Lakeland Marine Farms LTD Relocation of Ardmaddy Fish Farm Comprising 12 No. 100M Circumference Cag
Lakeland Marine Farms LTD Relocation of Ardmaddy Fish Farm Comprising 12 No. 100M Circumference Cag
Development Services
DECISION ROUTE
• Servicing from existing shore bases at Loch Craignish and Croabh Haven;
• Removal of 18 No. 24m x 24m steel cages from existing site at Ardmaddy North
and relinquishment of lease.
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
(C) CONSULTATIONS:
Scottish Natural Heritage (28.08.11 & 26.02.13) – in view of the likely significant
effect on the Firth of Lorn Special Area of Conservation the planning authority is advised
to undertake an ‘appropriate assessment’ having regard to the conservation objectives
of the SAC addressing the transport of organic wastes and chemotherapeutants from
the site. Further comment will be made once the AA has been concluded.
In terms of European protected species the proposal has the potential to affect otters
and cetaceans. It is not expected that the site would affect otters significantly. The
deployment of acoustic deterrent devices to deter seals could have consequences for
porpoises as whilst research indicates that they will avoid areas where ADD’s are in
operation (but will return once they are switched off), continuous operation could have
the effect of excluding them from the Sound. SNH consent should therefore be required
for the deployment of ADD’s at this location. Whilst the faunal analysis of the seabed
shows a relatively diverse and abundant community no benthic impacts prejudicial to
national interests have been identified. Predators such as seals, otters and pisciverous
birds are common in this locality. The applicant considers that double nets are
impractical in this location due to strong tidal currents and SNH concurs that tensioned
nets with anti-chafe panels as employed at many other sites will be sufficient to
minimise risk of escapes. The applicant’s predator control plans and risk assessments
require some updating (subsequently completed). Whilst there are no salmon rivers
within 15km, sea trout will frequent the area year round. Sea lice treatments to SSPO
Code of Good Practice Standards and operation in accordance with the local Farm
Management Agreement will minimise impacts on wild fish, as will the intended use of
well boats for chemical treatments, rather than the more traditional tarpaulin method
employed at the existing site. White cluster anemone is present in the vicinity of the site
and the SEPA CAR assessment should address consequences for this Priority Marine
Species.
In terms of landscape impacts as the proposal does not affect any national designations
SNH has no objections on landscape, visual or recreational/amenity grounds. Localised
impacts could be reduced by repositioning the barge to the south end of the site where it
would be better screened by higher ground on Torsa to the west. Whilst the area is
frequented by tour boats, yachts and kayaks and the development will give rise to
localised impacts these are not considered to be such that they will significantly affect
the overall experience of the Sound and the wider Firth of Lorn.
Following the production of the Council’s draft ‘appropriate assessment’ SNH has
confirmed its satisfaction with the content.
Comment: The option of relocating the feed barge to the southern end of the site has
been resisted by the applicants, as for operational reasons a barge location at the least
exposed end of the site is preferable as it presents less risk to containment in the event
of the barge moorings being compromised in storm conditions. The applicants have
however agreed to reduce the scale of the barge from 26m x 18 m to 14m x 10m in
order to lessen its visual impact and amended plans to that effect have been submitted.
Marine Scotland Science (02.08.11) – No objection. Note the intention to use well
boats for sea lice treatments and the potential to use Wrasse as a supplementary
means of lice control. There are no major Atlantis salmon fisheries within 15km so wild
salmonids in this area are likely to be marine phase sea trout throughout the year and
migrating salmon. Provided the site is operated in accordance with the existing Farm
Management Agreement for the area, in accordance with the SSPO Good Practice
Guidelines and the necessary steps are taken to control lice numbers and to maintain
equipment to minimise risk of escapes, then impacts upon wild fish will be minimised. It
is recommended that it should be a condition of any consent that the existing site at
Ardmaddy North is relinquished.
Argyll & District Salmon Fishery Board (11.07.11) – No specific objections but it is
noted that the development involves a significant increase in biomass and that it would
be preferable for this to be maintained in the initial period following relocation to enable
the applicant to demonstrate that SSPO Code of Good Practice sea lice levels can be
achieved. In the event of an approval, it should be a requirement that the current site be
closed and the lease surrendered.
Royal Yachting Association – have indicated verbally that they have no comment to
make in respect of the planning application and that they will reserve any comment for
the Marine Licence application as and when that is submitted.
Council’s Marine & Coastal Manager (10.08.11) – the scale of the existing and
proposed sites are similar in terms of surface equipment area and the characteristics
and designations of the landscape are similar for both sites although the proposed site
occupies a more confined section of the sound, where its visual presence may be
increased. The RYA sailing route hugs the west side of the channel and the proposed
site does not conflict with this. The Marine Licence process will address navigational
issues. Risk to wild salmonids is unlikely to significantly increase if the Farm
Management Agreement continues to be adhered to and the proposed mitigation is
implemented, given that Marine Scotland considers the modelled availability of sea lice
treatment to be sufficient for the biomass proposed. SEPA’s CAR licence process will
include consideration of potential effects on the Firth of Lorn SAC. Three seal haul outs
are within 2km although the applicant’s three sites around Shuna are closer to larger
haul outs. The use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices in narrow water bodies may restrict
the use of the area by cetaceans and advice should be sought as to whether a licence
from SNH would be required for their deployment.
Scottish Wildlife Trust (26.09.11) – objects to the development on the grounds that in
the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment there is insufficient information to
enable the required Appropriate Assessment in terms of implications for the Firth of Lorn
Special Area of Conservation, and therefore the process is unsound. The SAC is of
international conservation importance and the wildlife it supports is of tourism value. For
development to proceed, it must be concluded beyond reasonable scientific doubt that
the implications for the protected rocky reef habitat and the species it supports will not
have an adverse impact on the integrity of the SAC. Failure to employ double nets and
the consequent need to employ acoustic deterrent devices or the licenced shooting of
seals, would not lead to seal shooting as a ‘last resort’, as legislation requires. Porpoise
dolphin and otter use the sound regularly and would be disturbed by the deployment of
ADD’s. Local wild salmon and sea trout stocks have collapsed in recent years and sea
lice associated with the development will be likely to adversely affect these protected
species. The transport of organic waste and chemotheraputants from the site to the
SAC would be contrary to its conservation objectives and would adversely affect the
integrity of the designation. Given the presence of rock reefs and complex tides,
conventional deposition modelling is not an appropriate method for predicting likely
effects. Priority Marine Features such as white cluster anemone to the north of the site
are likely to be affected reducing their value as dive sites contrary to the interests of the
tourism economy.
Seil & Easdale Community Council (04.08.11) – have objected to the proposal on the
grounds that the area is one of scenic value and of importance to yachts, tour boats and
other recreational craft, which collectively support the local tourism economy. The
presence of the farm would narrow the channel and make it more difficult to avoid the
rocks off Torsay Island (sic). There is concern locally that the development will not be in
the interests of wildlife tourism, and also that consent for additional pollution is being
sought given the expense of the Seil waste water treatment scheme. It is recognised
that the Council has to balance economic arguments with the environmental disbenefits
of the proposal, but that in this case protection of the environment should prevail. If the
development proceeds, consideration should be given to reducing projection out into the
channel, reducing the impact of the feed barge, using double netting as opposed to seal
scarers and control over lighting.
(D) HISTORY:
The site benefits from a Crown Estate lease for a mussel farm (AR-3-6-17) although the
site is not currently equipped. No objection was raised by the Council to that
development (03/00843/MFF).
A Crown Estate lease is in place for a salmon farm to the north of the site at Ardmaddy
North (AR-3-6-6). This is currently equipped by 18 No. 24m x 24m steel cages.
