Guidance

A coastal concordat for England (revised: December 2019)

Updated 23 June 2021

1. Executive summary

The coastal concordat for England dated 11 November 2013 was an agreement between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Communities and Local Government the Department for Communities and Local Government (now the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC)), the Department for Transport, the Marine Management Organisation, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Local Government Association Coastal Special Interest Group^{[footnote 1]}. A Steering Group comprising members of the above have reviewed the effectiveness of the concordat and agreed a revised agreement to clarify the principles of the concordat and encourage local authorities with a coastal interest in England to adopt the concordat in accordance with the HM Government 25 Year Environment Plan.

This revised coastal concordat replaces the coastal concordat for England dated 11 November 2013 and takes effect on 17 December 2019, at which point new applications to use the concordat should be processed in accordance with the revised version. It sets out the principles according to which the regulatory and advisory bodies propose to work with local planning authorities^{[footnote 2]} to enable sustainable growth in the coastal zone.

The concordat applies to the consenting^{[footnote 3]} of coastal developments in England where several bodies have a regulatory function, and is designed to form the basis of agreements between the main regulatory bodies and coastal local planning authorities. It provides a framework within which the separate processes for the consenting of coastal developments in England can be better coordinated.

The concordat is based on five high level principles, as set out below:

1. Applicants seeking regulatory approval should be provided with a first point of entry into the regulatory system for consenting coastal development, guiding them to the organisations responsible for the range of consents, permissions and licences which may be required for their development.

2. Regulators should agree a single lead authority for coordinating the requirements of Environmental Impact Assessments or Habitats Regulations Assessments.

3. Where opportunities for dispensing or deferring regulatory responsibilities are legally possible and appropriate, they should be taken.

4. Where possible, at the pre-application stage, competent authorities and statutory advisors should agree the likely environmental and habitats assessment evidence requirements of all authorities at all stages of the consenting process.

5. Where possible, regulators and statutory advisors should each provide coordinated advice to applicants from across their respective organisations.

2. Introduction

2.1 Background

This concordat is one of a suite of actions the government and regulatory bodies are taking to achieve more efficient, coordinated regulation. In autumn 2012, the Better Regulation Executive of the then Department for Business Innovation and Skills conducted a Focus on Enforcement review of enforcement as it affects coastal projects and investments. One of the main conclusions of this review was that businesses found it difficult to understand and deal with overlaps between regulators.

In consultation with the Marine Management Organisation and other relevant regulators, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) published an action plan responding to the review’s findings. The action plan included a commitment by Defra to lead on rapid agreement and conclusion of a marine/coastal development concordat. The concordat was drafted by a working party led by Defra in collaboration with Department for Communities and Local Government (now MHCLG), the Department for Transport, the Marine Management Organisation, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Local Government Association Coastal Special Interest Group representing coastal authorities. The concordat should, among other things, aim to provide applicants with a first point of entry spanning all of the regulatory systems.

The concordat will be implemented by the main regulatory and advisory bodies (the Marine Management Organisation, the Environment Agency and Natural England) in collaboration with coastal local planning authorities. The Local Government Association Coastal Special Interest Group endorses the concordat and will recommend the principles to local authorities, while recognising that this is not a mandatory requirement.

The concordat provides a framework within which the separate processes for the consenting of coastal developments in England can be better coordinated. It offers benefits to applicants, regulators and advisors alike by reducing unnecessary regulatory duplication, providing better sign-posting, streamlining assessments and increasing transparency and consistency of advice. The importance of the coastal concordat in delivering these benefits has been recognised by government though the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan. The plan includes a commitment for all local authorities with a coastal interest in England to be signed-up to the coastal concordat by 2021.

