Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 7 October 2026

Introduction

On 20 June 2025, Defra launched a public consultation on changes to marine licensing fees, exemptions and self-service licences. The consultation lasted 10 weeks and closed on 29 August 2025.

The consultation was hosted on the online platform Citizen Space, and responses were also collected via email.

The proposals were designed to enable the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to better fulfil its duties through ensuring the licensing system is streamlined, cost effective and proportionate. Ensuring efficient, proportionate regulation through marine licensing will also support the government’s mission to kickstart economic growth whilst promoting nature’s recovery. This is in accordance with the Dan Corry review of Defra regulators which seeks efficient delivery of outcomes, including through improved cost recovery measures.

This consultation response provides a summary of the responses received and sets out the government response and proposed next steps.

Consultation respondents

Defra received 146 responses to the consultation from:

• marine industries
• academia
• local government
• environmental non-governmental organisations
• fishing organisations
• research bodies
• public bodies

About this analysis of responses

Of the 146 responses to the consultation, we received 107 through the online survey hosted on Citizen Space and 39 by email.

Demographic questions were not analysed (for example, those that asked for name, organisation and contact details). 

The consultation included binary questions and open text box questions. The analysis in this summary of responses includes the responses from both the online survey and the emails. Not all respondents answered every question, and where statistics are included, the data represents only those who responded to that question. 

Public consultations are not necessarily representative of the wider population. Individuals and organisations who are more able and willing to respond are more likely to participate. Due to this likelihood for self-selection, the approach of this analysis did not rely solely on counting how many respondents held a certain view.

This summary of responses is not an exhaustive list of all ideas provided by respondents but summarises the most common concerns and opinions. A range of terms are used for respondents with a similar view, such as:

• ‘most’ - the majority
• ‘many’ - a substantial number
• ‘some’ - a reasonable number
• ‘a few’ - a small number

New self-service activities

Scientific instruments: risks to navigation

Summary of responses

Question 2a asked respondents whether they agreed with the proposal to make tethered instruments a self-service activity. Respondents answered as follows:

• 64% were supportive
• 6% were opposed
• 15% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 15% did not answer

Question 2b asked respondents whether they agreed with the proposal to make instruments which reduce navigational clearance by more than 5%, a self-service activity.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 51% were supportive
• 11% were opposed
• 23% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 15% did not answer

The proposed changes under 2a and 2b were particularly well received by marine industries and academic sectors. Where further comments were provided, many respondents considered that this proposed amendment would:

• provide for a more streamlined consenting process
• reduce the regulatory burden on applicants

A few responses agreed that the navigational risk presented by tethered instruments is low and so it is a suitable activity for a self-service licence. However, some respondents raised concerns about navigational safety and called for self-service licensing to include notification of relevant marine stakeholders. Some respondents had stronger concerns and thought that the activity was unsuitable for self-service due to navigational risk.

Respondents also asked for confirmation of the number of devices that could be deployed from a single self-service application.

Government response

We will implement these proposals with some changes to address navigational risk.

To obtain site specific advice on navigational risk, we will require applicants to notify and engage with:

• the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) for advice on mitigation measures
• Trinity House for advice on lighting and marking
• local Statutory Harbour Authorities (SHAs) for advice on deployments to ensure that instruments are not installed in inappropriate locations

Applicants will be required to incorporate advice received from MCA, Trinity House and local SHAs into a method statement. Applicants will then upload the method statement to their self-service marine licence application and comply with the measures within it to reduce risks to safe navigation.

A self-service licence will permit the deployment of one device and its associated equipment.

Investigations for unexploded ordnance

Summary of responses

Question 3 asked respondents whether they agree with the proposal to make investigations for unexploded ordnance (UXO) a self-service activity.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 53% were supportive
• 6% were opposed
• 25% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 16% did not answer

Many respondents noted that the proposed amendment could enable more streamlined investigations of UXO. However, some respondents also asked for more clarity on:

• the criteria for self-service marine licences
• the process for UXO detonation licencing
• what counts as investigative work

Some respondents also raised concerns that the proposed amendment could adversely impact protected sites and marine species. These respondents recommended that the proposed amendment should only include investigative work for UXOs outside of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

Some respondents raised concerns that heritage sites would not be appropriately considered because the term ‘heritage designations’ can only be applied in the territorial sea.

A few respondents did not support the proposed amendment. Where further comments were made, respondents suggested that the proposed amendment is too broad in scope and could present disruptions to commercial ports and vessel movements.

Government response

We will implement this proposal with some amendments.

Whilst some respondents raised concerns about detonations, this proposal concerns licensing for UXO investigations only. The licensing of UXO investigations and UXO detonations are carried out separately.

Applicants will be able to apply for a self-service licence to detect the presence of UXO when they are seeking to determine if UXO are present in an area, what kind of UXO are present, and what quantity are present. UXO detonations will still require a standard marine licence, unless carried out by an organisation that has its own powers to dispose of UXO such as a SHA.

To ensure that impacts on heritage sites are properly considered, we will change the self-service licence condition terminology from ‘heritage designation’ to ‘heritage asset’, as defined in the UK Marine Policy Statement, given the term applies in UK waters. The condition will therefore state that activities will not be permitted to take place at locations within 200m of a ‘heritage asset’ without an agreed method statement from Historic England.

We will also create a condition requiring those carrying out the activity to provide a local Notice to Mariners. This will ensure that local marine stakeholders are aware of any UXO detection activity.

Risks associated with conducting UXO detection in MPAs will be controlled through the standard self-service requirement that activities in or within 200m of an MPA must have an agreed method statement from Natural England or the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) depending on its location. Additionally, loss of habitat outside of protected sites should be avoided.

New exemptions

Removal of abandoned vessels

Summary of responses

Question 4 asked respondents whether they agreed with the proposed new exemption for the removal of abandoned vessels.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 59% were supportive
• 6% were opposed
• 22% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 13% did not answer

Many respondents who agreed with the proposal identified benefits which included improved safety, environmental protection and the ability to remove barriers to other projects.