The application site benefits from a CAR licence CAR/L/1099909 granted in December
2012.
It is intended that the proposal will supersede the shellfish site and that the lease for
nearby fin fish site, which is also in the control of the applicants, would be relinquished
and the equipment removed, in the event that this larger replacement farm at Ardmaddy
South is consented.
(E) PUBLICITY:
The proposal has been advertised in the local newspaper (14.07.11 and 25.08.11) with
the publicity periods having expired on 15.09.11.
(F) REPRESENTATIONS:
Objections to the proposal have been received from 814 third parties along with
8 supporters and 2 neutral representations. Names and addresses of those having
submitted representations are listed in an Appendix this report. The grounds of
objection and support are summarised below. It should be noted that a very high
proportion of the objections take the form of standard template letters and e-mails.
• The development presents opportunity to maintain or create jobs, both directly and
indirectly;
• Fish farming produces a valuable product in the global market place, is one of our
few export success stories and should be supported;
• The scale of the site relative to the existing site has been misrepresented by the
applicant who has advanced it as a reduction whereas in practice it represents an
enlargement. It is requested that the location of the site should be marked by buoys
for the purposes of any committee site inspection;
• The applicants refer to the site having an existing use as a mussel farm whereas
the site is not in use and has not been in use previously for this purpose;
Comment: The application has been described by the applicant as a relocation as the
intention is that it should be a replacement for their existing fish farm at Ardmaddy.
Likewise, it was advertised by the Planning Authority as a ‘relocation’ so as not to
mislead interested parties into believing that a second farm was proposed in the locality
of the existing site. In order to clarify that the proposed development is intended to be
an enlarged facility (rather than a straight replacement for the equipment at the existing
site), the proposal was advertised a second time, in order to make entirely clear the
nature of the equipment proposed.
The aggregate area of the surface equipment is a reduction in that at the existing site,
although the extent of the overall surface area of the site is greater, as circular cages
have larger intervening areas of water than the more compact arrangement of square
pens found at the existing site.
Although the site has not been equipped for mussel farming it maintains a Crown Estate
licence for such and would be capable of being so used without the requirement for
further consent. The existence of the licence and the ability to occupy the site in
accordance with the terms of the lease is a material planning consideration.
The proposal was ‘screened’ for the requirement for an Environmental Impact
Assessment by the Planning Authority in advance of the application being submitted.
Following consultation with interested bodies such as SEPA, SNH and Marine Scotland
it was determined that as a relocation and enlargement of an existing site, an
Environmental Statement would not be required in this particular case.
• The doubling of biomass will increase the problems presented by the existing farm
and will threaten sensitive marine ecosystems. Sites of this scale should be
located further offshore and inshore sites should be operated at reduced stocking
densities with enhanced containment;
• The site will produce large quantities of faecal waste well in excess of the produced
by the local community and this should be considered in connection with that
produced from consented fish farm sites in the area in terms of its cumulative
consequences for the environment;
• The proposal will lead to excesses of nitrates, phosphates and other pollutants will
contribute to a return to inappropriate levels of pollution in the Sound (in part
addressed by the Seil wastewater treatment works). Given the £11m spent on
upgrading the sewage treatment system for the small community at Seil in order to
improve water quality in Seil Sound, it is perverse to countenance such an
additional polluting form of development.
• Although a CAR licence has been granted by SEPA, they do not have the
resources to regularly monitor sites so the industry is largely self-regulating which
is worrying. There is reason to suspect that SEPA’s conclusions were flawed being
based on the application of a standard computer model which may not relect the
specific local conditions.
• The applicants existing site has in the past been graded ‘unsatisfactory’ due to
impacts on the seabed extending beyond SEPA’s allowable zone for deposition
about the cages. Whilst the applicant and SEPA consider that the new site exhibits
better characteristics this conclusion relies on modelling which is not suited to
contained stretches of water with wide variations in speed and direction. As
modelling did not appear to represent actual experience at the existing site, there is
doubt about its reliability here.
• The means by which mass and routine fish mortalities are to be disposed of has
not been addressed as part of the application;
• The applicants have in 2006 previously pleaded guilty and have been fined £1000
for overstocking a site at Shuna.
Comment: Concerns regarding the polluting effects of development and the associated
consequences for habitats and species appear to be the principal grounds for objection
to the application. Although there is multiple consenting regime applicable to fish
farming, there is no prescribed order in which those consents should be obtained.
Given that these concerns related to issues controlled by SEPA under separate
regulation, and having regard to the government cautioning planning authorities against
the improper duplication of other consenting regimes, it was considered appropriate in
this case that these matters of public concern be addressed in the first instance via a
CAR licence application, in order to confirm the consentability of the development from
a pollution control perspective before going on to determine the planning application
with reference to those matters material to the application. It should be borne in mind
that part of the driver for this application is to move operations away from the site at
Ardmaddy North to a location which is more favourable from a SEPA pollution control
point of view.
The applicants have concurred with this approach, and further to extensive public
representation to the CAR licence application which followed, following review of the
matter by Scottish Ministers at the end of 2012 a CAR licence was subsequently issued
by SEPA. That consent permits maximum biomass to be held on the site and licences
permissible quantities of chemical treatments for use at the site. Although third parties
continue to express doubt as to the reliability of SEPA’s conclusions in the matter, the
granting of the CAR licence is a matter of record and its validity cannot be questioned
as part of the adjudication of this planning application. SEPA has addressed the
capacity of the receiving environment to absorb the cumulative impact of multiple fish
farm sites and the associated consequences of designated habitats and species as part
of its assessment of the CAR licence application and has undertaken an ‘appropriate
assessment’ relative to the pollution consequences upon the nearby Firth of Lorn SAC.
Reference is made to the apparent conflict between the additional pollution associated
with this proposal and the costly waste water improvements implemented at Seil. These
were borne out of European obligations upon Scottish Water and were driven by
problems related to bacterial levels affecting shellfish waters, not by nitrogen or
phosphorous enrichment. Human waste and fish farm waste are not therefore directly
comparable in terms of their effects on the marine environment.
The disposal of fish mortalities on a routine basis or in the event of mass mortalities is
not subject to planning control. This is an operational matter for the applicants and is
regulated by SEPA (as waste) and by the Council’s animal welfare officers (animal by-
products). Typically, small scale mortalities are dealt with by way of incineration locally
with larger quantities being disposed of by specialised contractors at sites licenced to
handle this category of waste.
The track record of the applicants in the operation of other sites is not a material
planning consideration. Infringement of the terms and conditions of site licences is a
matter for SEPA to enforce as necessary.
• The site will give rise to adverse consequences for wild salmonids, common and
grey seals and cetaceans and would therefore be contrary to the interests of
biodiversity;
• The site is located too close to the Firth of Lorn Special Area for Conservation and
the seal haul out in Cuan Sound;
• Disrespect for the marine environment to the detriment of marine life and its habitat
shows a lack of human compassion;
• The use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices to scare predators away will also affect
cetaceans, such as the porpoises which are often seen in the Sound. These are
protected by legislation and distress and adverse effects upon their hearing cannot
be ruled out. The use of locally triggered devices over short periods could still pose
a problem in that regard;
• The Seal Protection Action Group opposes the shooting of seals and believes that
non-lethal predator strategies should be adopted;
• The Salmon & Trout Association objects on the basis that the development is likely
to have an adverse impact upon migratory salmon and on sea trout as a result of
sea lice propagation and escapes of farmed fish. No expansion of production
should be allowed unless closed containment units are employed;
Comment: The consequences of the presence and operation of the site upon marine
habitats and species are clearly important issues for third parties, arising in part from
the pollution consequences of development, but also from other matters such as sea
lice propagation from farmed to wild fish, risk of escapes, deployment of acoustic
deterrent devices and the prospect of seal shooting. Neither Scottish Natural Heritage,
Marine Scotland nor the District Salmon Fishery Board have raise objections to the
proposal on nature conservation grounds. The Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate
assessment’ found at Appendix B has concluded that the proposal will not affect the
integrity of the nearby Firth of Lorn Special Area of Conservation, which supports the
conclusion reached by SEPA in their assessment of the preceding CAR licence
application.