2.2 Where the concordat applies

This concordat sets out principles for coordinating the consenting process for coastal development in England and provides a framework within which public bodies relevant to this process can deliver a more effective and efficient service. The concordat applies to all applications for all coastal development, except those where coordination mechanisms are already in place, for example Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008, or under the Transport and Works Act 1992. In this context, coastal development means individual projects which span the intertidal area in estuaries and on the coast and require multiple consents including both a marine licence and planning permission from the local planning authority. It will not apply to projects that are solely terrestrial (that is, all above Mean High Water Springs).

The concordat is a standalone agreement about the consenting phase of development, but complements other government-agency led initiatives to promote sustainable growth.

3. Principles

The concordat is based on five high level principles that the organisations applying the concordat (the adopters) will promote, as set out below:

1. Applicants seeking regulatory approval should be provided with a first point of entry into the regulatory system, guiding them to the organisations responsible for the range of consents, permissions and licences which may be required for their development.

2. Regulators should agree a single lead authority for coordinating the requirements of Environmental Impact Assessments or Habitats Regulations Assessments.

3. Where opportunities for dispensing or deferring regulatory responsibilities are legally possible and appropriate, they should be taken.

4. Where possible, at the pre-application stage, competent authorities and statutory advisors should agree the likely environmental assessment evidence. requirements of all authorities at all stages of the consenting process.

5. Where possible regulators and statutory advisors should each provide coordinated advice to applicants from across their respective organisations.

3.1 First point of entry to the regulatory system

The regulatory landscape at the coastal zone is a complex one. There are at least three main regulators (the local planning authority, the Marine Management Organisation and the Environment Agency) with many other public bodies having regulatory powers in specific locations or circumstances (such as Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Coast Protection Authorities, Natural England, harbour authorities, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Trinity House, Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities).

The principle of having a first point of entry means that an applicant should contact one of the regulatory or advisory bodies who are adopters of this agreement. An officer from the body contacted would then signpost the applicant to other relevant adopters, and where appropriate, the applicant would then make contact with relevant consenting bodies. The concept of a first point of entry is not intended to place additional demands on any party, rather it is a means of providing a more efficient and effective way of working for all. It remains the responsibility of the applicant to obtain all necessary consents. The first point of entry can be further detailed as:

• when someone applies for a consent, licence or permission from the local planning authority, the Marine Management Organisation, the Environment Agency or Natural England, or requests information regarding a consent, licence or permission from any of these bodies, the first point of entry to the regulatory system should be whichever one of these bodies the person first approaches
• the body acting as the first point of entry does not necessarily have to take the role of the lead authority for the Environmental Impact Assessments or Habitats Regulations Assessments (see 3.2 below)
• upon entry to the regulatory system, based on the information submitted by the applicant at that time, the body acting as the first point of entry should inform the applicant they are likely to need further consents, licences or permissions from other bodies as relevant. However, it remains the responsibility of the applicant to obtain all necessary consents
• the body acting as the first point of entry should inform the applicant of the need to include the reference details and contacts of other applications that have been made for the same project, when applying to other relevant concordat adopters. This will allow for immediate join up when another concordat adopter receives an application
• in order to deliver effectively upon this principle, all concordat adopters will need to be aware of each other’s regulatory responsibilities or remits and have established processes, which will ensure that the principle is implemented effectively
• where relevant, the body acting as the first point of entry should inform the applicant of the concordat

3.2 One lead authority

The aim of this principle is to reduce the duplication of evidence requirements and to streamline the regulatory process. This is in particular for the production of Environmental Statements (under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) or Habitats Regulations Assessment (under the Habitats Regulations) for the same project by different regulators. This principle does not remove any of the statutory responsibilities or duties of any regulatory authority, but it does set out a mechanism by which the production of evidence supporting decision-making can be streamlined. In summary, upon identifying that applications for more than one consent, licence or permission require an Environmental Impact Assessment or Habitats Regulations Assessment, a lead authority for coordinating relevant assessment processes should be identified and, where appropriate, parallel tracking^{[footnote 4]} of assessments should be recommended.

