Publication - Consultation analysis

Scottish Crown Estate draft strategic management plan: consultation analysis

Analysis of the responses received to the consultation on the draft Strategic Management Plan for the Scottish Crown Estate.

91 page PDF

827.4 kB

91 page PDF

827.4 kB

Contents
Scottish Crown Estate draft strategic management plan: consultation analysis
Section 7

91 page PDF

827.4 kB

Section 7

Impact Assessments

Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment

A draft Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) has been carried out to analyse whether any of the proposed objectives, priorities and policies are likely to increase or reduce the costs and burdens placed on businesses, the public sector and voluntary and community organisations. The draft BRIA was published alongside the consultation paper.

Table 15: Question 11

Would you add or change anything in the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment?

  Yes No Total
Individuals 0 1 1
Organisations: 0 15 15
Local Authority 0 8 8
Enterprise or Coastal Management Bodies 0 3 3
Leisure/Tourism 0 2 2
Natural Heritage/Conservation 0 0 0
Other 0 1 1
Land and Estates 0 0 0
Other Commercial/Research 0 0 0
Fisheries/Seafood Bodies 0 1 1
Ports and Harbours 0 0 0
Total 0 16 16

Note: Question not answered by 18 respondents.

All respondents indicated that they would not add or change anything in the BRIA.

A couple of comments were, however, provided:

  • One respondent mentioned that the BRIA was not available for them to view.
  • Another respondent commented that the consultation document included reference to various external links/documents for individuals and organisations to refer to in the preparation of their submission (e.g. the various Impact Assessment documents). This respondent felt that this made the questions "cumbersome" to answer, and that they would have found it easier if the documents were stored in "one place".

Table 16: Question 12

Would you agree that the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment is wide ranging enough?

  Yes No Total
Individuals 1 0 1
Organisations: 10 4 14
Local Authority 4 3 7
Enterprise or Coastal Management Bodies 2 1 3
Leisure/Tourism 2 0 2
Natural Heritage/Conservation 0 0 0
Other 1 0 1
Land and Estates 0 0 0
Other Commercial/Research 0 0 0
Fisheries/Seafood Bodies 1 0 1
Ports and Harbours 0 0 0
Total 11 4 15

Note: Question not answered by 19 respondents.

Almost three-quarters (73%) of respondents agreed that the BRIA was wide ranging enough. No significant wider feedback was provided to this question.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) helps us to protect the environment by allowing planners and decision makers to consider the likely significant environmental effects of plans, programmes and strategies. A draft SEA has been produced in accordance with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. The findings have been outlined in an SEA Environmental Report, and was published as a separate document alongside the consultation paper.

Table 17: Question 13

Do you have any views on the evidence set out in the Strategic Environmental Report?

  Yes No Total
Individuals 0 1 1
Organisations: 6 13 19
Local Authority 1 6 7
Enterprise or Coastal Management Bodies 0 3 3
Leisure/Tourism 1 2 3
Natural Heritage/Conservation 3 0 3
Other 1 1 2
Land and Estates 0 0 0
Other Commercial/Research 0 0 0
Fisheries/Seafood Bodies 0 1 1
Ports and Harbours 0 0 0
Total 6 14 20

Note: Question not answered by 14 respondents.

Just over two-thirds of respondents did not have any views on the evidence set out in the Strategic Environmental Report (14, 70%).

Where respondents did provide views[8], a number of individual points were raised (please refer to Appendix D for a list of the more specific comments provided):

  • A respondent felt that the report could make reference to production technology in the finfish aquaculture sector and its consequences for animal health/welfare, environmental impact and impact on wild fish.
  • A respondent made reference to Key Pressures (Page 7 of the SEA Report) and suggested that it could make reference to the State of Nature 2019 report and the IPBES report as references to the condition of biodiversity in Scotland and more broadly. The same respondent felt that the report could acknowledge the scale of the issue of biodiversity and habitat loss more appropriately.
  • An "other" organisation felt that there was a lack of clarity in relation to the historic environment where undesignated but known sites were omitted from the text and figures in the SEA Report. It was reported that it provides partial information about the historic environment and does not provide the necessary consideration and protection of all of the historic environment (designated and undesignated).
  • A respondent commented that the environmental baseline (Section 3 of the SEA Report) provided a comprehensive analysis of the different pressures facing each of the SEA topics. Another respondent welcomed consideration in the baseline of the pressures facing the historic environment.
  • A respondent mentioned that Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) would be required to take account of the findings of the SEA Report and of the views expressed during the consultation. This respondent added that they would expect to have sight of an "SEA Statement" (similar to that advocated in the Scottish Government SEA Guidance) as the Plan is finalised.