The consequences of the development for cetaceans and seals is clearly an emotive
issue. The applicant’s experience is that the tensioned netting system proposed at this
site will provide adequate containment and protection against predators; a position
which is accepted by SNH. It reflects current industry practice across Scotland and the
applicant’s practice at other sites in Argyll including sites in proximity to seal haul outs.
The applicants do not routinely use acoustic deterrent devices (ADD’s) and currently
have none deployed on their sites across Argyll. Only one of their sites has been fitted
with ADD’s in recent years and that was for a temporary period as part of a university
research project. However, in order to secure ‘Freedom Foods’ accreditation the ability
to deploy ADD’s as an option is required as it is necessary to demonstrate that in the
event of persistent attacks by a rogue seal, all non-lethal methods have been employed
in preference to recourse to seal shooting. SNH have requested a condition requiring
details to be approved of the type and means of deployment of ADD’s should they
become required at some point in the future. In terms of seal shooting, this is licenced
by Marine Scotland and is not a material planning consideration. Annual returns to the
Scottish Government indicate that in 2012 one seal was shot at the applicant’s existing
site at Ardmaddy. No seals have been shot at that location this year to date.
In terms of wild fish, the site is not close to important salmon rivers, although will be
subject to the presence of salmon in the migration season and sea trout on a year
round basis. The view of Marine Scotland is that provided the applicants adhere to the
Scottish Salmon Producer’s Organisation ‘Code of Good Practice’ (it is a requirement to
demonstrate compliance to maintain membership) and treatment is available in
sufficient quantities to control sea lice to CoGP standards, then the interests of wild fish
should be adequately protected. Given that a CAR licence has already been granted it
is already known that sufficient licenced treatments are available to the applicants at
this site. The applicants propose to use a combination of in-feed treatments and well-
boat treatments. The latter are to be employed in preference to net shallowing and in
situ treatment, and this will improve efficacy and reduce the quantities of pollutants
released into in the marine environment.
• The height of the net structure above the cages and the installation of a concrete
feed barge give the development an industrial appearance;
• The south east coast of Seil Sound is unspoiled and identified by SNH as Craggy
Coastline. There is a long established walking route from Ardmaddy to Loch Melfort
which affords magnificent views. Development of this nature, which would not be
countenanced on land, would be an act of environmental vandalism;
• Lighting will be intrusive given the absence of light sources in the area and the fact
that indirect glow will affect a much wider area dependant on atmospheric
conditions, even if the direct effects of light are localised or not significant at sea
level;
• Noise from the feed barge generator would be intrusive in an area of low ambient
noise, particularly as it would operate at night as well as during the day. Low
frequency noise would be propagated long distances across open water. Generator
noise from the site at NW Shuna can be heard at Toberonochy 3 miles distant on a
calm night;
• The occupier of Kilbrandon House, Seil demands a report on the sound and visual
impact on the property.
Comments: Given the location of the site within a designated Area of Panoramic Quality
which accords the value of the landscape/seascape regional status, it is necessary to
give consideration as to the visual and landscape effects of the development relative to
the site to be removed from within the same designation, and the prospect of a mussel
farm being located within the application site in accordance with the Crown Estate lease
already held for such. This is addressed in Section C of Appendix A below. Site lighting
is confined to one navigation light on the proposed feed barge plus underwater lighting
for maturation purposes. The latter would not be visible at a distance nor at close
quarters from sea level, as such underwater lighting is generally only visible from
elevated vantage points. Given the absence of transport routes or occupied buildings
along the adjacent coastline it will not present an issue at this site, as locations
overlooking the site will not be frequented during the hours of darkness. The feed barge
proposed is a type in use by the applicants at other locations in Argyll. The modern type
of generator employed is contained within the concrete structure of the barge and from
experience at those locations is not audible other than at close quarters.
Notwithstanding the low background ambient noise levels which would be a feature of
still nights, the distance to sensitive receptors is such that noise nuisance would not
produce amenity issues of significance associated with the operation of this site.
Kilbrandon House is approximately 2km distant from the application site, which would
move approximately 0.9km further away from that property than the existing site.
• The development will adversely affect local tourism related employment which is
founded upon wildlife and the environmental and scenic qualities of the area. By
comparison fish farm related employment is negligible;
• Scotland’s landscapes are already being devalued by wind turbines, power lines,
inappropriate forms of rural development, shellfish and fin fish farms so a lot more
common sense is required before such developments are allowed to go ahead;
• This is an area of scenic beauty and an iconic passage for vessels transiting from
south to north. The presence of the fish farm will degrade the area as a location for
recreational sailing;
• The development will damage an important sheltered dive site and wildlife tourism;
• The proposal will restrict access to the beach at Port na Morachd used for picnics
and boat trips;
• The area will loose its unspoilt qualities and its attraction for kayaking and
swimming;
• The Scottish Canoe Association objects on the grounds that the development will
impede navigation and contribute to pollution to the detriment of the recreational
resource and the tourism potential of this scenic location.
Comment: It is for Members to weigh the balance between the economic and
employment advantages of the development against any adverse consequence which
the presence of the development might have for established tourism related
employment. Although the development will have localised impacts, these would be
offset in part by the loss of existing adverse effects as a consequence of the removal of
the existing site. There is no definitive research which leads to the conclusion that the
presence of fish farms in Scottish waters has thus far proven to be an acknowledged
deterrent to tourism, although given the importance of scenery as a tourism resource in
Argyll & Bute it is to be expected that inappropriately located sites may deter visits by
persons sensitive to the presence of such activities. SNH have not objected on the
grounds that the development would be prejudicial to the landscape and associated
recreational qualities of the area.
• Sailing to windward through the channel is challenging and the site will make this
impossible in some circumstances other than under power. Not all boats have
engines and to use them unnecessarily is wasteful.
• An unmarked rock at the entrance to the sound causes yachts to give it a wide
berth.
• The buoyed area will be so large that it will effectively halve the width of the
entrance to the Sound making navigation difficult for the less experienced.
• Fish farm pose highly destructive effects upon both their immediate and wider
environments;
• They are not a solution to over-fishing as small fish are taken to produce food for
farmed fish and the fish produced are not fit for human consumption due to
contamination with chemicals;
• Underwater organisms are part of a finely balanced ecosystem which are fatally
threatened by pollution associated with fish farming;
• There is an urgent need for world-wide standards to control fish farm escapes in
the interests of maintaining wild fish stocks;
• The economic benefits of fish farming are overstated, particularly given the largely
foreign ownership of companies (in this case Polish). Shameless profiteering
should not be allowed to go ahead against the interests of the environment.
NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should note
that the consultation responses and letters of representation referred to in this report, have
been summarised and that the full consultation response or letter of representations are
available on request. It should also be noted that the associated drawings, application forms,
consultations, other correspondence and all letters of representations are available for viewing
on the Council web site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations
over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the
assessment of the application
(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in
assessment of the application.
Expresses general support for fish farming subject to there being no significant adverse
effect on a range of specified considerations; those relevant in this instance being:
In the case of marine fish farming this support is further conditional on the proposals
being consistent with the other policies of the Development Plan and Scottish Executive
Strategic Framework Guidelines.