Environmental Impact Assessment

This principle can be further detailed as:

• the adopters who are relevant competent authorities with respect to a particular proposal should reach agreement on who is the most appropriate lead authority for coordinating a shared Environmental Statement

• the following guidance, which is based upon Defra guidance on determining a lead competent authority under the Habitats Regulations, should be applied when determining a lead authority to coordinate an Environmental Impact Assessment:

  • where a single technical issue is more important than any other in assessing the impacts of a plan or project, the competent authority with the required technical expertise could lead
  • where there are a large number of complex cross-cutting issues, the competent authority with greatest capacity to undertake the work could lead
  • where a plan or project cuts across administrative boundaries (such as between planning authorities), the competent authority with the principal interest could lead
• the lead competent authority will then coordinate a decision on whether a shared Environmental Statement can be produced, what the respective roles and responsibilities are, a timetable for work, and how work will be resourced. Each competent authority will need to be satisfied that the Environmental Statement contains the information that it requires
• to reduce duplication of effort for all parties during the Environmental Impact Assessment process, where there is no legal mechanism to defer decision making formally from one competent authority to another (such as under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, one competent authority should be appointed as the administrative lead. This means that consultation and assessment at the screening and scoping stages of the process is only carried out once and one Environmental Statement covers all relevant Environmental Impact Assessment requirements. Each competent authority will need to be satisfied that the Environmental Statement contains the information that it requires

In practice, for a project that is mainly terrestrially based, the local planning authority may be the overall decision maker with regards to an Environmental Impact Assessment, notwithstanding the fact that the Marine Management Organisation may need to issue separate consents based upon that Environmental Impact Assessment process. Similarly for a project that is mainly marine-based the Marine Management Organisation may be the overall decision maker with regards to an Environmental Impact Assessment.

During the Environmental Impact Assessment process, the local planning authority would rely on the Marine Management Organisation to provide advice on marine aspects, the Environment Agency to provide advice on its regulatory responsibilities (including flood and coastal erosion risk management, pollution control and fisheries) and environmental duties, and Natural England to provide advice on its own regulatory responsibilities (such as terrestrial wildlife licensing) and terrestrial and marine conservation matters in a coordinated manner. Similarly, if the Marine Management Organisation was the administrative lead on the Environmental Impact Assessment process, they would rely on the local planning authority for advice on terrestrial aspects.

This should result in an Environmental Statement that is robust enough that the Marine Management Organisation could defer their responsibilities under the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations and use the Environmental Impact Assessment consent decision of the local planning authority to inform their decision on any related marine licence. This procedure should apply regardless of which is the lead authority or under what regulations the Environmental Impact Assessment decision is being made. Similarly, if the Marine Management Organisation were the administrative lead, an Environmental Statement would be produced that would enable the local planning authority to make their decision under their Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.

Habitats regulations assessment

This principle can be further detailed as:

• the relevant competent authorities should reach agreement on who is the most appropriate lead authority for coordinating a Habitats Regulations Assessment

• in line with Defra guidance on determining a lead competent authority under the Habitats Regulations, the following guidance should be applied to determination of a lead authority to coordinate a Habitats Regulations Assessment:

  • where a single technical issue is more important than any other in assessing the impacts of a plan or project, the competent authority with the required technical expertise could lead
  • where there are a large number of complex cross-cutting issues, the competent authority with greatest capacity to undertake the work could lead
  • where a plan or project cuts across administrative boundaries (such as between planning authorities), the competent authority with the principal interest could lead
• the lead competent authority will then coordinate a decision on whether a shared Habitats Regulations Assessment can be produced, what the respective roles and responsibilities are, a timetable for work, and how work will be resourced. Each competent authority will need to be satisfied that the Habitats Regulations Assessment contains all the information that it requires. The lead competent authority for Habitats Regulations Assessment does not necessarily need to be the same lead competent authority for an Environmental Impact Assessment. For example, there may be a mainly terrestrial project where the only effects that need assessing under the Habitats Regulations are on a European Marine Site. In this instance the technical expertise needed to lead an Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment will be different, and this should be reflected in the lead competent authorities for different regimes.