Table 18: Question 14

Do you agree with the conclusions and recommendations set out in the Strategic Environmental Report?

  Yes No Total
Individuals 0 1 1
Organisations: 13 4 17
Local Authority 5 2 7
Enterprise or Coastal Management Bodies 3 0 3
Leisure/Tourism 2 1 3
Natural Heritage/Conservation 1 0 1
Other 1 1 2
Land and Estates 0 0 0
Other Commercial/Research 0 0 0
Fisheries/Seafood Bodies 1 0 1
Ports and Harbours 0 0 0
Total 13 5 18

Note: Question not answered by 16 respondents.

Over 70% of respondents agreed with the conclusions and recommendations set out in the Strategic Environmental Report. Two respondents provided further commentary:

  • One respondent felt that monitoring and evaluation arrangements could have greater links to the Climate Change Plan, Climate Change Risk Assessment and Climate Change Adaptation Plan.
  • The other respondent noted that they were content with the methodology used to consider the environmental effects, the thought processes involved, consideration of reasonable alternatives, monitoring arrangements, and the findings and recommendations of the assessment.
  • A specfic comment was provided on the findings and recommendations as they relate to the historic environment, as reflected in the quote below:

"….more could have been made regarding the potential positive effects that building maintenance and improvements could have both on the assets themselves as well as the role they play in placemaking. This is particularly important given the clear issues facing historic environment assets as a result of the impacts of climate change".

National Organisation – Natural Heritage/Conservation Organisation

Less than one-third of respondents did not agree with the conclusions and recommendations in the Strategic Environmental Report. A few individual points were raised:

  • One respondent said that the report was not available for them to review in preparing their submission.
  • One respondent felt that there could be reference to production technology in the finfish aquaculture sector and its consequences for animal health/welfare, environmental impact and impact on wild fish – "The big challenge for survival of the industry on a sustainable basis is to move from open cages to closed containment" (National Organisation – Leisure/Tourism).
  • One respondent made specific reference to section 4.13.4 of the SEA Report – they highlighted that only designated assets were mentioned. The same respondent welcomed the statement in section 4.13.6 which stated that the impact on the historic environment (designated, undesignated and previously unknown) must be assessed "in relation to specific work being undertaken". It was felt that this might be contrary to the "minor residual negative effects" stated in 4.13.3 and "residual effects... low in scale" in section 4.13.4.

A respondent that did not answer the closed question (Question 14) provided a number of specific comments (see also Appendix D).

Equality Impact Assessment

An Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) helps us to look at how our policy impacts on people and is an opportunity to promote equality. There is a legal duty to consider the impact of policies on people who may be differently affected in relation to the "protected characteristics" under the Equality Act 2010 (e.g. age, disability).

The Plan is a high level document and it is not anticipated to directly impact on equality. The intention is that the objectives, priorities and policies in the Plan will be either neutral or positive in their impact on wider communities. Further information, including the reasons why a full EQIA is not considered needed at this stage in the policy development, is outlined in a separate document, and was published alongside the consultation paper.

Table 19: Question 15

Do you have any comments to make on our Equality Impact Assessment?

  Yes No Total
Individuals 1 0 1
Organisations: 2 15 17
Local Authority 0 8 8
Enterprise or Coastal Management Bodies 1 2 3
Leisure/Tourism 1 2 3
Natural Heritage/Conservation 0 0 0
Other 0 2 2
Land and Estates 0 0 0
Other Commercial/Research 0 0 0
Fisheries/Seafood Bodies 0 1 1
Ports and Harbours 0 0 0
Total 3 15 18

Note: Question not answered by 16 respondents.

The vast majority of respondents did not have any comments to make on the Equality Impact Assessment (15, 83%), with less than one-fifth of respondents (three) making comments[9]. The only one comment provided is outlined below.

"Particularly writ (sic) licenses which are granted to commercial enterprises where small scale but important local industries are compromised is an area that must be very carefully assessed".

Local Organisation – Enterprise or Coastal Management Body

Question 16:

Please tell us about any possible impacts the proposals contained in this consultation document may have on groups of people with protected characteristics. The responses we receive to this question will help to inform the content of the final Plan, and final Equality Impact Assessment.

Few comments were provided to this question, and are outlined below:

  • A local enterprise or coastal management body commented that experience has shown that the unintended consequence of profligate fish-farming licence issuing has seriously threatened the ecology and potential sustainability in those areas where this has been allowed.
  • A local authority commented that the question was more relevent to be considered in terms of the "ways in which the plan is delivered in practice", rather than consideration of the high-level Plan itself.

The Wider Impact Assessments

The following wider impact assessments have been considered, as outlined below and on the next page.

