Fish farm consenting pre-application pilots: independent evaluation report

Appendix A - Questionnaire 1 (Developers)

Independent Evaluation of Aquaculture Fish Farm Consenting Pilot Sites (Developers Only)

Thank you for participating in the evaluation of the pre-application process within the pilot projects. Your feedback is crucial in helping us understand the successes and challenges of the pilots, and in identifying areas for improvement.

This questionnaire is the first step in our data collection process. It aims to gather basic information about you and your organisation, as well as your initial feedback on various aspects of the pre-application process. Your responses will provide valuable insights into how the pre-application process has impacted the consenting process overall.

After completing this questionnaire, you will be invited to participate in a one-to-one interview. During this interview, you will have the opportunity to expand on your responses and provide more detailed qualitative feedback. This will help us gain a deeper understanding of your experiences and perspectives.

Please note that while you have the option to retain anonymity in your responses, full anonymity cannot be guaranteed due to the small number of stakeholders involved. However, all information will be treated with the utmost confidentiality.

Thank you for your time and valuable input. If you have any questions, contact Jennifer at Jennifer.fox@aquatera.co.uk at any time.

A reminder of the Pre-Application Process:

Stage 1. Request for Pre-Application Advice

Stage 2. Provision of Joint Pre-Application Advice

Stage 3. Community and third party engagement

Stage 4. Screening/ Scoping Opinion Request and issue of a Joint Scoping Opinion Report and Advice

* Required

Section 1. Basic Information

1. Name:

2. Organisation: *

3. Role within your organisation:

4. Level of experience (Number of years working in the sector):

5. Which pilot project(s) have you been involved with? Please identify the projects by region and/ or site name. *

6. Please respond to the questionnaire in the context of one pilot project at a time. For example, if you're involved in three pilot projects, please complete this questionnaire three times - once for each of the pilot projects. Please let us know which pilot project you're referring to in this questionnaire. *

7. What stage is the pilot at that you are working on in the pre-application process?

Stage 1. Request for Pre-Application advice;

Stage 2. Provision of Joint Pre-Application Advice Report;

Stage 3. Community and third party engagement;

Stage 4. Screening/ Scoping Opinion Request and issue of a Joint Scoping Opinion Report and Advice *

8. How would you rate the general satisfaction levels of the pilot pre-application process, compared to previous consenting process? *

Satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Moderate

Somewhat dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Stage 1. Request for Pre-Application Advice

9. Was sufficient guidance provided to allow completion of the request for pre-application advice template? *

Yes

No

I don't know

Other

10. If no, please provide details.

11. Was any information missing from the pre-application template? *

Yes

No

I don't know

Other

12. If so, what was missing from the template?

13. Was any additional information requested by the regulator/ stakeholders? *

Yes

No

I don't know

Other

14. Did any issues arise and how were these addressed? *

15. Did a joint meeting (regulators, statutory consultees and developer) take place to discuss the application? *

Yes

No

I don't know

Other

16. If so, was this useful?

Yes

No

I don't know

Other

17. Was the 2-week timescale achieved? *

Yes

No

I don't know

Other

18.

If not, what was the reason that prevented the timescale being met?

Stage 2. Provision of Joint Pre-Application Advice

If you have not yet been through this stage of the new process, please skip to the next section.

19. Was the Joint Pre-Application Advice Report considered useful?

Yes

No

I don't know

Other

20. Were any issues raised at the Joint Pre-Application Advice Report stage that required a response to be issued?

(the developer has 21 days to raise any issues with the draft Joint Pre-Application Advice Report)

Yes

No

I don't know

Other

21. What could be improved to avoid these issues arising in future?

22. Was any further (single party) consultation required before proceeding further?

Yes

No

I don't know

Other

23. Did the feedback received influence your decision on whether to proceed to a formal application?

Yes

No

I don't know

Other

24. What were the implications of the Pre-Application Advice on downstream activities? Did it have any effects (positive or negative) on resource requirements, financial costs, timescales etc.?

25. How helpful was the Joint Pre-Application Advice Report in identifying potential constraints early on?

Very helpful

Somewhat helpful

Neither helpful nor unhelpful

Somewhat unhelpful

Very unhelpful

26. To what extent did the provision of the Joint Pre-Application Advice Report streamline the consenting process?

Not at all

To a small extent

To a moderate extent

To a great extent

To a very great extent

Stage 3. Community and Third Party Engagement

If you have not yet been through this stage of the new process, please skip to the next section.

27. How effective were the mechanisms for community and third party engagement?

Very effective

Somewhat effective

Neither effective nor ineffective

Somewhat ineffective

Very ineffective

28. How effective was the process in improving transparency and community engagement?

Very effective

Somewhat effective

Neither effective nor ineffective

Somewhat ineffective

Very ineffective

29. What improvements, if any, could be made to this stage of the process?

Stage 4. Screening/Scoping Opinion Request & Issue of Joint Scoping Opinion Report & Advice

If you have not yet been through this stage of the new process, please skip to the next section.

30. How useful was the draft Scoping Opinion and Joint Advice Report?

Extremely useful

Somewhat useful

Neutral

Somewhat not useful

Extremely not useful

31. For those developers that have reached the end of Stage 4 in the Pre-Application process - looking back - had all constraints been identified by stakeholders at Stage 2 or had anything been missed and raised at a later date? What could have prevented this from happening?

32. What improvements could be made to the Scoping Opinion and Joint Advice Report?

33. Was a meeting held with the regulator/ statutory consultees/ developer to discuss the Scoping Opinion and Joint Advice Report?

Yes

No

I don't know

Other

34. Did the feedback received influence the decision on whether to proceed to a formal application?

Yes

No

I don't know

35. What were the implications of the Scoping Opinion and Joint Advice Report on downstream activities? Did it have any effects (positive or negative) on resources requirements, financial costs, timescales etc.?

36. Please provide recommendations that would improve efficiency (i.e. was there any duplication of effort?).

37. Please provide recommendations that would improve transparency (i.e. was the reasoning for decisions or feedback made clear?).

Final Section - Overall Perspectives

38. To what extent did the process minimise delays in the consenting process?

Not at all

To a small extent

To a moderate extent

To a great extent

To a very great extent

39. How well did the process provide an early understanding of potential constraints?

Extremely well

Somewhat well

Neutral

Somewhat not well

Extremely not well

40. To what extent will the new pre-application process help with preparations for the formal aquaculture consents application process?

Not at all

To a small extent

To a moderate extent

To a great extent

To a very great extent

41. Based on your experience of the pilot scheme, please provide recommendations for how the pre-application process could be improved.

This content is neither created nor endorsed by Microsoft. The data you submit will be sent to the form owner.

Microsoft Forms