A number of reasons were given for the need to update PPG20, with most arguing that the guidance was published in 1992 and therefore pre-dated several pieces of national and European legislation, including the Water Framework Directive (2002)5 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004)6. PPG20 also pre-dates statutory and non-statutory plans such as the AONB Management plans and shoreline management plans.
As such, respondents stated that PPG20 needed to be updated to take account of, and clarify, relationships between the legislation, and relationships between plans listed above, with guidance on which has priority. However six respondents commented that PPG20 should not be updated until any marine planning system had been put in place, as this would allow for marine planning policy to be accounted for in terrestrial planning policy.
There were 15 comments relating to the development of ICZM and “coastal management thinking” since the production of PPG20 and that any update would need to give greater emphasis to integration with particular consideration of all issues facing the coast, their relationships with each other and the need for stakeholder involvement.
Four respondents also concentrated on the need for adherence to, and understanding of any guidance, and were concerned that operating authorities should take proper account of policy and guidance.
Question 6: We are aware that some stakeholders feel there is a need to amend or create legislation, to ensure ICZM is achieved effectively.
what specific action do you feel is necessary?
how would any new or amended legislative provisions ensure a
management approach that “builds on existing structures, so that competent bodies retain their statutory responsibilities at the coast, but work together at the most appropriate level”, as laid out in our commitments in section 9 of this consultation paper.
Question 6 summary of responses
62 respondents addressed this question. 83% of the responses agreed that some form of legislative action was required although the strength of the legislative action called for varied hugely. Many respondents claimed that there had been mixed or inadequate results from voluntary schemes, and that without legislation, it had been difficult to ensure a long term approach and obtain certainty about funding.
Some respondents felt that statutory backing for ICZM would ensure involvement of all competent bodies and stakeholders in the process, which would strengthen ICZM. It was also felt that a statutory framework
for ICZM would ensure better integration between different sectors and across boundaries. It was felt that a legislative commitment to ICZM