A few respondents did not support the proposed new exemption. Key themes throughout the responses opposed to the proposed exemption included safety concerns and environmental impacts, with respondents highlighting the following risks:

• vessels in poor condition disintegrating at the point of removal
• residual fuel dispersing into the wider marine environment
• inappropriate removal methods being selected by undertakers
• concern about vessels being removed by anyone, regardless of experience

A few respondents also raised concerns about potential impacts to protected sites and sites of historical or archaeological significance, including war grave sites.

Government response

We will amend the proposal by requiring a self-service licence for the removal of abandoned vessels instead of creating a new exemption.

The additional conditions that are needed to manage concerns relating to potential impacts to the environment make removal of abandoned vessels unsuitable for an exemption. Moving this to self-service licensing will still deliver benefits compared to a standard marine licence, facilitating easier removal of abandoned vessels, whilst ensuring necessary safeguards are in place.

As a self-service licence activity, the standard requirement for activities in or within 200m of an MPA to have an agreed method statement, from Natural England or JNCC depending on its location, will apply.

We will restrict the scope of the proposal to 1 nautical mile out to sea because this is where abandoned vessels are likely to be found. We will also restrict the activity to local planning authorities (LPAs), SHAs and the Environment Agency or when activity is undertaken on their behalf. This will still enable benefits to be delivered as it is primarily LPAs and SHAs that want to undertake the activity. It will also help address concerns around ‘how’ a vessel is removed and ensure that not just anyone can remove a vessel. We will also require complete removal of vessels, ensuring that no fragments or debris remain on the seabed. 

We recognise the points raised by respondents about the potential for the activity to have impacts on features of historical or archaeological interest. For clarity, the proposal does not apply to any vessels of historical or archaeological interest, whether these are designated or not. We will clarify this in the self-service licence wording and guidance by specifying that the self-service licence will not be applicable if there could be an impact on war graves or for vessels which may be a heritage asset.

Other permissions may still be required for flood risk purposes. We will make this clear in guidance, including recommending that those undertaking the activity contact the Environment Agency to discuss the need for a flood risk activity permit when the activity takes place less than 8 metres from flood or river control structures. We will also require those undertaking the activity to display a notice 28 days prior to any removal and issue a local Notice to Mariners to make sure that local users of the area are aware of the activity.

Fireworks displays

Summary of responses

Question 5 asked respondents whether they agreed with the proposed new exemption for firework displays from a vehicle, vessel, marine structure or floating container at sea.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 31% were supportive
• 15% were opposed
• 36% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 18% did not answer

Respondents who supported the proposal felt that the activity was low risk and that a standard marine licence should not be required. Some respondents who supported the new exemption argued there should be caveats to manage and mitigate any impacts on people, the environment and infrastructure.

Respondents set out possible impacts that could be caused by, or indirectly associated with, the proposed new exemption, including:

• environmental impacts, including debris and marine litter, disturbances to marine and costal wildlife species as well as air and noise pollution
• impacts to other marine users, including interference with the operation of naval bases and damage to watercraft
• human impacts, including disruption to residents in coastal areas

Some respondents objected to the proposed new exemption due to the impacts set out above and either felt that the use of fireworks should require a marine licence in all circumstances or that the use of fireworks should require a self-service licence.

Government response

We will amend the proposal by creating a new self-service activity for firework displays, rather than introducing a new exemption.

The concerns raised around potential impacts on the environment make this activity unsuitable for an exemption.

We will narrow the scope of the self-service licence so that only LPAs and SHAs, and organisations acting on their behalf, will be able to rely on it. This will limit the number of displays which could take place. Additionally, where the activity could have a likely significant effect on an MPA or takes place in a Highly Protected Marine Area (HPMA) a standard marine licence will be required.

Other permissions and consents may be required for the activity, including potentially under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA).

Maintenance of bridges or cantilevered structures

Summary of responses

Question 6 asked whether respondents agreed with the proposed new exemption for maintenance activities taking place on top of bridges and cantilevered structures over the sea. 

Respondents answered as follows:

• 52% were supportive
• 6% were opposed
• 26% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 16% did not answer

While a large proportion of respondents were in favour of the proposal, some respondents raised concerns that the scope of the proposed amendment is too broad. Some respondents made arguments for the exemption to be expanded.

A recurring theme within the responses was that guidance should be issued to provide clarification on the scope, and clarification was requested in relation to the existing ‘three-dimensional boundary’ of a structure.

Some respondents felt that the proposed amendment could have environmental impacts through noise and light pollution from exempt works. Some respondents also raised concerns about the potential impacts to marine wildlife and protected sites.

A few respondents raised concerns that the proposed exemption could disrupt commercial ports and conflict with the SHAs’ obligation to maintain and conserve a safe harbour. Some respondents from marine industries pointed out that the relevant SHA should be notified of any activities taking place within their jurisdiction.

A few respondents also highlighted the potential for maintenance activities to have navigational impacts.

Government response

We will implement this proposal given the level of support for the proposal was high and the activity is low risk.

The exemption will apply to activities taking place solely on top of the bridge or structure, rather than on the sides or underneath where there is a risk of the clearance being reduced or debris falling into the water. Some examples of the kind of activity which could be carried out under the exemption are the painting of a ticket booth on top of a bridge, as well as changes to fencing and road surfacing. The exemption will not apply to work on the structure itself, such as the replacement of structural elements and painting of the outside of the structure above the water. This will mitigate any risks to the marine environment or navigation.

We will provide guidance clarifying what a three-dimensional boundary is. We will also use guidance to highlight that heritage assets may have legal protection and require additional consents, such as listed building consent. Guidance will also set out that a Water Framework Directive (WFD) assessment may be required for any changes to drainage which result in wastewater being discharged into the sea.

