Clause 16
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, at end insert—
‘(f) any coastal local authority;
(g) the council of the Isles of Scilly.’.
I am sure that the amendment’s purpose is self-evident: to ensure that the eligible bodies that are set out in the Bill are not just Government agencies, as is the case now with the agencies listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1). Harbour authorities are also listed under paragraph (e)—I will come on to them in a moment. Coastal local authorities should also be listed, including the council of the Isles of Scilly—I am pleased to say that the Isles of Scilly are part of my constituency. The council must be specifically named and listed because it is not considered in all legislation as equivalent to other coastal local authorities. By the way, the council of the Isles of Scilly is a unitary authority, and was so before unitary authorities were created.
I listened to what both Ministers said in previous debates in which we attempted to attach a further body to a list of bodies. Perhaps they will refer to subsection (2), which grants the Secretary of State the power to:
“amend subsection (1) so as to...(a) add any body or description of body to the list, or...(b) remove any body”.
With regard to paragraph (a), the Ministers might well say that the Secretary of State could add to that list of eligible bodies coastal local authorities, or indeed named coastal local authorities.
To save time, and in anticipation that a future Secretary of State might be minded to do that by using the provision, the case for including coastal local authorities now is, in fact, very sound. Coastal local authorities should be added to the list of eligible bodies with which the MMO may enter into an agreement so that they are authorised to perform any function of the MMO, because they already undertake a large number of functions that are relevant to the operation of the MMO. There will be a multitudinous interface between coastal local authorities and the MMO.
As I said, the current list of eligible bodies includes harbour authorities. Members such as me with coastline and harbour authorities in their constituencies will know that most of those harbour authorities—most of which will have an Act of Parliament referring to both their functions and powers—are either local authorities themselves, or have local authority representatives on them. Such authorities may also be constituent parts of local authorities when it manages a municipal port.
However, the list in the clause excludes those local authorities that do not manage a port, although they may still have a clear maritime function. I will list some, but not all, of the functions that are relevant to the interface between the role of a coastal local authority and the MMO. The provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, through planning policy formulation and the exercise of development and control as far as the mean low water mark, involve overlaps between local authorities and the MMO. The construction and maintenance of coastal protection installations—sea defences along the coast—involves overlap with the MMO, and certainly with the Environment Agency. A further function is emergency planning powers, which can also involve planning within the marine context, and another is responsibility towards sea fisheries committees, which are already very clear and well-established and also overlap with the future IFCAs set out in the Bill. In addition, overlap is involved in byelaw-making powers relating to the use of the inshore zone, and the management of beaches.
Indeed, those two functions also overlap. A number of byelaws relate to beaches, particularly in the intertidal zone, such as regarding the access of dogs to the coastline, and to beaches’ management and use. Kite-surfing is an increasingly popular sport in my area. That sport, jet-skiing and various other activities are affected by byelaws through which local authorities have influence or powers regarding what can be taken on to beaches, and therefore on to coastal waters.
Many local authorities are also involved in economic tourism and development functions, including regeneration of the coastal area. For example, they support the local fishing industry by investing in future market development. That is integral to marine management. Local authorities are also involved in broader issues of community well-being, which can include maritime matters.
Given the recognised interdependence of land and sea environments and the reliance of local communities on both, local authorities have a clear interest in decisions that might affect the health and well-being of those environments and hence the communities that depend on them. Under land use and marine plans, local authorities are responsible for delivering the local development framework in all its constituent parts, including for the intertidal area down to the low water mark. That area is part of the English inshore region, as defined in the Bill, so local authorities are already performing a clear function when considering developments in that part of the marine environment.
The MMO is likely to be the best place to undertake marine planning on a larger scale than many coastal local authorities can manage independently. However, that might not be the case for the inshore area. For example, a marine plan for a complex inshore area with a multiplicity of users may be more effectively dealt with by a local authority or group of local authorities acting together with the MMO. It would be appropriate in those circumstances to incorporate coastal local authorities as eligible bodies, along with the Government quangos listed under clause 16(1). There is also a need to integrate land-use and marine plans with community ownership. It is imperative to ensure that the spatial plans for both the terrestrial and marine environments are consistent in their approach to the shoreline.
There is a genuine concern among many coastal authorities that, if local authorities are not included as eligible bodies in the Bill, the integration that is clearly necessary between terrestrial and maritime planning may become inconsistent over time. Including coastal local authorities would benefit the MMO and what the Government are trying to achieve. Given the expertise available in local authorities, there are clear advantages in delegating to them plans for estuaries and high-use or sensitive areas. It would ensure that the issues were well managed by those closest to them—those who can engage development stakeholders and secure local ownership at a local level. The two plan systems—terrestrial and maritime—could thereby be reconciled. The transparency of decision making and the ability of local communities to influence decisions that affect them are strong reasons for ensuring that local authorities are explicitly included in the manner proposed in the amendment.
Local authorities also have a number of other marine functions. In conjunction with the Environment Agency, they deliver coastal defence functions, and they have expertise in preparing shoreline management plans and in delivering schemes.