(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the
assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.
Circular 6/1995 ‘European Protected Species, Development Sites and the Planning
System’ and revised Scottish Government Guidance June 2000
Scottish Executive – ‘Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish Farms
in Scottish Waters’ (2003 and updated June 2009 and December 2012)
‘A Fresh Start – the Renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture’ (2009)
‘Siting & Design of Marine Aquaculture Developments in the Landscape’ (SNH 2011)
‘Argyll & Bute Local Biodiversity Action Plan’ Argyll & Bute Council
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation
(PAC): No
(O) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): Yes - it is recommended that a pre-
determination hearing be convened in response to the number of representations
received from third parties and the complexity of the issues raised.
The proposal seeks permission for the installation of a marine finfish development of 12
No. 100m circumference (32m diameter) cages and a feed/service barge to be utilised
for the production of farmed salmon.
The application site is located to the eastern side of Seil Sound close inshore to the
coast of the Degnish peninsula which also forms the north coast of Loch Melfort. It is
situated to the east of the small island of Torsa which lies to the east of Cuan Sound off
the north-east coast of the Isle of Luing.
The site lies off an area of remote, largely inaccessible and uninhabited land, where it
would be most readily experienced from boat traffic negotiating the Sound, or at a
distance from coastal properties south of Balvicar on the Isle of Seil. The site currently
benefits from a Crown Estate shellfish lease for mussel rafts, although it is not equipped
for production. The nearest fin fish site is operated by the applicants some 900m to the
north at Ardmaddy. This comprises a block of steel cages which it is proposed to
remove should this enlarged and more modern facility be consented. The proposal
therefore constitutes a relocation which also involves an increase in licenced peak
biomass from 1,300 to 2,500 tonnes. There are no other finfish farms in Seil Sound, the
nearest sites being well removed within Loch Melfort and around the coast of Shuna to
the south.
The proposal when submitted in 2011 prompted significant public objection in relation to
the anticipated pollution effects of the development and the associated consequences
for marine habitats and species. Pollution control in respect of marine fish farm
developments is exercised by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
through the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR licence) rather than by the Council.
Planning Authorities are cautioned in government advice against attempting to duplicate
other regulatory regimes, so other than pollution consequences for wild fish (which are
not subject to SEPA control), the remaining pollution effects of this development are not
material considerations for the planning application process. Likewise it is SEPA who
consent permitted biomass to be held at the site and not the Council. With this situation
in mind, the applicants agreed to the suggestion from officers that in this particular case
it would be appropriate for this planning application to be held in abeyance pending the
submission and determination of a CAR licence application by SEPA, so that issues
surrounding pollution could be addressed in the first instance, without leading to
inappropriate demand from third parties for these to be addressed as part of the
determination of this planning application.
In the event, a CAR licence application was pursued, and despite third party opposition
prompting consideration of the matter by Scottish Ministers, no intervention on their part
took place and SEPA proceeded to issue a CAR licence in respect of this 2,500 tonne
site towards the end of 2012. Subsequent to that, the determination of the planning
application is now being pursued.
The site lies outwith but adjacent to the Firth of Lorn Special Area of Conservation
(SAC), the closest point of which lies at Cuan Sound which is 1.8km away. Where a
development proposal is not connected with the management of a Natura site for nature
conservation, is likely to have a significant effect on the site (either alone or in
combination with other plans or projects), or effects are unknown, then the ‘competent
authority’ assessing the merits of a development proposal (in this case the Planning
Authority) is required to carry out an ‘appropriate assessment’ in order to evaluate
anticipated effects on the conservation objectives of the designated site. This applies
equally to developments located outwith designations which have the potential to impact
upon qualifying interests within the designations, as it does to those developments
proposed within designated areas. In such circumstances, only when it is concluded
‘beyond reasonable scientific doubt’ that the development under consideration will not
adversely affect the integrity of the designation, may permission be granted. In all other
circumstances permission must be refused (other than in the specifically excepted
cases where no alternatives exist, or there are imperative reasons of overriding public
interest for development to proceed).
SEPA as ‘competent authority’ in respect of the CAR licence process conducted their
own ‘appropriate assessment’ prior to the granting of the licence for this site, which
concluded that the proposal would not compromise the nearby SAC designation.
Although SEPA’s assessment is a matter of record, as the planning process
commenced prior to SEPA’s consideration of the matter, it remains incumbent upon the
Planning Authority to conduct its own ‘appropriate assessment’ as part of the planning
application determination process. This can be found at Appendix B to this report. It
draws on SEPA’s conclusions (which are annexed to the appendix) as well as advice
provided by Scottish Natural Heritage. This concludes that impacts from solids flux, sea
lice treatments and nutrients are calculable, and having regard to modelling results and
accepted environmental standards, the development proposed will not adversely affect
the integrity of the SAC in light of its conservation objectives.
Neither SNH, SEPA, Marine Scotland, nor the District Salmon Fishery Board have
raised objections to the proposal. Objections have however been lodged by the Clyde
Fishermen’s Association, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, and adjacent Community Council’s
Scottish Planning Policy indicates the national importance of aquaculture in the context
of rural areas and that fish farming should be supported in appropriate locations, subject
to environmental considerations being assessed. Carrying capacity, landscape, natural
environment, historic environment and potential for conflict with other marine users,
including fishing and recreational interests, and economic factors will be material
considerations in assessing acceptability. Planning Authorities are cautioned not to
duplicate controls exercised by SEPA and Marine Scotland in their assessment of
proposals.
Government policy is to support the expansion of marine fish farming where it can take
place in environmental sustainable locations, where it does not exceed the carrying
capacity of the water body within which it is to be located and where it does not give rise
to significant adverse effects upon nature conservation, wild fish, historic environment or
other commercial or recreational water users. The intention of this proposal is to
enable the replacement of a first generation fish farm with more modern equipment in a
more hydrographically favourable location, whilst also taking the opportunity to expand
capacity. Despite the increase in biomass, the surface area of the cages would reduce
marginally, although the less compact layout of circular rather than square cages would
lead to an overall increase in the extent of surface footprint.
It has already been demonstrated to SEPA’s satisfaction that the development can
operate without compromising recognised water quality standards and that discharges
from the site will not affect the integrity of nearby European protected habitats. The
location of the site between the largely unpopulated coasts of Degnish and Torsa are
such that it will not exert influence over the land to any degree beyond that already
associated with the nearby site which it is intended to replace. Both sites lie within the
same local plan designated Area of Panoramic Quality. Sensitive receptors on land on
the Seil coast to the north would benefit from the intended relocation of the site
southwards at increased separation. The site would however be relocated to a narrower
section of the Sound, which would bring those navigating the Sound closer to the
equipment. However the proposal would reduce the number of consented aquaculture
sites from one shellfish and one finfish site to the single site proposed, so any increased
visual impact would be offset by this reduction in the number of sites. Whilst the width of
the navigational channel will be reduced, at 420m this would not be to the extent that it
would frustrate navigation. This aspect would be addressed separately by the Marine
Licence process.
Significant representation against the proposal has been received, primarily on grounds
that the development would increase pollution and pose a threat to protected habitats
and species. The extent and complexity of the issues raised are such as to warrant a
local hearing prior to the determination of the application.