Eco moorings

Summary of responses

Question 7 asked respondents whether they support the proposed new exemption for eco mooring installations where they replace either a traditional mooring or an eco-mooring.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 68% were supportive
• 3% were opposed
• 15% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 14% did not answer

Many respondents who supported the proposal commented that the exemption would support nature recovery. Some respondents also considered that the proposed exemption would be helpful in phasing out traditional moorings.

Some respondents who disagreed with the proposal suggested that alternative options could be considered to encourage an uptake in eco moorings. A small number of respondents also raised concerns about potential impacts to MPAs.

Government response

We will implement the proposal with minor amendments.

To address concerns about impacts on MPAs, the exemption will state that damage to habitats and protected species on the seabed resulting from removal of the anchor weight (for example, by dragging) or installation of the helical screw is not permitted. Additionally, the existing anchor weight should be used in situations where removal is impractical. The exemption will be disapplied in HPMAs.

Respondents requested a definition of ‘eco mooring’. Eco moorings, also known as Advanced Moorings Systems (AMS), have a variety of designs and manufacturers. However, a key characteristic of AMS is that they are designed to minimise adverse impacts on seabed habitats.

The exemption will apply to AMS which use all the following components:

• a helical screw that has been drilled into the seabed or the existing anchor weight (such as a concrete block) where this cannot be removed
• a rode tethered to the helical screw or anchor weight which does not come into contact with the seabed (for example, a floating flexible rode, or chain with floats lifting it from the seabed or rope with floats lifting it from the seabed)

Coastal flood defence works

Summary of responses

Question 8 asked respondents whether they agreed with the proposed exemption for the construction of coastal flood defences where impacts occur within LPA jurisdiction down to the mean low water mark. This exemption would only be relevant to LPAs consenting under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 55% were supportive
• 8% were opposed
• 23% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 14% did not answer

Some respondents who agreed with the policy direction pointed out potential issues, including the:

• need for adequate assessments of impacts to protected sites, habitats and species
• LPA planning process does not involve consultation with all the MMO’s primary advisers so they would not be approached for input

Some respondents supported increasing the scope of the exemption to all coastal flood defence projects, as well as the inclusion of other coastal projects such as quayside repairs. Respondents commenting on increased scope also suggested natural coastal flood defence works should be included in the new exemption. A few respondents recommended that the exemption could be expanded to include all works carried out by navigation authorities.

A small number of respondents held a contrary view, believing that the scope of the exemption should be reduced. Some respondents who disagreed with the proposed amendment argued that the exemption could lead to navigational impacts within the intertidal zone, and that the exemption could undermine the WFD.

Some respondents recommended that the government should provide further clarification on elements of the amendment, including if the proposed exemption:

• applies to developments that require a Development Consent Order
• would cover the construction as well as maintenance and alteration of flood defences
• applies to projects straddling the jurisdiction of both the MMO and LPA

Government response

This proposal will not be taken forward.

While we recognise that the proposal was well-received and that respondents are in favour of removing duplication in the consenting process, we do not plan to take forward the proposal at this time given the need to address concerns raised about ensuring that the necessary marine primary advisers are consulted and environmental assessments sufficiently robust.

We will engage further with LPAs, primary advisers and other government departments to develop this proposal and address concerns. We also note the requests to expand the exemption and we will consider the potential to do this as part of this further review.

Amendments to existing exemptions

Scientific instruments risks to marine mammals Part A: geophysical surveys

Summary of responses

Question 9a asked respondents whether they agree with the proposed amendment requiring submission of noise activity data from geophysical surveys to the Marine Noise Registry (MNR).

Respondents answered as follows:

• 48% were supportive
• 9% were opposed
• 27% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 16% did not answer

Some respondents emphasised the importance of the proposal and highlighted the benefit for the protection of marine mammals. The same group of respondents pointed out that the current reporting process for geophysical surveys contains gaps which would be addressed through this proposal.

Some respondents who disagreed, argued that adding conditions introduces regulation, which would undermine the purpose and clarity of the exemption. Some respondents argued that the proposed condition for the exemption would overlap with existing regimes, including WCA, and that the proposal would not be consistent with current practices used by devolved governments.

A recurring theme throughout the responses was a need for further guidance and definitions to be provided, including greater clarity as to what constitutes “geophysical surveys” and “low risk” activities.

Question 9b asked respondents whether they agree that geophysical survey activity should be regulated through a self-service licence rather than being exempt.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 36% were supportive
• 15% were opposed
• 33% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 16% did not answer

Comments from some respondents in favour of the proposal mentioned that moving the activities into self-service licensing could have reduced delays and costs for geophysical surveys, when compared with standard marine licences.

Respondents who opposed this proposal argued that geophysical surveys should remain exempt from requiring a full marine licence and that requiring a self-service licence could create an administrative burden for regulators and statutory nature conservation bodies (SNCBs).

Government response

The government will implement the proposal to require noise activity data to be submitted to the MNR but we will not implement the proposal to require self-service licences for geophysical surveys.

While there was also a positive response to the proposal to require self-service licences for geophysical surveys, we will not make any further changes at this time given concerns raised. However, the data gathered through the submission of noise data will help Defra and its arm’s length bodies (ALBs) to gain a better understanding of the impacts which underwater noise levels can have on marine life, especially marine mammals, as well as helping to inform development of future policy.

We note that some respondents have made comments which express disagreement with the application of conditions to the exemption. We believe that this approach is justified as it will result in increased data collection which can be used to inform future changes. It is also more proportionate than removing the exemption entirely.

We also note comments made on the overlapping of the requirement for data submissions to the MNR with other legislative requirements. For clarity, current data collection is focused on protected sites. To gain a broader understanding of the impacts of underwater noise, data collection is needed from both within and outside of protected sites to build up a better picture of noise levels. There are currently gaps in this data which will be addressed through this new condition.