Impact Assessment Context
Island Communities
  • There is a requirement in the Islands Act 2018 that everyone who makes or designs new policies must consider how these will impact on islands.
  • The Scottish Government has assessed the possible impacts and consider an Island Communities Impact Assessment is not required in relation to the draft Plan. The Plan is not likely to impact island communities in a significantly different way to mainland Scotland communities, and makes no distinction to the various communities across Scotland.
  • The draft document was published alongside the consultation paper.
Child Rights and Wellbeing
  • The Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) is used to identify research, analyse and record the impact of a proposed law or policy on children's human rights and wellbeing.
  • The draft document was published alongside the consultation paper.
Fairer Scotland Duty
  • The aim of the Fairer Scotland Duty is to help the public sector make better policy decisions and deliver fairer outcomes. The duty focuses on socio-economic inequality issues such as low income, low wealth and area deprivation.
  • The Scottish Government has decided at this stage that a Fairer Scotland Duty assessment should be carried out at the point at which "strategic decisions" relating to the transfer or delegation of management of individual assets are taken through mechanisms in the Act. This will ensure that strategic decisions consider opportunities to improve outcomes for people experiencing social economic disadvantage.
  • The draft document was published alongside the consultation paper.
Data Protection
  • Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Scottish Ministers have to complete a data protection impact assessment for all projects involving personal data and privacy.
  • It is not anticipated that any new or significant changes to the handling of types of personal data will occur as a result of the development of the first Plan.
  • The draft document was published alongside the consultation paper.

Note: final versions of the impact assessments will be made publically available after the consultation responses have been analysed.

Table 20: Question 17

Do you agree with the conclusions for the following impact assessments?

  Yes No Total
Individuals Organisations Individuals Organisations
Island Communities 0 10 1 3 14
Child Rights and Wellbeing 0 11 1 3 15
Fairer Scotland Duty 0 12 1 2 14
Data Protection 0 12 1 2 15

Note: Not answered - Island Communities (17), Child Rights and Wellbeing (16), Fairer Scotland Duty (17), Data Protection (16).

Across the board, a relatively high proportion of respondents did not provide an answer to Question 17. Where a response was provided, the vast majority of respondents agreed with the conclusions for the four impact assessments. Wider individual comments made by respondents are captured in Table 21.

Table 21: Wider Comments on the Impact Assessments

Impact Assessment Yes No
Island Communities
  • A respondent commented that it cannot simply be a tick-box exercise. All impact assessments should be appropriately scrutinized.
  • A respondent commented that the document was not available to review.
  • A respondent felt that an impact assessment was required. It was reported that the generic formula for return of Crown Estate revenues discriminated against islands who are most impacted by a high level of marine development activity.
Island Communities -
  • A comment was made that the public consultation mechanisms were flawed and should be reviewed.
Child Rights and Wellbeing -
  • A respondent commented that the document was not available to review.
  • Another felt that it was a time-wasting and superfluous measure.
Fairer Scotland Duty
  • A respondent commented that it cannot simply be a tick-box exercise.
  • A respondent was supportive of inclusive and sustainable outcomes for coastal communities. But went onto highlight that many communities at the riverfront within the (Glasgow) city boundary are within the lowest quartiles of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation and impacts of rising sea levels are projected to impact them disproportionately.
  • A respondent commented that the document was not available to review.
Data Protection Duty -
  • A respondent commented that the document was not available to review.

Table 22: Question 18

Do you feel there are any other Scottish Government policies which should be taken into account?

  Yes No Total
Individuals 1 0 1
Organisations: 3 13 16
Local Authority 2 6 8
Enterprise or Coastal Management Bodies 1 2 3
Leisure/Tourism 0 2 2
Natural Heritage/Conservation 0 1 1
Other 0 2 2
Land and Estates 0 0 0
Other Commercial/Research 0 0 0
Fisheries/Seafood Bodies 0 0 0
Ports and Harbours 0 0 0
Total 4 13 17

Note: Question not answered by 17 respondents.

Over three-quarters of respondents said that there were no other Scottish Government policies which should be taken into account.

A small number of respondents, however, made specific reference to the following:

  • One respondent mentioned the importance of not losing sight of the Community Empowerment Act.
  • Another respondent felt that stronger links could be made with Growth Deals, National Planning Framework, and Local Development Plans, and emerging Regional Spatial Strategies.
  • Annother mentioned the National Walking Strategy.
  • Another respondent mentioned Local Outcome Improvement Plans and Local and Regional Economic Strategies.
  • Finally, a respondent did not refer to a specific plan or strategy, but rather highlighted the importance of a continued understanding of flood level-predictions, alongside a strategic approach at a city, regional and national level to safeguard and adapt the River Corridor, ensuring long-term urban resilience and liveability.

Contact

Email: scottishcrownestate.consultation@gov.scot