively for a cross-border area. We intend and hope to do just that. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we are ever open to suggestions about how that may be done effectively. The drafting of the Bill technically prevents the creation of a single joint plan that crosses borders between marine planning regions. The reason is simply, as I said before, to protect the distribution of functions under the devolution settlement. A cross-border plan would mean giving each Administration the ability to adopt or reject policies for the other’s marine region. We have a real problem with that because it is not in accordance with the devolution settlement. Any attempt at legislation to enable this would have to be accepted by both Administrations and would almost certainly be extremely complex and inflexible. What is more, the current drafting has the benefit of absolute clarity about which is the responsible marine plan authority in any part of the sea. That is extremely important in resolving and simplifying the various management and consenting regimes at the coast and we think that it will help rather than hinder the process of coastal integration. However, that does not inhibit two authorities from working together, producing two plans in tandem that are entirely consistent. That is something that we wish to encourage. The work of planning and managing across borders is not new. I draw the attention of your Lordships, even at this late hour, to the excellent cross-border work done by, for example, estuary partnerships, in which the Government, the devolved Administrations and our agencies are already involved. We will also have the benefit of the various voluntary estuary management plans and strategies that are commonly prepared for larger estuaries. That will help to ensure that we create a consistent approach on both sides of the administrative borders. Earlier I reiterated our commitment to a joined-up approach to planning in the Bristol Channel. I emphasise that again; the same issue will clearly arise at the border with Scotland and the boundaries between the inshore and offshore marine planning regions. We are no less committed to working co-operatively there to develop a coherent approach that works for marine users and meets the aspirations and needs of both Administrations. I turn to Amendments 89LA, 89LB and 89LC to Clause 52(2), and the related Amendment 94B, which seeks to amend Clause 58. It may assist if I set out the amendments in some context. As currently drafted, Clause 52(1) obliges the marine plan authority, "““to keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect””," the authority’s planning functions—in other words, how it identifies planned areas and plans accordingly for them. Clause 52(2) contains a non-exhaustive list of what those matters could consist of. We would not expect marine plan authorities simply to ignore anything that was happening outside their borders. Indeed, as has already been stated, it would be unwise for them to do so. It is impossible to view our seas in discrete areas. The effects of the dynamic environment can be felt some distance out to sea as well as on land—I entirely agree with the points raised. This is why the Bill contains provisions for marine plan authorities to take reasonable steps to ensure compatibility with all other related areas; that is, areas at land or at sea which adjoin or are adjacent to the area, or may be affected by the whole or any part of another area of a proposed plan. It may also useful to note that the suggested amendments are confined to marine plan regions. They do not provide any scope to consider related terrestrial regions which are equally important. A great deal of development and impact on the seas takes place at the land-sea interface—that is another point that has been well made in our debate. The amendments are not limited to related regions of other marine plan authorities, which would have the effect of broadening the scope to considering activities in another region even if they were unlikely to have any effect at all. Keeping matters in the regions of other planning authorities under review is implicit in our legislation, and I would expect that all plan authorities, both marine and terrestrial, would work together when preparing marine plans as a matter of course. Amendment 94ZZA to Clause 56 proposes to introduce a requirement for the marine plan authority to have regard to terrestrial plans in taking certain decisions. I know that Schedule 6 is not popular in this regard, but paragraph 3 requires the marine plan authority to have regard to related terrestrial plans when preparing a marine plan and to ““take all reasonable steps”” to secure compatibility with them. I know that local authorities want the provision hardened, but it is a sensible and finely judged requirement. I would have thought that taking ““all reasonable steps”” to secure compatibility meets this concern. It is clearly one of the most important decisions that the marine plan authority will take, which could affect adjacent land. The duty is already imposed. The marine plan authority will also have to have regard to the marine plan when taking other decisions. The marine plan will have been drafted having regard to the terrestrial development plan. In addition, any development above low watermark would in any case need development consent under terrestrial plans. I understand the importance of this matter. I have listened carefully to the arguments in favour of including a duty to keep under review matters taking place in other planning regions. I have said that I regard that as being implicit in the legislation, but I shall give it further consideration between Committee and Report. I am happy to discuss it further, because there is not much point in doing this unless one can be satisfied that arrangements exist to incentivise and ensure as far as possible that planning authorities, whether terrestrial or marine, work together. One should not underestimate the challenge because there will be tensions in this environment. The Bill has the necessary levers, requirements and forms of encouragement, but, as I have said, on a duty to keep under review matters taking place in other planning regions, I am very much open to further discussion.