We will use guidance to explain what geophysical surveys are, what constitutes a ‘low risk’ activity, and include additional details on making data submissions to the MNR.

Scientific instruments risks to marine mammals Part B: seismic airguns

Summary of responses

Question 9c asked respondents whether they agreed with the proposal to remove the exemption for the use of seismic airguns, meaning that they would require a standard marine licence.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 45% were supportive
• 5% were opposed
• 32% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 18% did not answer

A large proportion of respondents were in favour of the proposed amendment, with themes including:

• the change would help to record impacts on protected species
• agreement with caveat that the standard marine licence process should require data submission to the MNR

Some respondents disagreed with the proposal to disapply this exemption as they considered that disapplying the exemption would not change the potential impacts of seismic airguns on marine mammals. Also, they felt it would be more appropriate to require a marine licence for seismic airgun use related to industrial rather than scientific purposes.

A group of respondents from marine industries believed the use of seismic airguns is ‘low risk’ and should be assessed through a self-service licence rather than a standard marine licence.

Furthermore, some respondents felt that impacts on marine wildlife were already addressed through wildlife licensing.

Government response

We will proceed with the proposal to remove the exemption for the use of seismic airguns.

The requirement for a standard marine licence will help to ensure that any impacts on marine mammals are considered by the MMO and its primary advisers, including SNCBs, before an activity is permitted to go ahead.

We note the responses which state that the proposal will not change the potential impacts of seismic airguns on marine mammals. While seismic airgun activity which would have taken place under the exemption may continue to take place under a standard marine licence, the collection of data on these activities will help us understand their impact on marine species.

Regarding comments made on the use of seismic airguns for scientific purposes, this type of activity is also not ‘low risk’. Some respondents believed the impacts of seismic airguns were already addressed through wildlife licensing. However, wildlife licences only consider the impacts of airguns on protected species and not the wider impacts of the activity.

In-water hull cleaning

Summary of responses

Question 10 asked respondents whether they agreed with the proposed amendment to the exemption to include the use of mechanical cleaners for removing deposits from vessel hulls in situ.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 48% were supportive
• 6% were opposed
• 31% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 15% did not answer

Some respondents stated that in-water hull cleaning had several benefits for vessels, including:

• cost savings
• reducing downtime
• providing greater flexibility for crew to undertake maintenance activities

Some respondents suggested that the scope of the proposed amendment to this exemption could be expanded, so that it is applicable to all vessels as well as offshore structures and cables.

Some respondents recommended that a self-service marine licence would be more appropriate and argued the proposal could create disruptions to commercial ports.

A key theme was that guidance and definitions of key terms need to be provided by Defra and the MMO. Furthermore, respondents requested that any proposed techniques and technologies for in-water hull cleaning should minimise water quality impacts and reduce biofouling while having regard for biosecurity (for example, release of invasive species to England’s marine environment).

Government response

We will proceed with the amendment to the exemption by allowing the use of mechanical scrubbers, along with retaining the methods listed in the original exemption.

The use of mechanical scrubbers is the only addition to the exemption. The methods stated in the amendment exemption will likely only be suitable for the removal of light fouling from light recreational craft. Light fouling is the accumulation of slime, algae, or other minor deposits on the hull of a vessel.

We will limit the exemption by requiring that the mechanical scrubbers are only equipped with the same non-abrasive cleaning materials detailed in the original exemption:

• a soft cloth
• a sponge
• the bristles of a soft brush
• sandpaper, the grit size of which is at least P2000

This will prevent an increase in the deposits of antifouling chemicals coating the hull into the water. Note that the proposal intends to encourage more regular cleaning of light fouling from vessels and prevent the buildup of deposits.

Regarding concerns raised about potential impacts on ports, the proposal is intended for use on light recreational craft and the clarifications outlined above should minimise adverse impacts.

The cleaning materials are non-abrasive and should not increase deposits into the water. The encouragement of regular cleaning will prevent the buildup of deposits which could pose a biosecurity risk.

We will use guidance to provide clarity on terms including ‘light fouling’ and ‘heavy fouling’.

Marine Management Organisation and Natural England marine protected area marker requirements

Summary of responses

Question 11 asked respondents whether they agreed with the proposed amendment to expand the exemption to cover other marking activities associated with the management of MPAs and HPMAs.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 52% were supportive
• 6% were opposed
• 27% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 15% did not answer

Some respondents also supported the expansion of the exemption to organisations acting on behalf of public bodies.

A small number of respondents who did not support the proposed amendment raised concerns about the potential for impacts on heritage assets during the placement of markers. Respondents also pointed out that the activity could create risks to navigation and that consent from Trinity House may be needed for marker placement.

Government response

We will proceed with this exemption, but we recognise concerns and will amend the proposal to minimise any potential impacts.

We acknowledge the concerns raised by some respondents about the potential for impacts on navigation and sites of historic or archaeological interest resulting from the placement of markers. We will amend the proposal to prevent the exemption from being used in locations which are within 200 metres of a heritage asset. In instances where the activity does take place within 200 metres of a heritage asset, a standard marine licence along with a method statement agreed with Historic England will be required. Applicants should note that markers should not be attached directly to heritage assets as convenient anchor points.

To address points made on impacts to navigation, we will provide guidance explaining that applicants should notify the MCA, UK Hydrographic Office and Trinity House prior to any works taking place. Guidance will also set out that a local Notice to Mariners should be published to ensure that marine stakeholders are aware of the activity.

Additionally, in line with comments we received in the consultation, we will also amend the proposal to allow organisations acting on behalf of public authorities and Natural England to use the exemption.

Those undertaking the activity should note that the consent of SHAs will be required where works are undertaken within their jurisdictions. Outside of SHA jurisdictions, consent from Trinity House will be required as the General Lighthouse Authority for England and Wales. Those undertaking the activity should be aware that other consents may be required locally.

