Mr. Jeremy Gault:

I may ask Dr. O'Hagan to answer on this as well. We would like to see the planning system in the marine as either part of or adding to the terrestrial planning system. Why create a new version, as that seems odd? There is no problem with having due diligence as far as environmental aspects are concerned. Public participation, as noted by the Deputy, is unclear in the Bill. From everybody's perspective, regardless of which side of the environmental or development fence they sit, we need clarity and transparency. People want to see how this will be done.

People want a single entry point in order to get a decision in a time-bound system, meaning they will not have to wait around. Everybody would much rather have a concise and quick decision rather than a much longer "maybe". It is about spatial management, and I disagree slightly with the Deputy with regard to scale. It does not really matter what is being put in the environment and it should be able to go through a process in any case. There may be extra elements to be put in place with a specific operation but the same process should be used. Issues regarding the high and lower water mark also regard a question of scale. Local authorities would deal with a smaller scale. Our concern is related to competency, as the marine environment is difficult. When people speak of high and low water marks, they are different every day, and they move because the coast erodes and accretes. Nobody seems to speak of accretion, when there is an addition of land, and everybody talks about erosion, which occurs when land is lost. The environmental systems seem to be in place.