The proposal involves the establishment of a new marine finfish farm, which would
entail the de-equipping of an established farm to the north of the site and the
relinquishment of the lease, and which would supersede an undeveloped but consented
shellfish farm within the application site. It would maintain the number of finfish farms in
Seil Sound at a single site. Whilst the development would occupy a narrower section of
the Sound and would occupy a larger overall footprint, other than for the addition of a
feed barge, the aggregate surface equipment area would remain similar to that at the
existing site. The landscape and visual consequences of the development relative to the
existing position are considered acceptable, whilst the separation from sensitive
receptors avoids unacceptable amenity conflicts. Navigation of the Sound will remain
unimpeded and recreational interests will not be seriously prejudiced. The pollution
consequences of the development in combination with other fish farm developments
upon the protected habitats of the Firth of Lorn SAC have been assessed by means of
‘appropriate assessment’ and it has been determined that this proposal will not
adversely affect the integrity of this European marine designation. The proposal satisfies
the provisions of the development plan and there are no other material considerations,
including matters raised by consultees and third parties, which would outweigh the
presumption in favour of development established by the plan.
(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan
Not applicable
Angus Gilmour
Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 12/00904//MFF
1. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than wholly in
accordance with the following plans and details unless previously approved in writing
by the Planning Authority:
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in
accordance with the approved details.
2. The stocking of the farm hereby approved with fish shall not take place until the fish pens
walkways, associated structures and moorings have been removed from the existing site
at Ardmaddy North (0.9km north of the consented site) and evidence has been
presented to the Planning Authority that the existing Crown Estate lease has been
relinquished in order to prevent subsequent re-equipping of that site.
Reason: Consent for this development is granted solely on the basis that this development
will replace the existing operation. Occupation of this site in association with the existing
site would produce unacceptable cumulative impacts as a result of the presence and
operation of multiple sites in inappropriately close proximity which would exceed the
carrying capacity of the receiving environment.
3. In the event that the development or any associated equipment approved by this
permission ceases to be in operational use for a period exceeding three years, the
equipment shall be wholly removed from the site thereafter unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that redundant development does
not sterilise capacity for future development within the same water body.
4. In the event of equipment falling into disrepair or becoming damaged, adrift, stranded,
abandoned or sunk in such a manner as to cause an obstruction or danger to navigation,
the developer shall carry out or make suitable arrangements for the carrying out of all
measures necessary for lighting, buoying, raising, repairing, moving or destroying, as
appropriate, the whole or any part of the equipment.
5. All lighting above the water surface and not required for safe navigation purposes should
be directed downwards by shielding and be extinguished when not required for the
purpose for which it is installed on the site.
7. No deployment of Acoustic Deterrent Devices shall be permitted at the site unless the
model intended for use and the means of its use have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Planning Authority, following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage.
Thereafter deployment shall only take place in accordance with the duly approved
details unless any subsequent variation thereof is agreed in writing by the Planning
Authority.
NOTES TO APPLICANT
• This permission shall only last for a period of three years from the date of this decision
notice unless the development is started within that period.
• In order to comply with Sections 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland)
Act 1997, prior to works commencing on site it is the responsibility of the developer to
complete and submit the attached ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ to the Planning
Authority specifying the date on which the development will start. Failure to comply with
this requirement constitutes a breach of planning control under Section 123(1) of the
Act.
• In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland)
Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of
Completion’ to the Planning Authority.
• In terms of condition 1 above, the council can approve minor variations to the approved
plans in terms of Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
although no variations should be undertaken without obtaining the prior written
approval of the Planning Authority. If you wish to seek any minor variation of the
application, an application for a non material amendment (NMA) should be made in
writing to Planning Services, Whitegates Office, Whitegates Road Lochgilphead, PA31
8SY which should list all the proposed changes, enclosing a copy of a plan(s) detailing
these changes together with a copy of the original approved plans. Any amendments
deemed by the Council to be material, would require the submission of a further
application for planning permission.
• The applicant should have regard to the navigational marking requirements of the
Northern Lighthouse Board as set out in their consultation response.
The applicant in this case is Lakeland Marine Farms Ltd (part of the Meridian Group)
who currently operate a number of finfish farming sites across Argyll including an
existing site at Ardmaddy (referred to as Ardmaddy North for the purposes of this
application). That site is a first generation farm comprising 18 No. 10m deep 24m x
24m square metal cages, projecting 1.4m above the surface, with bird exclusion nets
and several sheds mounted on the walkway structures, but without a feed barge. It
provides an aggregate cage surface area of 10,368m2 within an overall occupied
surface area of 13,440m2, secured within a seabed a mooring area of 145,000m2. It
has a licenced maximum biomass of 1,300 tonnes. The applicants seek to replace that
equipment whilst at the same time expanding the productive capacity of the farm, and
in so doing have identified a hydrographically more favourable site 900m to the south,
which would lend itself to the increased biomass proposed.
The proposed site (referred to as Ardmaddy South for the purposes of this application)
lies on the same side of the Sound some 900m to the south of the location of the
current equipment. The site is located off the west coast of the Deignish peninsula at
Port na Morachd, about 1km to the north of Deignish Point and on the opposite side of
the Sound to the small island of Torsa. The proposal is to equip the site with 12 No.
100m circumference circular cages grouped together in a 6 x 2 rectangular mooring
grid, producing a slightly reduced aggregate area occupied by surface equipment that
at Ardmaddy North at 9,549m2, within a larger 179,800m2 mooring area (580m x
310m). The cages would be fitted with a centrally supported top net structure giving an
overall maximum height of 2.6m at the cage centre point. The site would have a
maximum biomass of 2,500 tonnes - 1,200 tonnes greater than the existing site at
Ardmaddy North. The main difference in the appearance of the site will be accounted
for by its less compact format due to the bigger gaps between circular cages, and the
addition of a feed barge at the north end of the cage group. It will therefore occupy a
larger area of water (cage grid within a buoyed support structure of 100m x 300m),
despite the fact that the surface area of the equipment within this overall area will be
less than that of the pens at the present site.
The application site already benefits from a Crown Estate lease for a shellfish farm
comprising 6 No. 10m2 mussel rafts within a 55,000m2 mooring area, although the site
is not currently equipped for production. It is intended that the proposal will supersede
the shellfish site and that the lease for the Ardmaddy North site would be relinquished
and the equipment removed, in the event that this larger replacement farm at
Ardmaddy South is consented.
The proposed cages comprise circular polyethelyene flotation rings approx.1.2m high
above the waterline with a diameter of 32m, from which 15m deep nets will be
suspended. The cages will be fitted with a ‘hamster wheel’ top net support 2.6m high
which will enable the fitting of 25mm mesh nets over the cages for the purpose of
excluding pisciverous birds. The nets are fitted with false bottoms (seal blinds) to deter
predator attacks from below, and are held in tension, again to resist predation. The
cages will be secured in place by a rectangular 100m x 300m mooring grid with
mooring lines and rock anchors used to secure the position of the grid relative to the
seabed. The site will be aligned SW - NE parallel to, and close inshore to, the mainland
coast. The feed barge originally proposed was 18m x 26m in area although this has
since been reduced by way of amended plans showing a much smaller barge 14.0m x
10.5m in area and 5.3m in height maximum, dependent upon the quantity of feed held.
The barge comprises four silos, a generator, maintenance and crew accommodation. It
will be finished in a recessive colour with generator noise only audible at close
quarters. The site will be staffed by 3 to 4 full-time employees plus 2 part-time staff and
will safeguard the jobs currently associated with Ardmaddy North. Deliveries to the site
will be by sea from Lakeland’s existing shore base at Loch Craignish. Personnel
transfers will take place by boat from a staff facility at Croabh Haven. Underwater
lighting would be used to control maturation and maximise growth December to May
every second year with 2 No, 1,000w lights being used 5m beneath each cage. These
would be powered by the feed barge generator and would produce a surface glow only
visible at close quarters or from elevated vantage points. Other lighting on the site, with
the exception of navigational requirements, would be restricted to essential
requirements so as to avoid unnecessary illumination on the site.