Harbour authority consent

Summary of responses

Question 12 asked respondents whether they agreed with the proposed amendment to the exemptions for depositing and removing moorings and aids to navigation and the exemption for the depositing and removal of pontoons. These amendments clarify the requirement for consent from other authorities. They add a condition for notification (when any person other than the harbour authority carries out the activity) of the intention to carry on the activity to be given to the MMO. Additionally, there will be a requirement to provide a copy of the consent granted by the relevant authority in such instances.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 47% were supportive
• 8% were opposed
• 28% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 17% did not answer

Some respondents were in favour of the exemption being expanded to include local authorities in their role as risk management authorities, which manage aids to navigation. However, some respondents raised that other authorities may need to be consulted on or provide input for the granting of consent. Some respondents in agreement with the proposal thought that it could increase efficiency through streamlining the consenting process.

Government response

We will proceed with this proposal.

The purpose of the proposal is to address misunderstandings about which organisations applicants need consent from. There have been instances in the past where applicants have interpreted the exemptions for 1) depositing and removing moorings and aids to navigation, and 2) the depositing and removing pontoons, as meaning that only permission from the harbour authority is required. This is incorrect, as permissions may be required from other authorities such as the Crown Estate. We will clarify this point in the guidance.

Respondents suggested expanding the exemption to local authorities. While this falls outside the scope of the consultation, we will consider this in future reviews of exemptions.

Removal of exemptions for Highly Protected Marine Areas

Summary of responses

Question 13a asked respondents whether they agree with the proposal to remove the exemptions for the following activities which are capable of affecting HPMAs:

• moorings and aids to navigation
• pontoons
• diver trails within restricted areas
• maintenance of harbour works
• maintenance of coastal protection, drainage and flood defence works
• shellfish propagation and cultivation
• deposits in the course of normal navigation or maintenance
• deposits of a substance arising from hull cleaning
• dismantling a ship

Respondents answered as follows:

• 36% were supportive
• 18% were opposed
• 28% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 18% did not answer

A large group of respondents who were in favour of the proposal emphasised that it was important to ensure that HPMAs continue to benefit from the highest level of protection available. Some respondents also suggested that the scope of the proposal should be increased to include any activity that has potential impacts on MPAs, Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites, in addition to HPMAs.

However, some respondents opposed the proposal, with responses noting:

• the blanket approach to the disapplication of exemptions was inappropriate
• scientific activities should be excluded
• there should be provisions for emergency works
• potential for impacts on ports and harbours

Some respondents who disagreed, also felt that activities which can enhance the goals of MPAs and HPMAs should be permitted. Dive tourism and aquaculture were provided as examples. A number of respondents felt that the removal of the exemption for aquaculture was unnecessary because the activity is low impact.

Government response

We will proceed with the proposal but keep the exemption for certain activities.

We will retain the exemption for diver trails within restricted areas. There are currently no diver trails within the inshore HPMA. However, we note that under heritage legislation a public authority cannot license the implementation of a diver trail in a HPMA if the diver trail may have a significant effect on the HPMA.

We will also retain the exemption for moorings and aids to navigation, specifically for activity undertaken by local and General Lighthouse Authorities. This acknowledges the statutory obligation of lighthouse authorities have to ensure safety of navigation. 

We have considered the concerns raised by ports and harbours. We do not anticipate this proposal having a significant impact on this sector at this time. There is one inshore HPMA designated, Allonby Bay, and there are no ports or harbours located within 1km of the site. Any future additional HPMA designations will be subject to formal consultation.

With regard to scientific activities being excluded from the proposed changes, it is not always the case that the installation, use and decommissioning of scientific instruments will have no significant effect on a HPMA. On this basis, we will not retain the exemption for these activities.

We note points made on aquaculture and would point out that the activity cannot always be considered low risk. Shellfish propagation and cultivation involves a number of different activities, such as moving equipment in and out of a site, and these activities create pathways for negative impacts on HPMAs. These activities could be considered depositional or damaging. The intention within HPMAs is to remove all extractive, destructive and depositional activities.     

Whilst we recognise the need for emergency activities, it is already the case that activities which need to be taken in an emergency may not require a marine licence. Section 86 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 provides a defence that can be used when an activity needed to be taken without a marine licence, as long as both:

• the activity was carried out for the purpose of securing the safety of a vessel, aircraft or marine structure, or for the purpose of saving life
• the person took steps within a reasonable time to inform the appropriate licensing authority of the matters set out in section 86(2)

Further changes to marine licensing

Changes to self-service activities or exemptions

Summary of responses

Question 14 asked respondents if they would recommend any further changes to self-service activities or exemptions, which could be considered as part of a future review.

A sizable number of respondents from across sectors put forward recommendations for changes to self-service activities and exemptions.

Key themes included:

• maintenance and emergency works, with some respondents suggesting amendments to allow for more maintenance works and emergency works
• scientific research, with some respondents suggesting exemptions for more low impact scientific research
• restoration, with many respondents providing suggestions to facilitate restoration projects, including through making activities exempt or self-service
• ports and harbour-related activities, with some respondents suggesting activities undertaken by port and harbour authorities should be exempt or exemptions widened
• aquaculture, ranging from suggestions to make additional elements exempt or self-service, to suggestions to remove the existing shellfish aquaculture exemption
• coastal protection and infrastructure, with some respondents suggesting exempting routine and small-scale repairs
• cabling activities, with one recommendation to remove the cable exemption in the offshore area whereas others recommended exempting cable removal within territorial waters

Government response

We welcome the recommendations received and will carry out further work to consider which may be suitable for further consultation.