3.3 Dispensing with regulatory responsibilities

The adopters should ensure that they explore the legal options available for streamlining within the regulatory process. Where opportunities for dispensing regulatory responsibilities are legally possible and appropriate, they should be taken (such as dispensing with flood risk activity permits where the terms and conditions of a marine licence mean that the requirement of such a consent can be dispensed with).

3.4 Certainty on evidence requirements

Applicants should be encouraged to undertake early engagement to identify common evidence needs across different consenting regimes and enable the parallel tracking of any work required to satisfy evidence requirements where appropriate. Wherever possible, the information contained within any regulatory assessment should be sufficient for both the marine licence and the planning application approvals and may inform other relevant consents, licences and permissions.

3.5 Co-ordination of advice

Where either the local planning authorities, the Marine Management Organisation, the Environment Agency or Natural England are acting in a regulatory or advisory capacity for a coastal development project, each body should ensure that it is providing coordinated advice across its organisation within agreed timescales.

4. Other considerations

4.1 Costs

Implementation of the concordat should generate long term efficiency savings for regulators, advisors and applicants. In order to realise these savings local planning authorities, the Marine Management Organisation, Natural England and the Environment Agency may need to invest in ongoing training and raising awareness. Overall these bodies will benefit from making the regulatory process more coordinated and efficient for all parties within their current processes.

The costs to the applicant are expected to decrease through better working; there should be less time needed for individual discussions with all the bodies concerned. Where an applicant parallel tracks applications, evidence may only need to be produced once, rather than many times.

4.2 Charging

The concordat will not have any implications for the charging regimes of any of the adopters, who will each charge for any services within their own legal remits. Regulators may be required to cover their costs and are increasingly applying full cost recovery charges, including for pre-application advice work. Pre-application advice may identify and resolve application issues at an early stage and ultimately reduce the cost and time burden for applicants.

4.3 Regulation and enforcement

This concordat does not amend or remove the regulatory or enforcement responsibilities of any adopting party.

5. Interactions with coastal planning processes

Coastal development consenting needs to be undertaken with due regard to the relevant legislation and regulations, policies, plans and programmes that apply in the coastal area. These may include the National Planning Policy Framework, the Marine Policy Statement and other national policy statements, marine plans, local and neighbourhood plans, shoreline management plans, Local Natural Capital Plans, the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan, river basin management plans and coastal change management areas.

6. Review

The government’s 25 Year Environment Plan includes a commitment for all local authorities with a coastal interest in England to be signed up to the coastal concordat by 2021. The concordat will be periodically reviewed, as was done is in 2018 and 2019 to monitor the progress of this commitment.

7. Signatories

In 2013 the concordat was agreed by:

• Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
• Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Roads and Motoring)
• Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Planning)
• Chief Executive, Marine Management Organisation
• Chief Executive, Natural England
• Chief Executive, Environment Agency
• Chairman, LGA Coastal Special Interest Group
• Chair, National Parks England

After five years of use, in 2018 and 2019 the documents were reviewed in light of the previous five years’ experience. A Steering Group was set up in conjunction with the Local Government Association to conduct this review. The Steering Group recommended a small number of technical changes that reflect the way the concordat was actually being used. The Steering Group comprised of:

• Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
• Department for Transport
• Environment Agency
• Local Government Association Coastal Special Interest Group
• Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
• Marine Management Organisation
• Natural England

An updated concordat with these technical changes was published in December 2019.

Local authorities who are adopters of the coastal concordat

1. National Parks England was also a signatory to the concordat. ↩

2. Local planning authorities include unitary or district councils and national park authorities ↩

3. Consenting refers to the various consents, permissions and licences needed for a development to become operational. The consenting process has both advisory and decision making roles within it, and the concordat applies across both these roles. ↩

4. This is in line with the principles set out in the Environment Agency’s “Guidance for developments requiring planning permission and environmental permits” ↩