The section of the Sound to which the site is to be relocated is narrower than that
occupied by the equipment at Ardmaddy north being some 700m wide at this point and
narrowing off to the south due to the presence of the island of Torsa. The nearest fish
farm site is that at Ardmaddy North (to be relinquished) with the next nearest sites
either being within Loch Melfort or off the north coast of the island of Shuna, some 5km
to the south. Seil Sound is ‘unclassified water’ for the purpose of Marine Scotland’s
Locational Guidelines for fish farms in marine waters, as it is a complex open water
body which does not suit the modelling used to inform the guidelines (which relate
more to sealochs which are most susceptible to cumulative impacts). In view of this the
applicant has undertaken nutrient enrichment modelling which has been accepted by
Marine Scotland and by SEPA in their ‘appropriate assessment, which in turn informs
the conclusions of the Councils own assessment.
The site lies within Management Area 16d (Seil Sound to Loch Craignish). There is no
Area Management Agreement in place for this location at the moment due to the
decision of wild fish interests to withdraw from the former Lower Lorn AMA. The
applicants are, however, part of the Lower Lorn Farm Management Agreeement with
Kames Fish Farm which ensures synchronous stocking and treatments between the
two companies actively farming in this area. The intended peak biomass (fish tonnage)
for the overall site is 2,500 tonnes. The stocking density would be 17.4kg per m3 max.
The production cycle of the farm would be 22 months with 2 months left fallow to assist
in benthic (sea bed) recovery.
The site would be operated in compliance with the Scottish Salmon Producers
Organisation’s ‘Code of Good Practice Guidelines for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture’.
This sets out more than 300 main specific compliance points which cover all aspects of
finfish good practice including:
The applicants have provided details of their Emergency Mortality Removal and
Escapes Contingency procedures, manufacturers’ site specific attestations for
equipment, nets and moorings, their Veterinary Health and Biosecurity Plan and their
Predator Risk Assessment and Predator Control Plan. With regard to predator control,
it is noted that the ES states that Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) would only be
deployed in circumstances where the site becomes subject to attempted predation. As
a last resort in the event of persistent rogue seal activity, the shooting of seals may
take place in accordance with a Scottish Government licence already held by the
company.
The provisions of Policies STRAT DC 7, LP ENV 2 and LP ENV 6 all seek to resist
development which is considered likely to result in a significant adverse impact upon
internationally, nationally or locally important habitats and/or species.
The application site is not located within any European or national nature conservation
designations. Whist the proposal lies outwith the Firth of Lorn Special Area of
Conservation (SAC) it is within potential influencing distance of the SAC, the nearest
point of which is some 2km away at Cuan Sound, and for that reason a Habitats
Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ has been carried out in respect of qualifying
interests of this European marine site. The Sound is also frequented by species of
nature conservation interest including seals and wild salmonids, for which development
of the type proposed could have consequences in terms of displacement or deterrence.
Salmon and Sea Trout are vulnerable to interaction with farmed fish and both a UK
BAP and the A&B LBAP species and included in the Argyll & Bute Local Biodiversity
Action Plan. The Sound also host to white cluster anemone, which is a Priority Marine
Feature.
The applicants have provided a benthic survey, a visual assessment and a modelling
assessment in support of their proposal, all of which have been considered by SEPA
as part of their CAR licence application and which have helped inform SEPA’s
conclusions in respect of their ‘appropriate assessment’. The seabed below the
proposed site comprises firm mud, shell and gravel which supports a diverse range of
mollusc, crustacean and echinoderm. There are no specifically designated habitats
below or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Modelling has been used to predict a site
specific Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE) in order to demonstrate compliance with
SEPA’s requirements. This indicates that there will be localised enrichment with high
dispersal at what is regarded to be a moderately flushed site. SEPA has accepted this
conclusion along with the fact that there will be low cumulative impact as the next
nearest site is 2.5km distant. The CAR licence which was issued at the end of 2012
addresses the discharge consequences of the development in terms of smothering as
well as chemical treatments and cumulative nutrient enrichment.
SNH and SEPA are both content with the benthic surveys undertaken by the applicant
and neither have objections to the proposal on the grounds of unacceptable benthic
impacts.
Water Quality Impacts:
This site is located at the SE entrance to Seil Sound which is subject to tidal currents
producing a moderately flushed site, and modelling indicates that waste dispersal will
be into the deeper water of the Sound as well as to Loch Melfort and Shuna Sound.
Estimated nutrient enrichment is well below the threshold of 50% above the OSPAR
and UTAG reference levels, and consented sea lice treatments have been set in the
CAR licence for the site at a level which will not breach SEPA’s Environmental Quality
Standards. Whilst localised impacts are anticipated from particulate and dissolved
wastes, modelling results indicate that these, when considered cumulatively with other
consented sites, will not result in a significant deterioration in the quality of the
receiving water body; a position accepted by SEPA in the issuing of a CAR licence for
the biomass sought by the applicants.
Neither Marine Scotland Science nor SEPA have raised objection to the proposal in
respect of the predicted impact of the development upon water quality.
Salmon farm predators are generally piscivorous birds and seals, with the latter tending
to be the most frequently encountered predators on marine farms in Scotland. The
presence of sea cages may attract higher concentrations of predators to the locality of
the site, although good husbandry and hygiene procedures will help to reduce the
attraction of predators. Tensioned netting on fish cages prevents and deters both seals
and diving bird attacks, although regular removal of mortalities from the bottom of the
nets and regular maintenance of the nets to maintain their integrity is necessary to
avoid attempts at predation. Top nets are to be installed on the cages to avoid
predation by birds from above the waterline. Bird nets require to be maintained to a
high standard and properly tensioned eliminate the opportunity for birds to become
entangled or to be able to enter the cage. The fish cages themselves are to be
manufactured to current industry standards, with a net specification, tensioning
arrangements, false bottoms and an installation, inspection and maintenance regime to
meet the SSPO ‘Code of Good Practice’ requirements. It is clearly in the operator’s
interest to ensure that equipment is specified and maintained in a manner to ensure
containment of the farmed fish. Site specific equipment attestations have been supplied
to confirm that, in the respective manufacturer’s opinions, the equipment intended for
use on this site is suitable and sufficiently durable to be deployed having regard to the
characteristics of in the particular marine environment proposed.
The ES does not identify any major colonies of predators in the vicinity of the
application site, although there are recorded haul outs within 2km at Cuan Sound and
Scoul Eilean. The Environmental Statement concludes that proposed use of good
husbandry (mortality and moribund fish removal) and hygiene practices based on
experience at other sites, coupled with the use of tensioned nets and top nets will be
sufficient to deter predators at the proposed site. In the event of persistent predator
activity, the applicants wish to maintain that option to deploy Acoustic Deterrent
Devices (ADD’s) to scare away seals in order to avoid to resorting to the shooting of
seals. Technology has improved in recent years with devices available which are more
effective than previous systems and are more localised and targeted in their impact.
SNH have asked that deployment of ADD’s be subject to their approval via planning
condition. Only in extreme circumstances would resort be made to the shooting of
seals under government licence. The applicants already hold a Seal Management
Licence for their 9 sites on the west coast, including Ardmaddy North, to which they
would request this proposed site by way of an addition in the event that planning
permission is granted. During 2012 one seal was shot in connection with the
applicant’s farm at Ardmaddy North.
Scottish Natural Heritage has not raised objection to the proposal on the grounds of
unacceptable consequences for potential predators or impacts on non-target wildlife.
