Fish farm consenting pre-application pilots: independent evaluation report

3. Results

3.1 Questionnaire results

The results of the questionnaire are presented below, divided into General, Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the pre application process. At the time of completing the questionnaire, most stakeholders had not yet had experience of Stage 4 of the pilot pre-application process and so that has not been included in these results. The fact that not all stakeholders had experienced Stage 4 may have impacted their perception of the pilot process in its totality. Comments made within the questionnaires have been incorporated into the qualitative thematic analysis presented in Section 3.2. When reviewing the results as calculated (mean, mode etc.), the mode value was considered to be representative of the results and is shown here.

Table 3.1

Questionnaire results covering general questions (not related to a specific stage of the pre application process). N refers to the number of responses that were received for each question. The mode is presented for each question.

Question

• How would you rate the general satisfaction levels of the pilot pre-application process, compared to the previous consenting process? (n=11)

Mode

• Moderate

Question

• To what extent will the new pre-application process help with preparations for the formal aquaculture consents application process? (n=7)

Mode

• To a small extent

Question

• How well did the process provide an early understanding of potential constraints? (n=8)

Mode

• Somewhat well

Question

• To what extent did the process minimise delays in the consenting process? (n=7)

Mode

• To a small extent/ not at all

Table 3.2

Questionnaire results covering Stage 1 of the Pilot Pre-Application Process. N refers to the number of responses that were received for each question. The median has been calculated and is presented for each question.

Question

• How clear were the instructions for the completion of Stage 1. Request for pre-application advice? (n=8)

Mode

• Moderate

Question

• Could anything be added to the pre-application template to improve this stage of the process (Stage One. Request for pre-application advice)? (n=10)

Mode

• Yes

Question

• Was the 2-week timescale achieved? (n=10)

Mode

• Yes/no

Question

• Was the 2-week timescale achieved? (n=10)

Mode

• n/a

Table 3.3

Questionnaire results covering Stage 2 of the Pilot Pre-Application Process. N refers to the number of responses that were received for each question. The mode is presented for each question.

Question

• How would you rate the coordination of Stage 2 (Provision of Joint Pre-Application Advice) (Non-developer stakeholders only)? (n=6)

Mode

• Neutral

Question

• How helpful was the Joint Pre-Application Advice in identifying potential constraints early on? (n=10)

Mode

• Somewhat neutral/ Neither helpful nor unhelpful

Question

• To what extent did the Joint Pre-Application Advice streamline the consenting process, when compared to the previous process? (n=11)

Mode

• Somewhat neutral/ Neither helpful nor unhelpful

Table 3.4

Questionnaire results covering Stage 3 of the Pilot Pre-Application Process. N refers to the number of responses that were received for each question. The mode is presented for each question.

Question

• To what extent did the Joint Pre-Application Advice streamline the consenting process, when compared to the previous process? (n=11)

Mode

• Neither effective nor ineffective

Question

• How effective was the process in improving transparency and community engagement compared to the previous consenting process? (n=4)

Mode

• Somewhat effective/ Neither effective nor ineffective

3.2 Semi-structured interview results and thematic analysis

The results of the thematic analysis are presented as a structured summary of key findings, reflecting the systematic approach taken to analyse stakeholder responses (See Section 2.5.2 for description of thematic analysis). Through an iterative process of data familiarisation, coding, and thematic organisation, a series of sub-themes emerged, capturing recurring ideas, concerns, and perspectives expressed by participants. These sub-themes were then reviewed and refined, allowing for a more coherent grouping into four overarching themes that encapsulate the core insights from the data. The following sections outline each of these themes, illustrating them with representative quotes and analysis to highlight their significance within the context of the evaluation. Where relevant, the results have been categorised by stakeholder type (developer, regulatory body and ‘other’).

Data has been taken from the interviews carried out with stakeholders and from the qualitative type data provided within the questionnaires.

The themes under which the data have been analysed follow the four agreed outcomes for the CTG. The graph below shows the frequency of occurrence of each of these themes in the interview and questionnaire data that has been analysed through thematic analysis.

Theme 1. Delays in the consenting process are minimised by removing unnecessary downtime, duplication, and non-value-added steps. Improved co-ordination between regulators to facilitate communication and streamline the consenting process.