Review of marine licensing cost recovery  

Hourly rate and band 3 licence conditions

Summary of responses

Question 15a asked stakeholders if they agreed with the proposed amendment to increase the MMO’s hourly rate for the marine licensing service from £122 to £155. Respondents answered as follows:

• 16% were supportive
• 40% were opposed
• 30% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 14% did not answer

Where respondents disagreed with the proposed amendment this was principally through the fee increase being too high. Key themes raised included:

• the need for an increase in fees to be accompanied by improvements to the licensing service
• that some projects which require a standard marine licence, within fee band 2, are not complex and therefore some respondents viewed the fee as disproportionately high
• that these fees are comparably higher than other countries, other public bodies including Defra ALBs and other private operators within the sector
• that the fee increase would be prohibitive for smaller businesses and charities

A few respondents who disagreed with the proposed amendment thought the proposed fee increase was too low, would not fully recover the MMO’s costs and that a higher fee increase could better support improved service standards.

Arguments respondents provided in support of the fee increase were that the marine licensing service needs to be appropriately funded, that costs have increased since the fee rate was set in 2018, and that an increase to the fees could improve the marine licensing service delivery.

A few respondents who supported the hourly rate increase or neither agreed nor disagreed also raised performance improvement concerns.

Many respondents who raised concerns about MMO performance recommended particular areas for improvement including:

• clear and updated key performance indicators (KPIs), with public reporting and a transparent governance structure
• MMO process improvements
• improved MMO customer contact
• transparency on individual application costs

Question 15b sought views on the proposed amendment to bring licence applications for plans and projects over 5 hectares into band 3 licensing.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 13% were supportive
• 30% were opposed
• 40% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 17% did not answer

Many respondents did not support the proposed amendment to bring licence applications for plans and projects over 5 hectares into band 3 licensing, arguing that some low-risk projects may be large but not complex.

Some respondents were in support of the proposed amendment, whilst the majority of responses neither agreed nor disagreed.

Government response

We will proceed with increasing the hourly rate to £155, with fees rising annually with inflation. However, we will not proceed with plans to bring projects over 5ha in size into band 3, given concerns raised by respondents that this could capture low risk and non-complex activities.

The £155 hourly rate increase is required to improve the MMO’s cost recovery and reduce subsidy by the taxpayer, given fees have not risen since 2018. This figure is based on:

• 56% direct staff costs – this relates to salaries, earnings related National Insurance contributions and employer’s pension contributions for Marine Licensing staff
• 18% indirect staff costs – for the provision of functions in place to support Marine Licensing, for example human resources (HR), finance and communications
• 17% Defra recharge – this relates to costs for the provision of estates, IT, shared services and support from other Defra teams for Marine Licensing staff
• 6% systems and hosting – this is for the provision of Marine Licensing supporting IT systems (the Marine Case Management System and Coretime)
• 1% amortisation – this is the charge for the deprecation of Marine Licensing support systems
• 1% licensing non-pay costs – contracted services to support Marine Licensing decision-making

In total, 82% of the £155 goes directly to Marine Licensing, with the remaining 18% to support functions in line with HM Treasury Managing Public Money guidance. Fees are calculated based on the time the MMO takes to complete an application.

The inflationary uplift for fees will be calculated by applying the consumer prices index (CPI) rate reported for September to all fees from 1 April the following year. The MMO will notify all customers with on-going live cases of the new fees by email, giving approximately 3 months’ notice in 2026 and 2 months’ notice in subsequent years before they come into force. This approach will provide sufficient time for applicants to plan for revised fees.

Whilst we recognise concerns raised about impacts on smaller organisations, fee bands for non-complex activities are designed with caps, so the maximum cost to the applicant is known at the point of application. We are also working with Defra ALBs to review the impact of marine licensing on marine restoration projects and develop options for improvements to better facilitate these projects.

Whilst this change is required to ensure the MMO is sustainably funded, we recognise the wider concerns raised about MMO performance and processes and the longer term need to demonstrate improvements once fees are raised. Defra and the MMO are committed to delivering a high-quality marine licensing service and are taking forward a range of measures outside this consultation to improve performance. This will support the government’s mission to kickstart economic growth.

Marine licensing processing performance

Whilst the MMO’s target is to determine licence applications within 13-weeks, we recognise the need to improve performance against this target. In the 2024 to 2025 financial year, 77% of applications met this target (against a 90% KPI target), which reflects the increasingly complex and novel applications that take longer to assess. For example, there was a 16% increase in licences issued in the 2024 to 2025 financial year compared to the 2023 to 2024 financial year. The MMO has additionally reviewed the volume of cases “worked” in the 2024 to 2025 financial year and, whilst volumes are similar, there was a 12% increase in complex hourly charged casework. 

To help address this, Defra and the MMO are committed to providing performance and process improvements through a range of reforms. Importantly, the marine planning and licensing programme (MPLP) will provide improvements to the marine licensing service and a replacement for the current case management system.

Through the MPLP, the MMO are replacing the legacy system and redesigning the service around users. The MPLP will deliver a compliant, resilient digital platform that:

• improves accessibility and transparency
• reduces rework by pairing clearer guidance with live validation
• provides plain English guidance and accessibility compliant pages

These changes are designed to:

• shorten decision times
• reduce effort for applicants, advisers and the MMO
• provide better information for consistent, evidence-based decisions

Whilst initially the MMO will focus on making sure the licensing service is compliant and meets user’s needs, it will then consider enhancements to improve the efficiency and performance of the service. Upgrades will be released, after user testing, incrementally from 2026 until March 2028. The MMO is putting service users at the centre of its decisions. Changes will be based on feedback from user research and further engagement with statutory advisers and marine industries. Overall, customers and stakeholders should experience a service that is easier to use, quicker, more predictable and better value, while maintaining robust protections.

Whilst this consultation is about changes to exemptions, self-service activities and fees, we recognise the wider concerns raised about MMO performance and processes. Points raised in the consultation response have been fed into the MPLP and are being considered through that programme. Consultation response themes align with findings from MPLP user research and service analytics and the MMO are using these in the programme’s design and prioritisation.