Although containment risks can be managed, they cannot however be eradicated and
there remains a residual risk that an unforeseen event can propagate escaped farmed
fish in large numbers into the uncontrolled marine environment. Escapes of farmed
stock are generally low, but can occur through equipment failure, predation, operator
error, severe weather or foul play. By adherence to the SSPO ‘Code of Good Practice
Guidelines’ the applicant seeks to minimise this residual risk as far as is practicable.
Likewise, via good husbandry practices, regular inspection and the administration of
medicines in accordance with veterinary health plans, outbreaks of disease which
could have consequences for wild fish can be managed.
The most intractable issue influencing the interaction between farmed salmon and wild
fish species is that of sea lice transmission. Farmed fish are routinely hosts to parasitic
sea lice, the numbers of which require to be controlled in order to assure the health of
farmed fish and to avoid lice propagation into surrounding waters. Wild salmon can be
exposed to sea lice from fish farms close to salmon rivers during their migration
periods, whilst sea trout tend to remain in coastal waters throughout the year, so are
potentially at greater risk. In this case there are no major wild salmon fisheries within
15km of the site.
The applicant proposes to control sea lice in accordance with current industry practice,
via the use of in-feed treatments and well-boat administered bath treatments, whilst
adopting good management practices such as single year stocking and synchronous
stocking, fallowing and lice treatment with other sites within the Lower Lorn Farm
Management Agreement. All sea lice bath treatments are intended to be carried out on
board well-boats (rather than the more traditional method of net shallowing) which is a
superior method, in terms of control over exposure time and dosage to ensure the
effectiveness of those treatments. It also enables more than 50% reduction in the use
of chemotherapeutants over treatment administered within cages. The applicants are
also trialling the use of wrasse as a means of biological control over sea lice hosted on
farmed salmon, which again presents opportunity to reduce the administration of
chemical controls. .
However effective the control measures are in practice, it is an inevitable consequence
of holding fish in such quantities that significant numbers of sea lice will be propagated
from the site. How these are dispersed will depend on local factors such as wind
direction and residual current. The distribution of farm derived lice in the marine
environment is not well understood although it is known that in favourable conditions
they can travel considerable distances from source.
In addition to sea lice propagation, failure of containment can lead to escapes which
pose a threat to wild fish due to competition or through breeding. The applicants
consider that their tensioned net systems are appropriately specified so as to be fit for
purpose at the site and that they are accompanied by appropriate management
measures and predator control arrangements to minimise the prospect of escape
events. None of the applicant’s fish farm sites in Argyll have to date been the subject of
mass escapes.
The conclusion of the applicant’s supporting information is that the site will not
prejudice wild fish interests. The applicants have stated that they have not had sea lice
problems with the existing site at Ardmaddy North and sea lice treatment already
consented by SEPA is suitable to allow efficacious treatment of lice populations at this
enlarged site in accordance with recognised standards.
Neither Marine Scotland nor SNH have objected to the proposal on the grounds of the
threat posed to wild salmonids. The District Salmon Fishery Board have not objected
subject to removal of the existing site, but have expressed their preference for the site
to operate on the basis of reduced biomass in order for effective treatment to be
demonstrated. Given the capital investment in an enlarged facility such as this, a
conditional obligation for under-stocking would not be a reasonable planning
requirement.
There are no nature conservation designated sites (SSSI’s or SAC’s) in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed farm, although it does lie within a Marine Consultation Area
defined by Scottish Natural Heritage in view of the overall quality of the marine
environment. The closest designated site is the Firth of Lorn SAC to the west of Cuan
Sound and the Isle of Luing identified for its rocky reef habitat. The SAC covers open
water to the west of Seil and Luing and waters around Scarba and to the north of Jura,
but excludes the more enclosed waters of Seil Sound, Shuna Sound and Loch Melfort.
A map of the designated area appears in the ‘appropriate assessment’ at Appendix B.
Covering an area of approx. 210km2 the Firth of Lorn SAC has been designated for its
rocky reef habitats which support an exceptional marine biodiversity, with associated
communities and species which are amongst the most diverse in both the UK and
Europe. Conservation objectives for the SAC are to avoid deterioration in the qualifying
interest (rocky reefs) thereby ensuring that the integrity of the designation is
maintained. Although at a distance from the designated SAC, there may be potential
for the proposed development to affect the designated area by means of the deposition
of organic waste and by chemotherapeutants transported into the designated area by
tidal currents. The proposed fish farm has the potential to affect qualifying interests in a
number of ways. Firstly, from smothering as a result of the transport and deposition of
solids; secondly, due to toxicity from the exported residues of chemical treatments; and
thirdly, from the cumulative impact of the development with other sites within
influencing distance of the SAC.
Where a development has the potential to give rise to significant effects upon the
qualifying interests of a European Natura designation, the ‘competent authority’
considering the merits of any development proposal within, or within influencing
distance of, the designated area is required to undertake ‘appropriate assessment’, if it
considers that it presents the possibility of significant environmental effects upon that
designation. Where a likely significant effect is anticipated, development may only
proceed if the ‘appropriate assessment’ concludes beyond ‘reasonable scientific doubt’
that the integrity of the SAC will not be compromised. In all other circumstances to
satisfy the requirements of the Habitats Directive, permission must be refused (other
than in the specifically excepted cases where no alternatives exist, or there are
imperative reasons of overriding public interest for development to proceed).
Interaction between the site and the SAC designation in terms of the transport of
organic waste and chemotherapeutants has been reviewed by SEPA by way of a
Habitats regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ in association with their CAR licence
process. An ‘appropriate assessment’ on behalf of the Planning Authority drawing
heavily upon the conclusions reached by SEPA, can be found at Appendix B to this
report. In reaching its own conclusions as set out in that appendix, the Council has
consulted both with SEPA and SNH for their views on the matter. Dispersal modelling
accepted by SEPA indicates that solids and in-feed chemical residues will be
predominantly exported via Cuan Sound into a dispersive environment where
additional amounts will not be such as to breach Environmental Quality Standards
(EQS) set by SEPA, or to compromise the conservation objectives of the SAC.
Scottish Natural Heritage has not raised objection to the planning application or the
SEPA CAR licence on the grounds of unacceptable consequences for marine
mammals, otters, the priority marine feature ‘white cluster anemone’ or the qualifying
reef habitat of the SAC
Conclusion
The proposal is considered consistent with Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 (5 and 12)
and other relevant development plan policies insofar as it would not significantly
prejudice water quality and associated biodiversity interests.
C. Landscape/Seascape Character
The application site lies inshore in a relatively remote location off the west facing coast
of the Degnish peninsula. From the land the site would be visible from the west facing
slopes above the coast, but there is no road access to this area, no overlooking
habitation and little public access appears taken to this area other than for the path
between Loch Melfort and Ardmaddy which is set well back from the coastline behind
the high ground overlooking the site. The opposing coast is formed by the eastern side
of the small island of Torsa. There is no habitation on the east facing coast of the
island, and there are unlikely to be few sensitive receptors affected. The site would be
visible, but at a distance in excess of 2km, from a handful of isolated properties to the
north-west on the Isle of Seil, which can be found close to the coast and to the south of
Balvicar. There will be some limited visibility from the land either side of the Cuan Ferry
but remaining visibility from Luing would be from the largely unpopulated east coast,
other than for long distance visibility, end on to the site, from Toberonochy at over 5km
away. The existing site at Ardmaddy North lies closer to the closest properties south of
Balvicar than the location of the proposed site, which lies at an increased distance from
any habitation. Any disbenefit arising from the enlarged site, including the additional
impact of a feed barge would be largely offset by the removal of the existing equipment
closer to Seil. Both the existing fish farm at Ardmaddy North and the proposed site lie
adjacent to areas designated as ‘sensitive countryside’ and ‘Areas of Panoramic
Quality’ by the adopted local plan, so share the same development plan context.
