Annex to the report on changes to the South Marine Plan

~ SPS Admin

Following on from our report on the South Marine Plan becoming law, we have made further analysis of the detail.  In brief the changes on which SPS may have had some influence would seem to be:

  1. Vision amended to be more relevant to SMP area. (Vision)
  2. More information on the Coastal Concordant. This may relate to our concern that local authority boundaries in the Solent did not meet up. (General considerations)
  3. Additional text on monitoring. (We had suggested 3 years was too frequent)
  4. Wording on aquaculture to define it as ‘sustainable’ not just any aquaculture. (Obj 1)
  5. No restriction on dredging for ports and harbours. We were concerned there should be no extraction in the Solent. (Obj 1)
  6. Wording to make clear that land based infrastructure must be ‘appropriate’. (Obj 2)
  7. Wording on employment to make clear the skills and activities to be supported. (Obj 4)
  8. The words ‘enhance and promote’ related to Marine Protected Areas. We had been concerned that these do not displace traditional use so may be the reverse of our comment, though from an ecological point of view we would support it. (Obj 5)
  9. Climate change defined as ‘greenhouse gas emissions.’ We had asked for clarification in the technical annex. (Obj 7)
  10. We had asked for the view from the sea to be specifically stated however the wording has not been changed. (Obj 9)
  11. MPAs. Wording added to ‘enhance and promote’ and to ensure boundaries can be changed until such time as all Marine Conservation Zones are confirmed. (Obj 10)
  12. Reference to the government’s litter strategy added. (Obj 11)
  13. Some ‘enhance’ text added on biodiversity though no specific mention of salt marshes as we had suggested. (Obj 12)
  14. Support for re-use of material. (Obj 12)
  15. More emphasis on water quality and moved to be under Obj 11 to add weight. (Obj 12)
  16. More strength and clarification given on the use of the hierarchical format of a) to c) or d). for each policy. We were concerned that the weighting appeared equal and in certain cases considered more emphasis should be given to avoid.