The MPLP will also consider and learn from wider initiatives including the MMO ports sandbox and recommendations from the Dan Corry review of Defra regulators, such as the Lead Environmental Regulator (LER) work, which all aim to streamline the licensing process. For example, the sandbox provides a safe, real-world environment where ports and regulators can test and improve the way the process works for everyone together. The LER approach is currently being piloted. It is designed to help streamline applications involving multiple, overlapping authorities by enabling one environmental regulator to coordinate and provide consolidated responses on behalf of all regulators. 

Key performance indicators

The MMO’s KPI and targets are set as part of an annual cycle with Defra and Ministers to identify priorities for the reporting year. The MMO reports against these KPIs and targets to demonstrate performance against these priorities and statutory activities.

The government wants to ensure KPIs reflect government priorities for growth, industry scrutiny and improved cost recovery, and that any new KPIs are customer and outcome focused. 

To support this, the government is developing KPIs in the following 2 areas: 

1. Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects - led by the Department of Business and Trade. There are specific KPIs being reported and further phases in development in relation to this area of work, with a requirement to report and publish results for transparency. 

2. Marine licence applications and variations – we are developing a new KPI and outcomes process to use from the financial year 2026 to 2027, which will focus on band 2 and band 3 applications only and the percentage of those determined within 13 weeks or within an agreed extension of time with the applicant. The MMO are testing this through the ports sandbox and we will consider any further updates that may result from the Dan Corry review of Defra regulators recommendations. However, until this work concludes, the existing KPI will be reported against for financial year 2025 to 2026. 

These KPIs are reported publicly in the annual accounts.

Beyond KPIs, the Government Internal Audit Agency completes regular reviews of various aspects of the marine licensing service as part of an annual program of activity. Whilst not published externally, this is used by the MMO Board, the MMO Audit and Risk Committee and senior managers to gain assurance in performance or where to focus any improvement activity.

Band 2 licence fee structure

Summary of responses

In question 16, we asked respondents if they agreed with the proposed amendment to move from a two-tier to a four-tier system for band 2 applications and increase maximum fees.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 13% were supportive
• 43% were opposed
• 28% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 16% did not answer

Key themes from respondents opposed to the proposed amendment include that:

• fees are too high, with some suggesting they are prohibitive for some applicants
• there are issues with MMO performance

Key themes from respondents in favour of the proposed amendment include that:

• the changes to the fee bands will support budget planning for projects through providing greater clarity of potential costs
• applications for marine licences should not be subsidised by the taxpayer

A respondent requested clarification on the inflationary measure used for the fee increase.

Government response

We will proceed with the changes to the band 2 licence fee structure consulted on and with the CPI rate reported for September applied to all fees and band maximums from 1 April the following year.  

Fee bands have been set with reference to HM Treasury Managing Public Money principles to recover costs. However, this has been balanced against a need to ensure that projects with lower costs have a more proportionate fee. 

We will review the fee bands annually post-implementation, to confirm whether the bands are set at the correct level. 

We recognise points raised about improving the licensing process and our response to this point is given under ‘Hourly rate and Band 3 licence conditions’.

Dredge and disposal levy charges

Summary of responses

Question 17a asked stakeholders if they agreed with the proposed amendment to increase the disposal charge from 1p a tonne to 3p a tonne.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 20% were supportive
• 20% were opposed
• 38% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 22% did not answer

Question 17b sought views on the proposed amendment to remove the annual tonnage maximum fee of £15,000.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 23% were supportive
• 17% were opposed
• 37% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 23% did not answer

Arguments made by respondents in support of the proposals included that they:

• adhere to the polluter pays principle
• will support the undertaking of disposal site analysis

Some respondents who agreed with the proposals and some who disagreed, suggested that the fee increase should not apply to activities that contribute to the restoration of coastal habitats. Some respondents suggested their support was contingent on the proposed fee increase being raised further, whilst on the contrary some respondents suggested their support was contingent on it be lowered.

The majority of respondents from the ports and harbours sector disagreed with the proposals as they could have an adverse effect on ports. They stated that the increase to fees:

• should not be paid for by ports
• are a disadvantage to small and medium size ports
• may limit the ability for ports to adapt and maintain berths to accept deeper vessels
• could present a significant cost burden to creating or expanding port facilities
• should only raise what is required for an evidence-based monitoring strategy of disposal sites

Many respondents disagreed with both the increased disposal charge and the removal of the maximum fee limit. A few respondents suggested that the maximum fees the MMO can charge should still be capped. A few respondents noted that their principal objection was to the proposed increase to the disposal charge.

Other respondents who disagreed with the proposals suggested that any fee changes should not apply to flood protection measures.

Some respondents recommended a monitoring plan be published and a few respondents recommended annual reporting on monitoring.

A few respondents requested clarification on what monitoring is needed for compliance with the OSPAR convention.

One respondent recommended that funds should be used to identify new disposal sites with limited environmental impact.

Government response

Whilst we will proceed with increasing fees to 3p per tonne, we recognise that removing the cap entirely could have a significant impact on some ports, so we will add a cap of £60,000.

We have considered the concerns raised by the ports sector that the fee increase is too high and fees should only raise what is required for an evidence-based monitoring strategy of disposal sites. The £60,000 cap level is based on the consultation responses and discussion with the MMO and Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) to consider the level of monitoring required for OSPAR compliance and modelling of various fee options.

Monitoring 3 or 4 sites a year, in conjunction with site-specific monitoring, will enable a proportionate risk-based approach to monitoring. This will build up a more comprehensive view of impacts of sea disposal. This can inform future policy decisions and give confidence in licensing decisions.

The amount raised by the fee and cap will vary year on year but should enable monitoring of approximately 3 or 4 sites a year. For example, in 2024 this fee structure would have raised about £357,076, in 2023 £310,570 and in 2022 £293,496. It costs around £90,000 to monitor a site, though costs vary depending on the site and approach taken.

Cefas and the MMO will develop and publish a revised monitoring plan prior to the rise in the levy and cap in early 2027. They will work closely with ports on this plan, including to consider where they can utilise data provided by ports.

