Comparative analysis of Maritime Spatial Planning ... - Seanergy 2020

een granted. A similar indicator was used in the WindBarriers project where it was found that the averagebuilding consent time was 18.5 months for offshore wind projects a not dissimilar period to those foundhere and, again no country was able to conduct this operation in a markedly shorter time. A possibleexception could be Sweden as mentioned above although this is dependent upon the building permit beingaccepted first time around.The national reports offer little on the relative direct costs of permits but this is unlikely to be a significantfeature since these direct costs will be tiny in relation to the costs of the project and even compared to theindirect and administrative costs of going through the permit process itself.A further indicator of the efficiency of the process is the clarity of information provided by the authorities tothe users and applicants. This was found to be clear, often using a standardised process, in seven MemberStates notably Denmark, Germany, Spain, Sweden, England, Wales and Scotland. Until recently thelegislation in France had been regarded as being unclear but in 2009 the process was greatly simplified. Aplanning exercise and consultation launched in early 2009 and completed in September 2010 identifiedan initial ten areas for the development of offshore wind farms. These offshore wind developments will begoing through a two-round tender procedure and this procedure will reduce uncertainties and consentingcomplexity for offshore wind farms.A linked factor to the time taken for the permitting process is the length of time the permits, once obtained,are valid for. In a number of countries including the Netherlands, Spain and Germany this can be aroundtwo years or up to five years in the case of Poland although in some cases approvals may be extended.There may be some conditionalities on validities, for example in Belgium the domain concession is notvalid until the EIA and sea cable permits are approved. Such conditionalities may ultimately be a majorfactor in arriving at a best practice for permitting, particularly in respect of EIAs, since it ensures a joinedup approach to MSP as discussed above.Indeed, one particular condition which would contribute to best practice is that the permit can only begranted on the undertaking to dismantle the structures when the project comes to the end of its life incompliance with Article 60. A further condition upon providing a permit should be the presence of adetailed and practicable emergency plan that contains actions for a rapid and adequate response tominimise impacts in case of breakdown accident or other emergency during construction and operation asper the Bonn Agreement.There should generally be a precautionary element to the permit process.4.1.3 Permitting for Wind Power in Territorial SeasFor most non–Mediterranean countries the process is reported to be the same both in the Territorial Seaas per the EEZ. Only Germany has differences in the roles of the authorities since the regulation of theTerritorial Sea is the responsibility of the regional authorities of the Landers with the Federal AuthorityDeliverable 2.324 | P a g e