Theme 2. The consenting process provides developers with an early understanding of potential constraints, leading to a reduced time to achieve all consents and ensures developers know and understand information required to support a regulatory decision.

Theme 3. The consenting process includes simple, clear mechanisms for informing and facilitating third party engagement. Improved transparency and community engagement by ensuring an effective and meaningful opportunity for communities, consultees, and other interest groups.

Theme 4. Identification of any remaining issues or areas for further exploration within a continuous improvement project.

The sections below take each theme and present the sub-themes that were present within each theme. The frequency of occurrence is presented, which reflects how often each sub-theme was referenced across the dataset. This includes multiple mentions by the same respondent, as frequency was used as an indicator of the emphasis or prominence of particular issues. This approach supports transparency in the analysis and helps to highlight the most commonly discussed areas of interest, concern, or value among stakeholders.

Theme 1 - Delays in the consenting process are minimised by removing unnecessary downtime, duplication, and non-value-added steps. Improved co-ordination between regulators to facilitate communication and streamline the consenting process.

This theme reflects stakeholders’ views on the efficiency and clarity of the pilot pre-application process, particularly in relation to streamlining and co-ordination across regulatory bodies. The sub-themes listed below capture specific aspects of this overarching theme, highlighting both strengths and challenges in implementation. Each sub-theme is accompanied by the frequency with which it was mentioned, which includes repeated references by individual participants. This frequency of occurrence provides insight into the relative emphasis placed on particular issues and supports a deeper understanding of where improvements may be most impactful. The graph below presents a visual summary of these frequencies. The details discussed within each of these sub-themes is presented in Section 4

Discussion and Conclusions. Sub-themes within this theme include:

• Clearer guidance required
• Delays to guideline timeline
• Guidance was clear
• Lack of clear coordination
• Perceived lack of transparency within the process
• Resource and capacity management
• Uncertainty in meeting future timelines

Theme 2 - The consenting process provides developers with an early understanding of potential constraints, leading to a reduced time to achieve all consents and ensures developers know and understand information required to support a regulatory decision.

This theme captures perspectives on how the pilot pre-application process supports early clarity for developers, particularly in identifying site-specific constraints and regulatory requirements. Only one sub-theme was identified under this theme: Early identification of key risks within a site. This sub-theme reflects the importance placed on having timely, site-relevant information to inform project planning and decision-making.

Theme 3 - The consenting process includes simple, clear mechanisms for informing and facilitating third party engagement. Improved transparency and community engagement by ensuring an effective and meaningful opportunity for communities, consultees, and other interest groups.

This section presents the sub-themes identified in relation to third-party engagement and transparency within the consenting process. The analysis highlights a range of perspectives on how and when stakeholders and communities were engaged, the clarity and accessibility of information shared, and how public perception was shaped throughout the process. Each sub-theme is defined and accompanied by its frequency of occurrence within the data. As with previous sections, frequency reflects the total number of references made to a sub-theme, which may include multiple references by the same respondent. These frequencies provide insight into the prominence and recurrence of each issue within participants' feedback.

• Concurrent stakeholder engagement
• Conflicting stakeholder perspectives
• Earlier engagement with community and stakeholders required
• Feedback mechanisms with stakeholders
• Impact of terminology on public perception

Theme 4 - Identification of any remaining issues or areas for further exploration within a continuous improvement project.

This final theme captures reflections from respondents on the pilot as an evolving and iterative process, highlighting aspects that worked well as well as areas where further development may be beneficial. The sub-themes identified under this category reflect a mix of constructive suggestions and observations, touching on administrative processes, communication, coordination, and the potential for scaling or refining the approach. The frequency of occurrence of each sub-theme is presented below, based on the number of times the issue was raised across all interviews. As with previous themes, it is important to note that a single respondent may have raised a sub-theme multiple times, and this is reflected in the overall count of occurrences.

• Administrative burden
• Expansion of pilot
• General positive feedback
• General uncertainty over process
• Improved communication needed
• Need for external coordinator
• Pilot process changes
• Quality assurance within reporting
• Streamline next processes
• Tone of cooperation needed
• Unclear level of detail required in early stages