We will review fees annually post-implementation, to ensure they are raising what is required for an evidence-based monitoring plan whilst still supporting growth.  We will also review the monitoring plan after 3 years, at which point we will have collected more information, to determine whether it is achieving its intended objectives. We can adjust the levy or monitoring approach if the review and evidence indicates that we should change approach.

Cefas already publish annual monitoring reports and we will consider feedback received on annual reporting.

HM Treasury Managing Public Money principles do not allow charging applicants different amounts for the same service and so we cannot reduce rates for restoration and flood protection measures. However, we will continue to work with stakeholders to consider how we can support restoration projects, including beneficial use of dredged material. 

The funds will be used for monitoring only and will not be used to identify new disposal sites with limited environmental impact. Disposal site selection is an applicant led process. 

Marine licensing variations, post-consent monitoring, and inspections

Summary of responses

Question 18a asked stakeholders if they agreed with the proposed amendment to increase the MMO’s hourly rate for marine licence variations, post-consent monitoring and inspections from £94 to £155.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 18% were supportive
• 34% were opposed
• 29% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 19% did not answer

Question 18b sought views on the proposed amendment to increase the fee ceiling for variations, post-consent monitoring and inspections.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 20% were supportive
• 25% were opposed
• 33% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 22% did not answer

Some respondents felt that the fee increase was too high and that it was unclear how the fees were calculated. One respondent suggested that the fees were already too high and should be reduced instead.

Many respondents noted that that the proposal was not accompanied by an associated increase in the MMO’s performance. A further theme was that the proposed fee increase would be prohibitive for small harbours and ports, small scale works and low impact activities, and scientific projects.

Where respondents supported the proposal, themes included support for covering the full cost for activities and an acknowledgement that costs have increased since the fees were set in 2014.

A few respondents recommended a ring-fenced team for post-consent work with one respondent recommending caseworker continuity for post-consent work.

Government response

We will proceed with the changes to fees for marine licensing variations, post-consent monitoring, and inspections with fees and fee ceilings rising with inflation.

Although many thought fees would be too high, fees have been set with reference to HM Treasury Managing Public Money principles. They are based on an analysis of the MMO’s time taken to complete an application and therefore reflect the cost to the MMO and the applicable fee payable by the applicant. HM Treasury Managing Public Money principles do not support charging applicants different amounts for the same service and so we cannot reduce rates for specific sectors.

We recognise concerns raised about improvements to the licensing system and our response to this is given under ‘Hourly rate and Band 3 licence conditions’.

Regarding points raised on the conduct of post-consent work, post consent work is generally undertaken by the case team that processed the licence, ensuring there is continuity and knowledge on the case. Where the original case team is not available, resource is allocated depending on availability.

Transitional policy

Description of transitional policy

Summary of responses

Question 19 asked stakeholders if they had any comments on the proposed transitional arrangements for:

• band 2 marine licence applications
• band 3 marine licence applications
• band V1 marine licence variations
• band V2 marine licence variations
• band V3 marine licence variations
• post consent monitoring and inspections
• the dredge and disposal levy

Respondents made recommendations including the following themes: 

• to extend the transition periods and implement any changes across a longer timeframe
• to keep fees at the existing rate for band 3 applications that have already been submitted prior to the transitional arrangement implementation date
• that the transitional arrangements for V3 marine licence variations should be the same as the proposed transitional arrangements for V2 marine licence variations

Government response

The consultation closed in August 2025 and the MMO will notify all marine licence applicants of the new fees by email, giving approximately 3 months’ notice in 2026 and 2 months’ notice in subsequent years before they come into force. We therefore consider the transition arrangements are appropriate for applicants to plan for the new charges being introduced. 

The transitional approach of increasing the fees for band 3 marine licences and V3 marine licence variations even if an application has already been submitted and for post consent monitoring and inspections work is necessary. This is because of the higher complexity of those activities and increased cost of the service applicants received. Given the time that can be spent on these applications, there would be a greater impact on MMO cost recovery if the change was not implemented immediately for these top-level bands. This approach is consistent with previous fee increases.

Primary adviser charging

Ability for primary advisers to charge for advice in support of marine licensing decisions

Summary of responses

Question 20 asked stakeholders if they agreed in principle with Defra providing a mechanism for primary advisers such as Natural England, the Environment Agency and the JNCC, to recover costs when providing advice in support of marine licensing decisions.

Respondents answered as follows:

• 25% were supportive
• 32% were opposed
• 28% neither agreed nor disagreed
• 15% did not answer

Some respondents argued that one public body (where they are the applicant), should not fund another, and therefore a charge should not be imposed.

Some respondents also suggested that primary advisers may seek to provide unnecessary advice for applicants to increase their cost recovery. A few respondents disagreed because of the quality of advice from primary advisers.

A few respondents also argued that there should not be further costs to applicants and that uncertainty around the scope of costs could impact an applicant’s ability to make informed decisions.

Primary advisers support the proposal, welcoming the opportunity for cost recovery. Some other respondents agreed on the condition that the MMO’s service delivery improves, including the quality of advice.

A few respondents asked whether Historic England and SHAs would be considered primary advisers.

A few respondents asked for restoration activities to be exempt and one respondent inquired as to whether service level agreements could be used.

Government response

We will not make any change at this time. We consulted on the principle of charging for primary adviser advice to obtain feedback on whether to fully develop a proposal in future. Whilst we recognise concerns about higher charges and charging for another public body, it is also important to ensure that any regulated activity is not subsidised by the taxpayer. We will develop options further, considering the points raised and will provide further detail when developing any mechanism for primary advisers to recover costs.

We can confirm Historic England are a primary adviser but SHAs are not. Primary advisers would only be consulted when appropriate to do so and costs would be advised to applicants in an estimate.

Next steps

We intend to bring forward secondary legislation later in 2026 to implement these changes. We will publish guidance to support implementation of the relevant proposals.