The ‘Area of Panoramic Quality’ accords the locality a scenic designation of regional
status. The provisions of Policies STRAT DC 8 and LP ENV 10 seek to resist
development which is considered to have a significant adverse impact upon the key
landscape characteristics of these designations. Both the mainland and the islands
either side of Seil Sound are identified as falling within the ‘Craggy Coast and Islands’
landscape character type, identified by Scottish Natural Heritage as having a small
scale diverse topography within a distinct seascape context which provides a unifying
element. The more inaccessible sections of coast exhibit a sense of isolation and
naturalness which is less apparent on the more inhabited stretches of coast. The APQ
recognises the panoramic value of the seascape and the views to and from the islands.
The intended location lies close inshore and parallel to the coast, where it would benefit
from a dark coloured and elevated landscape backdrop, whilst the equipment is low-
lying and to be finished in a recessive colour. This meets with SNH good practice
guidance on the location and design of marine aquaculture development. Most
terrestrial receptors (roads, transport routes, frequented public locations) would be at a
significant distance from the equipment which would not assume importance in its
landscape setting when appreciated from such locations. The lack of access being
routinely taken to the isolated stretch of coast on the mainland immediately above the
site is such that there will be few receptors taking closer quarter views down into the
equipment.
The primary effect upon the perception of the landscape/seascape of Seil Sound will be
in terms of those transiting the Sound by boat. Seil Sound is a body of enclosed water
which is frequented by recreational boat traffic and a recognised cruising route. Yachts,
tour boats and kayaks currently pass the existing site at Ardmaddy North, so their
experience of the Sound is already influenced by the presence of aquaculture
equipment. Although the proposed site is larger in extent and the Sound is narrower in
the vicinity of the proposed site, there will be a small reduction in the aggregate surface
area of the equipment and the round cages proposed are less visually intrusive that the
existing square cages, which form a more compromising block with less intervening
water. Whilst a feed barge is proposed, and this is an additional element not present at
Ardmaddy North, the applicants have reduced the scale of that proposed significantly in
order to limit the impact of this structure. Feed barges are now an almost standard
requirement in the servicing of modern marine fish farm operations and it would be
unrealistic to expect a site of this nature not to include one. Provided that the model
selected is finished in a recessive colour it will not be an unacceptable element of the
development.
The proposal would also remove the prospect of the existing shellfish lease being
taken up for the siting of mussel rafts on the application site. The removal of the
equipment form Ardmaddy North in favour of the proposed development would mean
that there would still be one fish farm to be passed by boat traffic at the southern end of
the Sound. Despite the revised location and the altered appearance of the equipment,
there would be overall little change in the perception and the appreciation of
landscape/seascape from the water, with aquaculture retaining a presence in the
locality by way of a single finfish farm, well removed from the next closest aquaculture
site, so that cumulative impact does not become unacceptable in landscape or visual
terms.
Scottish Natural Heritage are of the opinion that the landscape and visual effects of the
development will be localised. Whilst it has been suggested that the impact of the feed
barge could be reduced by repositioning it to the southern end of the site, where it
would benefit from screening by the higher part of the island of Torsa, the applicants do
not consider this to be desirable operationally as their practice is to site barges on the
less exposed ends of sites, where in the event of storm damage, the threat to the
integrity of the cage group is less. The applicant’s response has been to downsize the
scale of the intended barge in its originally proposed location as an alternative means
of addressing this suggestion.
Conclusion
The proposal complies with Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 (2 and 4) and other relevant
development plan policies insofar as it would not significantly prejudice landscape
character, visual amenity or designated areas of scenic quality. In view of the absence
of other aquaculture in the immediate locality, and the intention to remove equipment
from the existing site at Ardmaddy North in the event that permission is granted, the
development does not present any cumulative impact issues of concern.
The development of the proposed site would entail the relinquishment of the existing
Crown Estate lease for the fish farm site at Ardmaddy North. This would release new
ground for inshore creel fishing once the seabed has had opportunity to recover from
the presence of an operational farm. The Sound is not used for trawling. Although the
Clyde Fishermen’s Association has objected to the development their objections tend
to be founded around the growth of the aquaculture sector in general and the perceived
unsustainability of the industry rather than upon specific shortcomings associated with
the location of the application site or the details of the proposal.
The proposed site is located in a narrower section of the Sound than the current site
and the proposed mooring area extends further out into the Sound than the area which
is the subject of the current Crown Estate shellfish lease area. Despite that, the
equipment is to be located close inshore to the east of existing navigational and RYA
cruising routes, which will ensure that the surface equipment and the associated
moorings do not impinge upon access into and out of the south of the Sound by boat.
Navigational implications of the development will be considered separately by Marine
Scotland under the marine licencing procedure. It should be borne in mind that whilst
the seabed foot print of the mooring area is extensive at 580m x 310m, around a third
of the seaward end of the mooring lines will be on the seabed rising up to the cage
mooring grid which is supported by riser buoys 8m out from the cages. Therefore
navigation relatively close to the cage group is possible, and indeed the installation has
been designed to afford sufficient draught for a large well boat to service the farm and
for workboats to come alongside the cages.
Conclusion
The proposal complies with Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 (6 and 11) and other relevant
development plan policies insofar as it would not significantly prejudice navigation and
the continued exploitation of traditional fishing ground.
E. Noise
Noise associated with the development will arise from the operation of workboats and
other vessels associated with the fish farm, plus noise from the generator within the
concrete feed barge. Given the absence of local habitation or other sensitive receptors,
and the transient nature of other boat traffic, this will not present a problem in terms of
the operation of the site. The applicants already utilise the type of feed barge intended
to be employed at this site and experience of that in operation is such that it is evident
that generator noise will not pose a threat to amenity.
F. Transport
As with the existing site at Ardmaddy North, there will be no need for access to the
locality of the site by road. Servicing and deliveries will be undertaken by boat from the
applicant’s existing shore base in Loch Craignish. Personnel will take access by small
boat from an existing facility adjoining the marina at Craobh Haven. Stocking and
harvesting of fish, and treatment of sea lice, will take place by larger vessels.
G. Conclusion
The proposal has given rise to considerable public objection. Concerns have been
expressed by 3rd parties in terms of pollution of the water environment, impact upon
habitats and species, and in view of the presence of the equipment in terms of
landscape character, navigating interests and the experience of those transiting the
Sound by boat. The extent of the issues raised regarding pollution and the extent of its
suggested consequences for nature conservation prompted the application being held
in abeyance for some considerable time, in order to afford the applicant opportunity to
address these matters and for them to be assessed in detail by SEPA. Given that
pollution issues are largely the remit of SEPA, and having regard to the government
position that Planning Authorities should not seek to duplicate other regulatory regimes,
it is inappropriate that those matters which are properly the responsibility of SEPA
should be revisited as part of this application.
Of those other matters which fall within the remit of the Planning Authority none have
been identified which point to the need to withhold planning consent. The proposal is,
in part, a relocation of an existing site, and also an enlargement of production capacity.
It enables the removal of first generation equipment and the use of more modern
techniques in a site which is better flushed and which presents opportunity to hold
increased biomass without breaching SEPA’s environmental quality standards. It would
maintain a single presence of aquaculture development at the southern end of the
Sound and would enable an increase in production capacity without seriously
prejudicing any of the considerations which are material to the determination of the
application. In those circumstances it can be considered to be compliant with Local
Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 and other relevant development plan policies, and there are no
other material considerations identified of such magnitude as to warrant other than
planning permission being granted in conformity with development plan policy.
APPENDIX 11/1066/MFF: NAMES & ADDRESSES OF REPRESENTEES
OBJECTORS:
OTHER REPRESENTATIONS: