Argyll and Bute Council Development Services

Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle

Reference No : 09/00905/MFF Planning Hierarchy : Local Development Applicant : Ocean Shells Ltd. Proposal : Formation of 14 cage fish farm including foodstore/service/pontoon Site Address : Eilean Grianain, Kilbrannon South, North of Carradale, Campbeltown

DECISION ROUTE

Local Government Scotland Act 1973

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

• Formation of 14 cage Marine Salmon Fish Farm; • Installation of food storage and service barge.

(ii) Other specified operations

• Servicing from Carradale Harbour

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend that permission be granted subject to:

i) the conditions and reasons attached; ii) a discretion ary local hearing being held in advance of the determination of the application in view of the number of representations received.

(C) CONSULTATIONS:

East Kintyre Community Council (07.09.09) - No objections, support is expressed for the proposal in view of the likelihood of employment creation in East Kintyre and perceived benefits from the use of Carradale Harbour to service the development.

Campbeltown Community Council (22.09.09) – Express support for the proposal on the grounds that the benefits to the community will outweigh objections on the grounds of adverse visual impact. It is noted that there appear to be few objections from Carradale residents and the proposal will help revive the fortunes of this fishing community in terms of economic development and employment creation.

Northern Lighthouse Board (17.07.09) – Comments in respect of the requirement for navigational markings.

Transport Scotland (20.07.09) – No comments.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) – (22.07.09) No objections to the development from a planning and EIA perspective although it is noted that a CAR licence will be required. Confirm that the site is outside any Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) category area, and that no Area Management Agreement (AMA) is in place covering the area.

Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) – (03.08.09) Object to the proposal – In summary, advise that the proposed development gives rise to concern with regard to wild fish interests in the following respects:

(i) Scale: That the proposal relates to a very large tonnage in a previously unfarmed stretch of water and as such has significant potential to impact on fragile wild salmon and sea trout populations. In this respect it is suggested that the proposed scale of the development should be reduced significantly until such time as it can be substantiated that the location and management of the site does not impact on wild salmon and sea trout. In order to support this process it is suggested that the developer commissions a full survey of fish populations in the Carradale, Claonaig, Skipness, Iorsa and Machrie catchments prior to the development with further monitoring of sea-lice populations and wild fish through a minimum of two production cycles (4 years) to assess whether further development at this site is appropriate. It is also acknowledged that whilst halving the proposed tonnage would not eliminate the potential impact of the site upon wild fish, it would be reasonable to deduct that such a reduction would proportionately reduce the number of sea lice produced at the site.

(ii) Cumulative Impact: Concern was originally expressed in respect of the potential impact of the proposed development cumulatively with that of two proposed sites for cod farms further to the north on the assumption that consent would later be sought for the use of one or both of these sites for salmon in order to balance production at Eilean Grianain thus preventing synchronous production in the Kilbrannon Sound.

The applicant has subsequently clarified that the currently proposed development is economically viable on its own with production to be balanced by integration with Lakeland’s other sites in Mid Argyll and Shetland and the grounds of objection have been removed in this respect with the caveat that, in the event that the current proposal were to be approved, that any further salmon farm development within the Kilbrannon Sound would require to take into account cumulative impacts.

(iii) Impacts on Wild Salmon and Sea Trout: Objection is raised to the findings of the ES which state “that the effect of Eilean Grainain on wild fish to negligible/low” – this objection being raised on the grounds that this statement is based on comments based on observation rather than any substantiated scientific evidence. Available data on juvenile fish populations in the rivers close to the proposed development indicates that this area is of significance to maintain wild salmon and sea trout populations. For this reason there should be an assumption of some interaction of farm and wild fish particularly in relation to sea lice transfer and potential for escapee fish to enter local rivers; it should be assumed that the farm has potential to impact and a precautionary approach taken. In the event that the application were to be granted it is suggested that any such consent should include an agreement by the applicant to provide increased ‘in river’ monitoring on wild fish and post smolts to ascertain any effects the farm may have together with judicious lice level monitoring at the site by the applicant/Fish Health Inspectorate.

Following further discussion with the applicant, the effort of Marine Fish Farm operators and the applicable Code of Practice to control sea lice levels is acknowledged, in particular it is noted that Lakeland appear to have a good lice control record elsewhere; however, this in itself is not sufficient basis to remove objections in respect of the above.

(iv) Fisheries: It is noted that the proposal could potentially impact upon coastal netting rights in the vicinity. Whilst it is the Board’s policy to discourage coastal netting it is advised that affected parties have been advised and invited to make representation on the current proposal directly to the planning authority.

(v) Connectivity Between Sites: Concern was originally raised on the assumption that the current application is part of a larger plan to create two, possibly three salmon farms on the East Kintyre Coast, the other sites being at Port Fada and Rubha Riabhach. In view of this concern it was requested that the applicant provide information on tidal overlaps relating to the dispersal of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA) – this information has not been provided in the ES; clarification was also sought as to whether the development, in combination with the other sites would form part of an existing Area Management Agreement (AMA).

Following further discussion with the applicant this concern has largely been removed with regard to the determination of the current proposal in respect of the potential for further development (see Cumulative Impacts above) and with confirmation that, as Eilean Grianain is outwith any existing management production area and as such has no tidal overlap with Arran or Loch Fyne sites owing to the large separation distances, the developer is committed in principle to participating in a new AMA covering this site.

(vi) Sea Lice: Concern was originally raised that the submitted ES did not satisfactorily take into account the dispersal of sea lice from the site and the potential impact upon wild fish.

Following further discussion with the applicant it was confirmed and acknowledged that at the present time there is no verified sea lice larvae dispersal model available for the Kilbrannon Sound.

(vii) Sea Lice Treatments: Concern was originally raised over the longer-term effectiveness of current sea lice medicines.

Following further discussion with the applicant, in which Lakeland have explained that it seeks to control sea lice in line with industry best practice and that the quantity of therapeutic sea lice treatment is regulated by SEPA, it is acknowledged that Lakeland would appear to have obtained licence for a sufficient stock of medicines to treat the large bio-mass proposed.

(viii) Predator Control: Concern was originally raised in respect of the applicant’s intention not to install Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) at the site in view of the generally high number of seals present within the Kilbrannon Sound.

Following further discussions, the applicant has advised that the decision not to install ADDs was arrived at in view of SNH’s concerns that the use of such devices may adversely impact upon Cetaceans; however, more sophisticated ADDs are currently being trialled by the applicant in other locations with test results indicating that these devices are more effective than previous systems with more localised results – it is the intention of the applicant to liaise with SNH with a view to utilising these more advanced devices at this site if possible. The Board welcomes the applicant’s decision to liaise with SNH with a view to utilising these more advanced devices at this site.

Marine Scotland/Fisheries Research Services (04.08.09) & (19.08.09) – No objections having established the suitability of the equipment for this location and having been satisfied that the applicant would put in place appropriate contingencies for removal and disposal of large volumes of dead fish during a mass mortality event.

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) - (04.08.09 and 23.09.09) – No objections subject to conditions – Advise that:

(i) benthic communities are considered to be typical of the area and as such the proposal is unlikely to result in any significant loss of seabed habitat;

(ii) that whilst the development will result in adverse landscape and visual impacts these are reduced to such an extent by the proximity of the development to the coast and backdrop of the Carradale headland which restrict land based views of the site that the development is considered unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the wider coastscape of the Kilbrannon Sound;

(iii) that the use of Acoustic Deterent Devices (ADD’s) to deter predators from the cages could also have a wider adverse impact upon cetaceans, following further discussion with the developer in which the development of more effective and locally contained ADDs was highlighted, it is suggested that the development be the subject of a condition which prevents the use of ADD’s unless otherwise approved by SNH rather than ruling out their use entirely;

(iv) that the risk to wild salmon populations is considered to be acceptable in view of the developers proposal to adhere strictly to industry standards in respect of fish health, sea lice management and containment.

Historic Scotland (10.08.09) – No objections, advise that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on any historic environment sites of national importance.

Scottish Government Climate Change Policy (13.08.09) – No comments.

Local Biodiversity Officer (24.09.09) – No objections – notes that the Kilbrannan Sound is utilised by a number of important species identified in both local and UK Biodiversity Action Plans including Otter and a range of Cetaceans: Common Dolphin, Bottlenose Dolphin, Basking Shark, Minke Whale, Killer Whale and Harlow Porpoise; Wild Salmonides: Salmon and Sea Trout. It is also suggested that, in the event of the application being permitted, that monitoring of the impact of the development include sitings of Cetaceans, seals and otters.

Health and Safety Executive – No response to date

Scottish Office Environmental Assessments: No response received to date.

Area Environmental Health Manager – Comments to follow.

(D) HISTORY:

The Crown Estate previously consulted the Council in 1992 (ref. 02-89-0035) on a proposal to establish a marine shellfish farm at this site and four other locations (02- 89-0033) on the East Kintyre Coast. The Council did not raise any objections to the proposed use of this site for shellfish farming subject to restrictions requiring the proposed buoys to be of a recessive grey colour.

The Crown Estate opted at that time to offer a single lease to one of the other four sites (Eascairt); but have subsequently issued a lease for this particular site in March 2007.

Further to the north at Port Fada and Rubha Riabhach, Lakeland Marine Farm Ltd. have submitted lease applications (ref. 06/00873/MFF) to the Crown Estate for two (no.) sites for the formation of 14 cage marine cod farm developments. These lease applications remain undetermined at the present time and the Council has not as yet expressed its view on the acceptability of these proposals in light of deficiencies in the submitted Environmental Assessment which to date remain unaddressed by the applicant.

(E) PUBLICITY:

The proposal was advertised in both the local press and the Edinburgh Gazette on 10 th July 2009 as development accompanied by an Environmental Assessment – this 28 day period expired on 7 th August 2009.

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

(i) Representations received from:

To date, the Planning Department has received 21 letters of objection to the proposal, 11 letters of support and two petitions, of 31 and 21 names respectively, also in support of the proposal. One further letter of representation has been received from Jamie McGrigor MSP, requesting that the concerns of his constituents be given due consideration in the determination of this application.

The various parties who have submitted representations are set out in Appendix B attached to this report.

(ii) Summary of issues raised:

Objections to the proposal:

• That currently there are no fish farms within the Kilbrannon Sound and that it is one of the few remaining areas of the Scottish west coast which is unspoiled by such development. It is therefore contended that the Kilbrannon Sound is a valuable asset and should be retained as such for environmental, social and local economic reasons.

Comment: There is no national or local policy provision which would specifically seek to resist fish farm development within the Kilbrannon Sound. It is therefore advised that the current proposal should be considered on its merits having due regard to the locational constraints of the site and the local and national policies and guidance set out in section J below.

• That the proposal will appear incongruous within the unspoiled coastscape setting of East Kintyre, the Kilbrannon Sound and Arran and as such should be considered as a significant adverse visual impact upon the Arran National Scenic Area, Kintyre Area of Panoramic Quality and main tourist routes.

Comment: This issue is specifically addressed in Appendix A attached to this report.

• Concern is raised that the visual impact of the proposed development has been underestimated in the ES and is consequently misleading. In particular concern is raised that the proposed feed/service barge is not adequately shown in the submitted visual representations of the development.

Comment: The submitted visual representations are considered by the Planning Department to be suitably representative of the visual impact of the proposed development; it is also noted that SNH have not raised objection to the quality of the details submitted.

• That the applicant has not undertaken sufficient pre-application consultation with the general public in East Kintyre prior to the submission of this proposal to the Council.

Comment: It is noted that there is no formal obligation for the applicant to undertake formal or extensive pre-application consultation having regard to the scale of the proposal development; it is further advised that the proposal has been advertised locally upon receipt of the current application to meet the publicity requirements of the EIA Regulations.

• That it would appear that consent for Eilean Grainain is dependent upon consent for other development at Port Fada and Rubha Riabhach as well as consent for a shorebase – in this respect concern is raised that Lakeland are aiming to establish a much larger operation in the Kilbrannon Sound than their application for the current site on its own would indicate. In this respect it is suggested that consideration of the current application should also take into account further development proposed by the applicant to the north at Port Fada and Rubha Riabhach.

Comment: The applicant has stated that the current proposal is capable of operating for salmon production without further sites in the Kilbrannon Sound as production may be balanced against the operator’s other sites in Mid Argyll and Shetland. Previously, when applying for cod farms it had been stated that this operation was dependent upon achieving two sites as the operator was unable to balance production at other locations or, to achieve necessary economies of scale with other sites. On the basis that development at the other sites would require the submission of either an addendum to the ES (in respect of progressing the lease application for cod farms) or the submission of a planning application (if these were to be proposed for salmon) it would be appropriate to determine the current application site on its own merits; the cumulative impacts and acceptability of any further development should be determined if or when any such alternative proposal(s) is brought forward.

• That the application pertains to the formation of a new fin fish site – it would therefore be inappropriate for the Planning Department to consider this proposal as a ‘change of use’ from the previously consented shellfish farm.

Comment: The applicant has applied for a new marine fin fish farm (rather than a change of species).

• That the proposal will have an adverse environmental impact upon the local seabed and water environment.

Comment: This issue is specifically addressed in Appendix A attached to this report.

• That the proposal gives rise to an unacceptable risk to the population of wild salmon and sea trout on East Kintyre from sea lice and escapees.

Comment: This issue is specifically addressed in Appendix A attached to this report.

• Concern is raised that the risk of predation and therefore the likelihood of an escape arising from torn nets, has been underestimated in the ES. It is noted that the use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices is not proposed at this site; conversely concern is also raised in respect of the potential use of ADD’s at a later date on the grounds that these may adversely impact upon protected species locally.

Comment: This issue is specifically addressed in Appendix A attached to this report.

• That the proposal will adversely impact upon European protected species including dolphins, porpoises, basking sharks, minke whales, pilot whales, orcas, otters and seals.

Comment: This issue is specifically addressed in Appendix A attached to this report.

• That the use of chemicals in the fish farming process may give rise to adverse impacts upon local livestock.

Comment: This issue is specifically addressed in Appendix A attached to this report.

• That the proposal gives rise to the potential for noise nuisance from generators on a 24 hour basis to the detriment of the local amenity.

Comment: The details submitted in the ES would indicate that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact upon the residential amenity of locale – however in view of the issue being raised the matter has been referred to the Area Environmental Health Manager; whilst these comments are unavailable at the time of writing this report, confirmation in respect of this matter will be provided prior to consideration of this matter by elected members.

• That the proposal gives rise to the potential for odour nuisance from chemicals and fish mortalities to the detriment of the local amenity.

Comment: The details submitted in the ES would indicate that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact upon the residential amenity of locale – however in view of the issue being raised the matter has been referred to the Area Environmental Health Manager; whilst these comments are unavailable at the time of writing this report, confirmation in respect of this matter will be provided prior to consideration of this matter by elected members.

• That the proposal gives rise to the potential for light pollution from the development.

Comment: The details submitted in the ES would indicate that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact upon the residential amenity of locale – however in view of the issue being raised the matter has been referred to the Area Environmental Health Manager; whilst these comments are unavailable at the time of writing this report, confirmation in respect of this matter will be provided prior to consideration of this matter by elected members.

• That the proposal will represent a navigational hazard to boat users.

Comment: This issue is specifically addressed in Appendix A attached to this report.

• That whilst it is stated in the ES that the applicant would at all times adhere to Area Management Agreements, Codes of Practice and other Protocols it is noted that in practice that compliance by management and operatives often falls short of these standards.

Comment: This issue is specifically addressed in Appendix A attached to this report.

• That no consultation was undertaken by either the applicant or the Planning Authority with third parties who own heritable salmon netting rights.

Comment: There is no obligation for either the planning authority or applicant to formally consult with such parties. The interests of such parties are represented by the District Salmon Fishery Board who, in this instance, have alerted the parties concerned to their consultation on the proposal.

• That the proposed development would potentially prevent the implementation of salmon netting rights in its vicinity.

Comment: This is effectively a civil matter between the applicant and any third party whose netting rights would be inhibited by the implementation of the development. The applicant has advised that they are aware of this issue but have dismissed this issue as a concern on the grounds that the proposed farm cages will be located some 300m from the shoreline and as such it is considered unlikely that these could interfere with any potential coastal netting equipment which, it is estimated by the applicant, would extend to a maximum of 150m offshore.

• That the proposal would result in little benefit to the local economy any new employment created would be minimal or non-existent.

Comment: The proposal represents a significant capital investment in the equipment at the site and the establishment of new shore facilities. It would support 4 full-time and 2 part-time jobs, and it is the prospective operator’s wish to recruit locally due to the availability of appropriate skills in the Carradale area.

• That the proposal will have an adverse impact upon tourism in East Kintyre and as a result will harm the local economy.

Comment: Whilst inappropriately sited development has the potential to degrade the scenic qualities which attract tourists to the area, the siting of this development is such that it is not considered to have a detrimental impact upon the East Kintyre coast or the setting of Carradale.

• That the proposal should include a built in disaster contingency in the form of a bond provided by the applicant to cover cost of an environmental clean-up in the event of the site becoming damaged and the operator failing financially.

Comment: It is not current practice across the fish farm industry for consents to be subject to restoration bonds, so the imposition of such a requirement in this instance would be commercially disadvantageous. Generally bonds are only required where it is known at the outset that operations are temporary in nature or where equipment has a limited life-expectancy (such as mineral operations or wind turbines for example).

In support of the proposal:

• That the proposed development offers a unique opportunity for inward investment which will create new jobs in an area where the traditional fishing industry in this fragile and remote area is in severe decline and, potentially could lead to further local employment and economic benefits in South and East Kintyre particularly in related industries of haulage, processing and chandlery.

• That the proposal will encourage greater use of Carradale Harbour.

• That the fear of escaped farm salmon integrating with wild salmon is unfounded.

• That whilst the negative aspects of marine fish farm development are acknowledged in respect of adverse visual impact, pollution and wild fish it is noted that the biological and pollution impacts of fish farms are monitored and regulated by SNH and SEPA, neither of which have objected to the current proposal.

• Fear of progress should not be an impediment to the future life of people in Carradale.

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: Yes

The Environmental Statement sets out the details of the proposal, site selection process; identifies the main characteristics, nature and scale of the impacts of the development and includes assessment of the impact of the proposals and necessary mitigation measures in respect of:

(ii) Benthic Impacts (iii) Water Column Impacts (iv) Interaction with Predators (v) Interaction with Wild Salmonids (vi) Impacts Upon Species or Habitats of Conservation Importance, including Sensitive Sites (vii) Navigation, Anchorage, Commercial Fisheries, other Non-Recreational Maritime Uses (viii) Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (ix) Noise (x) Marine Cultural Heritage (xi) Waste Management (non-fish) (xii) Socioeconomic, Access and Recreation (xiii) Traffic and Transport

In conclusion, the environmental assessment has identified features that may be sensitive to a salmon farm operation in the area of Eilean Grianain sea cage site; the most significant of which is the landscape and seascape visual impact of the development. However, much of the identified environmental sensitivity has been reduced either by design or through application of industry best operational practices. Overall, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated from the proposed development.

(xiv) An appropriate assessment under the No Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994:

(xv) A design or design/access statement: No

(xvi) A report on the impact of the proposed No development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc:

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

Is a Section 75 agreement required: No

(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No

(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.

‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002

STRAT DC 7 – Nature Conservation and Development Control

C) Sets out that development which impacts upon Local Wildlife Sites or other nature conservation interests, including sites, habitats or species at risk as identified in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan, shall be assessed carefully to determine its acceptability balanced with national – or local – social or economic considerations.

STRAT DC 8 – Landscape and Development Control

Seeks to resist development which, by reason of location, siting, scale form, design or cumulative impact, damages or undermines the key environmental features of a visually contained or wider landscape or coastscape. In particular National Scenic Areas and coastal areas with semi- wilderness or isolated or panoramic qualities are identified as being particularly important and vulnerable.

‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2009

LP ENV 1 – Impact on the General Environment

Sets out the general criteria against which the Council will assess all planning applications.

LP ENV 2 – Impact on Biodiversity

Sets out that applications with significant adverse impacts for habitats or species identified in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan will be refused unless the developer can demonstrate that there is no suitable alternative site for the development and; that satisfactory steps are taken to avoid, mitigate or compensate for damage.

LP ENV 6 – Impact on Habitats and Species

Sets out that the when considering proposals the Council will have regard to identified nature conservation legislation, policies and conservation objectives.

LP ENV 9 – Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSAs)

Seeks to resist development which would have a significant adverse effect upon a National Scenic Area.

LP ENV 10 – Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs)

Seeks to resist development which would have a significant adverse impact upon an Area of Panoramic Quality.

LP ENV 12 – Water Quality and Environment

Sets out additional criteria against which development which could affect the water environment will be assessed.

Also stipulates that developments which may have a significant detrimental impact upon the water environment will not normally be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the impacts can be fully mitigated.

LP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development

Seeks to resist development which would have a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of existing, adjacent land uses.

LP AQUA 1 – Shell Fish and Fin Fish Farming

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:

1. Communities, settlements and their settings; 2. Landscape character, scenic quality and visual amenity; 4. National Scenic Areas and Areas of Panoramic Quality; 5. Statutorily protected nature conservation sites, habitats or species, including priority species and important seabird colonies along with wild fish populations; 6. Navigational interests 9. Recreational interests 12. Water quality

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.

Appendix A – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles

(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.

Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999

Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006

The Environmental Statement as submitted.

Representations in support and objection to the proposal.

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 22 - ‘Planning for Fish Farming’. In association with Circular 1/2007 sets out the Government’s policy and guidelines on fish farming, following the extension of planning controls to marine fish farms, in favour of the previous non-statutory consultation process which had been in place for the previous ten years. The contribution which fish farming makes to the rural economy is recognised along with the need to balance economic and environmental factors in the interests of sustainability. Developments with adverse implications for areas designated for European or national nature conservation interests should be avoided. Elsewhere, fish farming should be encouraged subject to satisfactory consideration being given to material planning considerations, with particular account being taken of the Fisheries Research Service categorisation of coastal waters and the range of considerations listed in paragraph 77.

Scottish Executive – ‘Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish Farms in Scottish Waters’ (2003 and updated June 2009)

The proposed site falls outwith the Sea Loch areas covered by this guidance.

Scottish Executive – ‘A Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture’ (2003)

Location of farms will need to be carefully considered where proposals affect sites or species designated under the EU Habitats Directive. Where wild salmon stocks are depleted, the influence of salmon farming is likely to be only one of several factors related to human activity. Scientific evidence on the impact of farmed salmon on wild stocks is, however, not well developed and the precautionary principle may need to be applied especially in relation to European designated sites. Fish farms will be encouraged to adopt the Containment Code of Practice to minimise escape incidents which could lead to problems with competition, predation or hybridisation.

‘Argyll & Bute Local Biodiversity Action Plan’

Atlantic Salmon are noted as a species under threat from a variety of sources including, predation by seals, poaching, deterioration in water quality due to agricultural operations and afforestation, water abstraction and impacts from escape fish and disease transfer from fish farms. It is indicated that marine factors (especially consequences of sea lice) are particularly influential on the survival of young fish at sea. The plan highlights the significance of Area Management Agreements in reducing sea lice burdens on wild salmon.

(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No

(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No

(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No

(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No

(O) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): Yes

It is recommended that, in view of the substantial representation received in respect of this proposal which to date totals 31 letters and two petitions (with a cumulative total of 50 signatures), Members give consideration to convening a discretionary hearing prior to the determination of this application.

(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations

The proposal seeks permission for the installation of a marine finfish development of 14(no.) 32m diameter cages and a feed/service barge which shall be utilised for the production of farmed salmon.

The application site is located within the Kilbrannan Sound which is presently devoid of marine finfish farm development, although consent has previously been granted in respect of shellfish farming at this site.

The proposal has given rise to significant public objection with concern raised in respect of visual and landscape impact, proliferation and cumulative impact of fish farm development, impact upon residential amenity and impact upon the natural environment.

The proposal has also garnered a significant level of public support, which particularly stresses the potential benefits to the local economy of East Kintyre which may arise as a result of the development.

There has been no objection from statutory consultees in respect of visual and landscape impact, impact upon the general water environment or residential amenity. However, the Argyll District Salmon Fisheries Board have raised objection to the proposal on the grounds that it is likely to have an adverse impact upon wild fish interests in the vicinity of the development, and consequently a precautionary approach adopted with a recommendation that the application be refused. This view is contrary to the opinion expressed by Scottish Natural Heritage, the Fisheries Research Services and the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer, who have not raised objection to the proposal.

The provisions of SPP 22 indicate that there will always be conflicts between commercial fish farming and environmental interests. In this particular instance the site is proposed to be operated in strict adherence with industry best practice, and as such is comparable with the operation of other sites which operate under the same principles, without any significant adverse impact to wild fish populations being demonstrated. The potential impacts of the development identified in the Environmental Statement, by statutory consultees and objectors to the proposal in which relate to wild fish interests are generic to marine fish farming rather than relating to peculiarities of this site. Having regard to the ability of finfish farm development elsewhere to co-exist acceptably with wild fish interests, and in the absence of evidence which would indicate that the circumstances of current proposal are substantially different to other finfish sites, it would be inappropriate to refuse permission solely on precautionary grounds.

(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes

(R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted:

• The proposal, by virtue of its location, scale, siting, design and recessive finishes, notwithstanding concerns raised by third parties, is considered unlikely to have a significant adverse impact upon the key environmental features of the wider coastscape setting, including that of the Arran National Scenic Area and the East Kintyre Area of Panoramic Quality, and is consequently viewed as consistent with the relevant provisions of Scottish Planning Policy 22 and policies STRAT DC 8, LP ENV 1, LP ENV 9, LP ENV 10 and LP AQUA 1.

• The proposal, by virtue of its location, scale, siting, design and proposed operational standards, notwithstanding concerns raised by third parties, is considered unlikely to impede navigational interests of other water users or to give rise to any significant loss of amenity to the local area in respect of noise, odour or light pollution, the proposal is therefore viewed to be consistent with the relevant provisions of Scottish Planning Policy 22 and policies LP ENV 1, LP BAD 1 and LP AQUA 1.

• The proposal, by virtue of its location, design and proposed operational standards, notwithstanding concerns raised by the Argyll District Salmon Fisheries Board and objectors to the proposal, is considered unlikely to give rise to any significant adverse impact upon the water environment, protected habitats or species, including wild salmonids, the proposal is therefore considered acceptable in light of the relevant provisions of Scottish Planning Policy 22 and policies STRAT DC 7, LP ENV 1, LP ENV 2, LP ENV 12 and LP AQUA 1.

(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan

Not applicable

(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No

Author of Report: Peter Bain Date: 6th October 2009

Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 7th October 2009

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning

CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 09/00905/MFF

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun within three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In order to comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. For the purpose of clarity this permission shall only relate to the positioning of cages within the identified site boundary on the approved plans with a permitted maximum installation of a total of 14 (no.) circular cages with a circumference of 100m and 1 (no.) feed/barge as per the details specified in the application.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 11 th June 2009, accompanying Environmental Statement dated June 2009 and the approved drawing reference numbers 1/3 – 3/3 unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for other materials/finishes/for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.

3. The development shall solely be utilised for the farming of a single year class of Salmon with stocking, site installation, operation and maintenance to be undertaken strictly in accordance with the protocols, procedures and guidance set out in the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation (SSPO) Code of Good Practice (CoGP) and any subsequently issued revision thereof, and the details specified in the application, unless any subsequent variation thereof is agreed in advance by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that the site is stocked, operated and maintained to the standards specified in the application details, in the interests of nature conservation and local amenity .

4. No stocking of the site shall take place until a licence under Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 has been obtained from SEERAD permitting the treatment of sea lice at the site using well boat bath treatments. Thereafter sea lice shall be treated in accordance with the guidance given in the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation (SSPO) ‘Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture’ (CoGP)), and any subsequently issued revision thereof. The site operator shall submit records annually to the Council as Planning Authority certifying the lice treatment undertaken at the site during the preceding period.

Reason: To ensure that the control of lice may be undertaken using the most effective control method available, and that stocking only takes place in the event that such treatment is licensed for use at the site, in the interests of nature conservation.

5. The use of anti-predator Acoustic Deterrent Devices shall not be installed or operated at the site without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.

6. If by reason of any circumstances not foreseen by the applicant or operator that stocking of salmon ceases on the site for a continuous period of 24 months then it will be deemed to have ceased to be required, and unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, all fish cages, the service barge and ancillary equipment shall be removed from site.

Reason: In order to ensure the restoration of the site in the event of the use of the site being discontinued, in the interests of visual amenity.

7. 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 so as to remove the obstruction or danger to navigation.

Reason: In the interests of navigational safety.

NOTE TO APPLICANT

1. A consent under the Coast Protection Act 1949 will be required from the Scottish Government in respect of this development.

2. Navigational marking will be required in accordance with the attached recommendations of the Northern Lighthouse Board.

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 09/00905/MFF

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

The applicant is Ocean Shells Ltd. (who hold of the shellfish lease), it is however noted that the intended operator of the site is Lakeland Marine Farm Ltd. who are acting as agent in respect of the current proposal and who have other marine salmon farm operations in Mid Argyll and Shetland.

The application relates to a new marine fin fish farm site on a location which presently has the benefit of a lease from the Crown Estate for shellfish farming. The site is located some 175m off-shore on the East Kintyre coast approximately 1.5km to the north of the Carradale peninsula and 2km south of Grogport. The previously granted lease permits the installation of 16 (no.) 200m long Scallop longlines set out in 2 groups of 8 lines running north – south with 9 (no.) 400 litre matt grey floats per line – the terms of the lease agreement are not being implemented at the present time.

The ES states that the current location has been arrived at having initially investigated sites along the north east Arran coast however these sites were ruled out following consultations which identified the importance of inshore fisheries on this area and potential impacts upon the Arran National Scenic Area designation. Further consideration of the south east coast of Kintyre (between Carradale and Campbeltown) concluded that this area was unsuited to fin fish development in view of the exposed coastline, shallow waters and location within the East Kintyre Area of Panoramic Quality. Finally five potential fish farm sites were identified on the north east Kintyre coast (between Carradale and Skipness), two of which were discounted following concerns raised by Community Council’s representing Carradale and Skipness in respect of fishing interests and visual impact from settlements. A lease application for two Cod farms has subsequently been submitted to the Crown Estate by Lakeland Marine Ltd. in 2006 (ref. 06/00873/MFF) for the northernmost of pair of the remaining three sites at Port Fada and Rubha Riabhach – this application has presently stalled in so much as the submitted Environmental Impact Assessment was considered to be deficient in a number of respects and will require the submission of a formal addendum to the Environmental Statement (ES), republication and re- consultation in order to progress this matter to determination – Lakeland Marine Ltd. have yet to confirm whether they intend to progress the application for Cod Farms to determination or not. The current application relates to the third of the sites identified in the initial consultation process as locations with potential suitability for marine finfish farming.

Lakeland Marine Ltd. have stated in support of the current proposal that this is considered to be a stand-alone development on the basis that approval of further finfish development on the East Kintyre coast is not necessary to secure the viability of the current proposal or to provide a production balance – this will be achieved from sites elsewhere within Mid Argyll or Shetland. It is the view of the Planning Department that on the basis that the proposals relating to other sites in the locality are not at a stage which would permit their approval and that as Lakeland Marine Ltd. is the proposed operator at all three of these sites it would be appropriate to consider the current proposal on its own merits and without regard to the potential impact of proposed Cod Farms at Port Fada and Rubha Riabhach; it is however stressed at this time that in the event that these additional sites were to be progressed to a determination either for Cod or (or a new planning application submitted for) Salmon farming at either of these sites then any such determination would require to have full regard to the potential cumulative impacts of any such additional development to the currently proposed site.

The current application relates to a site some 175m from the east Kintyre coast at Eilean Grainain some 2km north of Carradale and seeks permission for the installation of 14(no.) 32m diameter cages with 15m deep nets – these are tensioned to preclude predators (seals) with mesh covers to prevent access by birds. The mooring system comprises 50 metre underwater grids (at 6m below the surface) supported by matt grey floatation buoys with cables attached to the cage floatation rings with rock anchors used to secure the position of the grid relative to the seabed. The cage grid will be set out in 2 rows of 7 cages running from north to south.

The proposal also includes for the installation of a food store/service barge at the northerly end of the cage block which will be moored independently of the cages. The barge has a footprint of 14m 2 and is 10.4m in height from top to bottom; the barge has a maximum height of 5.8m above sea level when empty – the ES states that typically the barge will operate at no less than 1/3 feed capacity for most of the production cycle and will therefore be 4.5m – 5.4m above sea level. The barge will be finished in a recessive matt grey colour and will contain a landing stage, storage area, electricity generator, four food silos to be loaded from a central filling silo, the pneumatic feed system, air blowers, computer control systems, maintenance room and equipment plus staff accommodation (offices, canteen and toilets). The barge will enable the site to be run and managed on a daily basis independently of the onshore base at Carradale. The generator will be installed within a plant room enclosed in the barge and mounted with an acoustic canopy – the ES states that the noise on deck under these conditions would barely be audible above ambient sounds at sea and, should be inaudible from shore and as such should not give rise to any significant loss of residential amenity to property in the locality, the closest residential property being some 2km distant from the site. Public Protection have been asked to comment in this regard and their observations will be reported verbally.

The proposal also states that removable underwater photoperiod cage lights may be used in each cage during the first year that smolts are put to sea to reduce maturation and maximise growth. Power for the lights will be generated onboard the feed barge; two (no.) 1000 watt submersible units would be used in each cage. The ES states that these lights are visible, in clear conditions, for approximately 100m from the cages, at greater distances than this the lights are not noticeable. Other lighting on the site, with the exception of navigational requirements, will be restricted to essential periods and power selected so as not to overly illuminate the site to the detriment of the surroundings.

The proposal states that non-fish waste from the site will be returned to the shore base for disposal; on site waste will be stored so that it cannot leak or blow away and is protected from predators and vandals/thieves. Fish waste will be macerated and combined with a formic acid mixture to break this down into a safe non-toxic liquid which is stored in a sealed ensilage tank within the feed/service barge until an approved waste disposal contractor subsequently disposes of it. Mortalities will be removed from the cages on a daily basis.

The ES states that Lakeland Marine Ltd. are a member of the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation (SSPO) and that the site would be strictly operated in accordance with this organisations Code of Good Practice for Scottish Fin Fish Aquaculture which sets out more than 300 main specific compliance points which cover all aspects of finfish good practice. In respect of this application these include:

• Fish Health – good husbandry and harvesting operations; • Protecting the environment – including sea lice management and containment standards; • Welfare and husbandry – breeding and stocking density; • Detailed annexes giving further technical guidance on good practice, including the National Lice Treatment Strategy, Integrated Sea Lice Management, Containment, and a Veterinary Health Plan.

It is proposed that the sites would operate 22 months out of every 24, with a two month fallow period prior to the commencement of the next production cycle. The proposed maximum biomass at the site is 2,500 tonnes with an anticipated total production per 2 year cycle of 3,240 tonnes. The ES also sets out specific husbandry practices for the site in respect of grading, harvesting, fallowing procedures, food and feeding, fish health, veterinary treatments and chemicals, containment and contingency escape policy and waste management. With regard to predator control it is noted that the ES states that no Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) are proposed – following concerns raised by the Argyll District Salmon Fisheries Board (ADSFB) and further discussion with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) this position has been modified slightly and the use of ADDs will now be considered if required and subject to specific consent from SNH in respect of approval of equipment and terms of its use.

The proposal would be serviced from onshore facilities at Port Crannich Harbour, Carradale subject to negotiations over the availability of land/facilities and potentially a requirement for further planning permission in respect of these. It is also envisaged that the management of the site will require use of the pier and commercial slip at Carradale where two service boats for the site will also be based.

Food and equipment for the normal operation of the proposed development will be stored in the service barge on the site and at the Carradale shore base. The majority of food deliveries to the site is expected to be by boat direct from the manufacturers’ plant direct to the food barge – the frequency of these deliveries will be variable but would be fortnightly at times of peak consumption. It is also anticipated that some small deliveries would be delivered to Carradale by road and shipped to the site as required. The ES states that the location of fish processing is still to be determined although it is expected that initially that fish will either be taken alive by wellboat to an existing plant in Argyll or killed at a dedicated killing station at the site.

It is anticipated that 4 full-time and 2 part-time jobs will be created at the site with personnel employed 1-2 months in advance of production commencing (at the present time this is expected to be Mar 2010). The ES states that where possible that staff will be recruited locally as it is considered that Carradale has a pool of labour with many of the skills required in fish farming.

B. Natural Environment - Fresh Water, Marine Environment and Biodiversity.

The provisions of policies STRAT DC 7, LP ENV 2 and LP ENV 6 would 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 site is not subject to any European or national marine or other conservation designations; however the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer advises that the Kilbrannan Sound hosts a number of UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) and Argyll and Bute Local Biodiversity Action Plan (A&B LBAP) species including Otter and a range of Cetaceans: Common Dolphin, Bottlenose Dolphin, Basking Shark, Minke Whale and Harlow Porpoise. Wild Salmonides – Salmon and Sea Trout are also significant to the UK BAP and the A&B LBAP, the latter of which details action to reduce the impact of Fin Fish Farms to reduce sea lice impact and monitor, with support from SEPA, bacteria levels, both in the water column and on the sea bed.

SEPA advise that the site is outside any Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) category area, and that no Area Management Agreement is in place covering the area. The operator has advised that the site would be the subject of a new Area Management Agreement area if approved.

Seabed (Benthic) Impacts:

The benthic habitat directly beneath the proposed salmon farm consist of sandy/muddy sediment and accumulations of shells. Species present include burrowing anemones, colonial hydroids, sea urchins, starfish, squat lobster, crabs and scallops as well as nethrops, in the deepest waters at the site. Such benthic communities can be affected by salmon farming activities due to the deposition of organic matter from fish faeces and uneaten food, which can lead to nutrient enrichment and consequential anoxic conditions on the seabed. Further potential impacts can arise from the use of chemicals and medicines ranging from anti-fouling treatments to antibiotics and treatments for sea lice infestation of salmon which can have a detrimental effect on marine invertebrates.

SNH and SEPA have advised that the benthic surveys undertaken by the applicant have found the benthic communities to be typical of the area. The muddy habitats are most likely correspondent with the UK BAP Habitat “Mud habitats in deep water”. This habitat type has been classified as a priority habitat in the A&B LBAP. This habitat is considered to be representative of that found down the length of the East Kintyre peninsula and so the impacts of this specific proposal are not thought to be significant. The site is also classed as strongly flushed thereby dispersing organic matter and chemicals and medicines from the fish cages and reducing disposition on the seabed.

The ES predicts that the impact upon benthic communities below the development will be moderate with low impact in the vicinity of the cages and negligible further afield. Mitigation of the impact from feed and use of chemicals/medicines is regulated by SEPA under the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) and advised by the Fisheries Research Service (FRS) under locational guidelines.

SEPA, SNH and the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer have not raised objection to the proposal in respect of benthic impacts.

Water Quality Impacts:

Enrichment of water by nutrients released from Salmon farms can cause an accelerated growth of algae and higher forms of plant life to produce an undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms and the quality of water.

SEPA have advised that the site is within 3.25km of a shellfish harvesting area at Arran Pirnmill.

The Kilbrannan Sound is a well flushed open body of water subject to fluctuations in nutrient levels throughout the year. Water currents at Eilean Grianain are high at all depths and are generally in a north/south direction.

The ES states that, based on survey data and modelling, the impact from nutrient enrichment emanating from the proposed salmon farm is expected to be minor with no effect on nearby shellfish harvesting areas.

SEPA have not raised objection to the proposal in respect of the predicted impact upon water quality.

Interaction with Predators:

The ES states that salmon farm predators are generally piscivorous birds and seals with the latter being 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. Good husbandry and hygiene procedures reduce the attraction of predators to the site. Tensioned netting on fish cages prevents and deters both seals and diving bird attacks – maintenance of the nets is essential to maintain the integrity of the site from predation. Top nets are used on every cage to avoid predation by birds from above the waterline. Bird nets maintained to a high standard and properly tensioned eliminate the opportunity for birds to become entangled or enter the cage.

The ES does not identify any major colonies of predators in the vicinity of the application site and summarises that the proposed use of good husbandry and hygiene practices coupled with the use of tensioned nets and top nets will be sufficient to deter predators at the proposed site.

The Argyll District Salmon Fisheries Board has however advised that anecdotal evidence would point to higher seal numbers in the Kilbrannan Sound than envisaged in the ES. Whilst it is noted that correctly tensioned nets are the key to preventing predator attacks/escapes it is suggested that the use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) is not ruled out entirely in the event that permission is granted for the current proposal. The details contained within the ES indicate that the applicant does not intend to utilise ADDs at this site in view of concerns earlier expressed by SNH with regard to the potential adverse impact of ADDs upon cetaceans in the vicinity of fish farm developments. The applicant has subsequently engaged in further discussion with SNH in view of recent developments in ADD technology from which early results would indicate that devices are becoming available which are more effective than previous systems and are more localised in impact. SNH have advised that, in view of these revised circumstances, they would be satisfied with a condition which initially prevents the use of ADDs on site but would allow consideration of the use of such devices consultation with SNH should actual predator circumstances require additional deterrent measures.

Interaction with Wild Salmonids:

The ES sets out that there may be a potential risk to wild salmonids from a salmon farming operation. These may be from disease or sea lice which may spread to wild stock or vice versa or through escapes competing with or genetically diluting native wild stocks. The most significant health issue in the Scottish Salmon fishing industry and the one perceived to have most impact on wild salmonids at present is sea lice. Escapes of farmed stock are generally low and occur through equipment failure, predation, operator error, severe weather and foul play.

There are no salmon farms in the Kilbrannan Sound at present although there are farms in Loch Fyne to the north, on the east coast of Arran in the Firth of Clyde and salmon leases in the Kyles of Bute and Loch Striven to the north-west.

The ES identifies that salmonid watercourses are present on the east coast of Kintyre and the west coast of Arran and as such it is reasonable to assume that the Kilbrannon Sound may be used by Salmon and Sea Trout smolts and adults during migration but concludes that whilst there may be a potential risk to wild salmonid populations from the proposed development that the operation of the proposed site in compliance with the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation Code of Good Practice will minimise this impact to the degree where this may be considered a low/negligible impact.

Risk of accidental release cannot be eradicated but rigorous processes will be in place. The operators of the proposed site are a member of the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation and have to abide by their Code of Good Practice for Scottish Fin Fish Aquaculture. The company also operates a quality assurance system accredited by Food Certificates (Scotland) Ltd and an environmental management system to ISO 14001 standard. Between them, these dictate rigorous operational procedures, record keeping, health plans, emergency responses and so on.

Risk of pathogen transfer will be controlled by good husbandry practices including maintenance of a veterinary health plan which will detail procedures and documentation relevant to fish health and welfare. This aims to prevent disease transfer, reduce conditions which predispose to disease and reduce disease incidence, as well as providing for monitoring and reporting arrangements and rapid response.

Control of sea lice would follow industry best practice guidance, including site fallowing, farming single year classes of fish, and strategic medicine use under veterinary supervision. Sea lice counts would be undertaken weekly, with low thresholds employed for the initiation of treatment (with a target of zero ovigerous lice between Feb and June inclusive to coincide with the wild salmon smolt run) , co- ordinated de-lousing in the autumn/winter aiming to eradicate spring females. It is anticipated that the operator will be able to obtain a CARs consent from SEPA for this site which permits the full suite of treatments licensed for use nationally to be employed at this location. Fish would be treated against lice prior to stocking in this location. On-site treatment would be by way of feed additives and bath treatments onboard well boats. The latter is the accepted best method, in terms of control over exposure time and dosage to ensure the effectiveness of treatments.

The Fisheries Research Service has not raised objection to the proposal following confirmation from the equipment manufacturer that the equipment proposed for this site is of a suitable standard for its location.

SNH have not raised objection to the conclusions of the ES in respect of the potential risk to wild salmonids from the proposed development in view of the operators intention to strictly adhere to the SSPO Code of Good Practice which includes fish health, sea lice management and containment standards and also note that they area satisfied with the operators site specific Containment and Escape Contingency Plan.

However, the Argyll District Salmon Fisheries Board (ADSFB) have raised objection to the proposal on the basis that the proposal is likely to have an adverse impact upon wild salmonides. The conclusion of the ES that the impact upon wild fish will be negligible/low is challenged on the grounds that this assessment is based upon observation rather than scientific assessment – data collected by the Fishery Trusts on East Kintyre (2005) and Arran (2000 and 2008) indicates that this area is of importance to wild salmon and sea trout populations and for this reason there should be an assumption that the proposed development will result in some interaction of farm and wild fish. Whilst there is insufficient data and a number of unknown elements which prevent an informed assessment of the actual impact of the proposed farm upon wild fish, the ADSFB also advise that whilst implementation of the SSPO Code of Good Practice will reduce the impact of the development this will not completely prevent the interaction of farmed and wild fish. The ADSFB consequently recommend that a precautionary approach be adopted and that this application be refused accordingly.

In the absence of available data on wild salmonids which could be potentially threatened by this development or any firm evidence which would indicate that the development at this location would be highly likely to have a significant adverse impact upon wild fish interests, it would be inappropriate to refuse permission based solely on a precautionary principle. Consideration has been given to the imposition of conditions, either to restrict the scale of development in the initial years whilst effects were monitored, or to a temporary consent which could allow a re-assessment of the development in the light of operating experience. Neither of these options would be acceptable to the proposed site operator. Firstly, reducing the scale of the site does not reduce the risk proportionately in terms of the possibility of an event related to accidental escapes or disease transmission. Secondly, there is considerable capital investment in establishing a new marine farm, particularly where it is to be served by a new shore base rather than being worked in association with established sites. The uncertainty associated with a temporary consent would be such as to make investment on the scale proposed too much of a risky proposition, and would jeopardise the implementation of any consent which was subject to onerous conditions or longer-term uncertainties. Consent has not been sought for the site on a time-limited basis, and in the knowledge that the prospective operators would be unwilling to develop the site on the basis of a temporary consent, it would be inappropriate to impose such a condition as it would amount to an unimplementable consent.

Impact upon Species and Habitats of Nature Conservation Importance:

The Kilbrannan Sound is used by a number of marine mammals from large cetaceans (European Protected Species) to smaller species including bottlenose dolphin, common and grey seal and otter (European Protected Species). Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) used by fish farms to deter fish eating predators can elicit aversion responses in marine cetaceans up to several kilometres from the source. Habitat exclusion, particularly in fragmented coastal areas with sounds, channels and islands is of particular concern.

The ES states that, on the basis of experience elsewhere, it is considered that interaction of cetaceans and basking shark with fin fish developments is likely to be very low with these species likely to utilise the whole of the Kilbrannon Sound and actively avoid the proposed fish farm.

The proposal as submitted sets out a position where the operator does not propose to utilise ADDs to deter predators from the site with predator prevention being dealt with primarily by tensioned nets. However, in view of concerns raised by the ADSFB which highlight the potential underestimation of seal population in the vicinity of the development and, the potential availability of new ADD devices which, in initial testing, have proven to be both more effective and localised in impact than previous devices, it is now proposed that the option of utilising ADDs on the site is not entirely ruled out.

SNH have not raised objection to the proposal or the assessment set out in the ES in respect of the potential impact of the proposed development upon protected species or habitats; this response is however conditional upon the use of ADDs being prohibited on the site unless the Planning Authority gives subsequent permission for the use of an ADD system to meet a specific predator threat, the approval of any such system would require to be undertaken in consultation with SNH with regard to the specification of the equipment and circumstances/time periods during which the equipment may be utilised at this location.

C. Landscape/Seascape Character

The application site lies within a stretch of coastline which lies on the opposite shore of the Kilbrannan Sound from the Arran National Scenic Area and which lies to the north of the East Kintyre Area of Panoramic Quality. The provisions of policies STRAT DC 8, LP ENV 9 and LP ENV 10 would seek to resist development which is considered to have a significant adverse impact upon the key landscape characteristics of these designations. The proposal is not located within an area specifically designated for its landscape quality but the development will appear within views from the Arran National Scenic Area to the east and from parts of Carradale which are within the East Kintyre Area of Panoramic Quality.

East Kintyre is essentially a rural location characterised by uneven, hummocky landform with rocky outcrops, narrow glens and diverse woodlands. The coastline is comprised of raised beach cliffs, rounded rocky knolls and indented coastline with craggy off-shore islands and small sandy bays. Forestry and agriculture and the principle land uses. There is a distinct absence of large scale development; built development is largely confined to the village of Carradale, the minor settlements at Skipness, Claonaig, Grogport with the remaining landscape punctuated by individual dwellings and small residential/agricultural/estate groupings which are scattered along the length of the B842 public highway.

The proposed development is located relatively close to the shore of the Kintyre coast; the land immediately to the west of the site is a commercial forest which screens the site from immediate view from the public highway further to the west. The site is open to view at a distance from higher stretches of the public highway in the south of Cour and in the proximity of Eilean Sunadale and from within parts of the settlement of Carradale to the south where a view looking north is available – this includes a number of private residences and the harbour and surrounds. The ES states that the site will not be visible from the Kintyre Way footpath by virtue of intervening landform and forestry plantations.

The site can only be viewed from the north at distance (between 3.5 – 5km) on short, elevated stretches of the public highway where roadside vegetation allows glimpses out across the Kilbrannan Sound and the Carradale headland to the south. The proposed fish farm will be viewed as a relatively small object in the middle distance of the coastscape from these positions, where the form of the proposed development will be condensed by perspective and rendered less prominent by the substantially larger mass of the Carradale headland which sits immediately behind it from the perspective of the viewer. From the south within the settlement of Carradale the development is again viewed at distance of some 2km with the site appearing in tehe middle distance of views at both sea level and more elevated locations within the settlement area. Whilst the form and purpose of the development will be clearer from these viewpoints, especially more elevated locations, it is noted that the development will again appear as a relatively small feature within the wider coastscape view and that the prominence of the site is again mitigated by the substantial land mass of the Kintyre coast which sits in the backdrop. In addition, the site is located outwith the most prized views which look out from the Kintyre coast across the Kilbrannon Sound to Arran. Whilst the site is visible from Arran it is considered unlikely to give rise any significant adverse impact upon the Arran National Scenic Area as at a distance of some 4.5km+ the development will be an insignificant object within the panoramic land/seascape setting and, given the recessive nature of the materials to be employed and its inshore location, should be difficult to discern at this distance against the darker landmass of the Kintyre coast to the west.

At the present time there are no other marine fin-fish farm developments located within the Kilbrannan Sound and in this respect it is acknowledged that the proposed development is not typical of the wider coastscape setting. However, the coastscape is by no means devoid of the presence of built development and in this regard, whilst the immediate surrounds of the site are undeveloped this is in no sense a wilderness coastscape. In this particular instance the visual impact of the proposed development will be localised by virtue of its location inshore, surrounding landform, relatively low lying nature of the development and the recessive qualities of the materials to be employed and on balance is considered unlikely to result in a significant alteration to the key characteristics of the land/seascape setting.

SNH have not raised objection to the proposal on the grounds of landscape and visual impact; whilst it is advised that the proposal will have an adverse landscape and visual impact it is also acknowledged that these impacts will be reduced by the proximity of the development to the coast and it’s siting within the lee of the Carradale headland.

D. Navigation and Other Marine Users

Marine fish farms may have an impact on navigation and other users of the sea area in which they are located as well as on maritime and land based traffic and transport. This may be through disruption of navigation routes, by depriving other commercial/non-commercial and recreational users of access to the area or, by increasing traffic and transport at sea and in the vicinity of the farm and its associated shore base.

In this instance regard is had to the fact that the current application relates to a site which presently has a lease for shellfish farming. The ES states that the site is already designated and marked as a marine farm on Admiralty charts. There are no recognised anchorages at the site. Traffic navigating the Kilbrannan Sound going north and south tends to stay further offshore away from the shallower water and rocks in the vicinity of Eilean Grainain. Commercial fisheries are active in the area and it is dredged for scallops and trawled in deeper water for prawns.

The Northern Lighthouse Board have not raised any objection to the proposal and have provided advice to the applicant on the specification for navigational markings which should be employed at this location.

E. Conclusion

The proposal has given rise to considerable public objection with regard to the potential introduction of fish farm development to the Kilbrannan Sound and the impact that this will have visually on what is regarded as a largely unspoiled coastscape, in terms of pollution of the water environment, impact upon protected species and, the residential amenity of residential property in the vicinity of the development in view noise and light pollution emanating from the development. Based upon the assessment contained within the ES and the lack of objection of statutory consultees in respect of these issues the proposal is considered on balance to be acceptable.

In view of the above, the acceptability of this application primarily centres around the issue as to whether the proposed marine fin fish farm would have an unacceptable impact upon wild fish interests. In considering the proposal, the prospective operators’ contention that they will be using equipment fit for purpose, which will be subject to operational procedures which accord with best industry practice, which meets quality assurance standards, and with monitoring and review of the site being undertaken by the operator and the Fisheries Research Services, must be accepted. However, as both the Argyll District Salmon Fisheries Board and objectors have pointed out, regardless of how well the site is operated there does remain a residual risk to what would appear to be a relatively vulnerable and declining population of wild Salmon and Sea Trout which use rivers in the locality of the site, on both East Kintyre and Arran, to spawn. Their stance is therefore that this ought to prompt an automatic rejection of the proposal on the precautionary principle.

As indicated in SPP 22, there will always be conflict between industry and environmental considerations in the promotion of sustainable fish farming. It is for the decision-maker to balance these factors in arriving at a decision on the acceptability of development.

The submitted assessment contained within the ES and the comments of the Argyll District Salmon Fisheries Board and other objectors give rise to general concerns relating to the interaction of farmed and wild salmonids, rather than concerns which relate to any particular identified deficiency in the proposal in terms of equipment specification, disease control, management measures and so on. In balancing these considerations it is therefore appropriate to have regard to the presence of marine finfish farms at other locations in Scotland which are operating in the vicinity of wild salmonid water courses without a significant adverse impact upon wild fish stocks being adequately demonstrated. On this basis, and in the absence of any firm evidence to the contrary which would indicate that the development at this location would be likely to have a significant adverse impact upon wild fish interests, it would be inappropriate to refuse permission based solely on a precautionary principle.

APPENDIX B – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 09/00905/MFF

DETAILS OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

Letters of Objection to the Proposal

(i) Ian Pollard, 8 Beetham Court, Claylon le-moors, Accrington, Lancs – 05.08.09 (ii) Gordon Goldie, 29 Kirkaig Avenue, Renfrew, Renfrewshire – 05.08.09 (iii) Mr William Shaw, Westhill, Carradale – 05.08.09 (iv) GG Harris, 18 Glen Road, Bridge of Allan, Stirling – 06.08.09 (v) Colin Burgess, Carradale House, Carradale Estate, Carradale – 06.08.09 (vi) Paul Davis (by e-mail) – 07.08.09 (vii) David Glass, Sunadale, Grogport, Carradale – 07.08.09 (viii) Sylvie Howland, Lower Crossaig, Skipness, Tarbert – 07.08.09 & 26.08.09 (ix) North East Kintyre Consortium (by e-mail) – 07.08.09 & 24.08.08 (x) Eileen & Michael Carrol, Ravensbay, Crossaig, Tarbert – 07.08.09 (xi) Robert McKay Forbes (by e-mail) – 07.08.09 (xii) Joanna McKay Forbes (by e-mail) – 07.08.09 (xiii) Harry Nickerson, Cour, by Campbeltown – 08.09.09 (xiv) Peter Howland, Lower Crossaig, Skipness, Tarbert – 10.08.09 & 24.08.09 (xv) Salmon & Trout Association, Fishmongers’ Hall, London Bridge, London – 11.08.09 (xvi) Angus Shepherd, 36 Haylie Gardens, Largs, Ayrshire - 18.08.09 (xvii) Alec and Moyra Logan, Rockfield House, Claonaig, Skipness, Tarbert – 18.08.09 (xviii) Robin Dixon & Sons Ltd. (on behalf of Greentop Lands and Estates Ltd), Barfad Farm Office, School Road, Tarbert – 22.08.09 (xix) Kathryn MD Logan, Benview, Tayinloan, Tarbert – 23.08.09 (xx) Iain Logan, Benview, Tayinloan, Tarbert – 24.08.09 (xxi) Mrs AW & Dr CJ Steadman, South Crossaig, Skipness, Tarbert – 24.08.09

Letters of Support of the Proposal

(i) Stuart Irvine, Heston, Carradale – 07.07.09 & 19.08.09 (ii) Mr Bryan Burrows, Rhonadale, Carradale – 20.08.09 (iii) Colin MacMillan, 30 Saddell Street, Campbeltown – 20.08.09 (iv) Jane Dunbar, 31 Melville Street, Pollockshields, Glasgow – 22.08.09 (v) Peter McKerral, Peter McKerral & Co. Darlochan Yard, Campbeltown – 25.08.09 (vi) S Cunningham (by e-mail) – 26.08.09 (vii) Paul MacIntosh, Corryvreckan, Crosshill Avenue, Campbeltown – 17.09.09 (viii) Charles McMillan, 23 Tormhor, Carradale – 21.09.09 (ix) Mary Turner, J & M Turner, Kildalloig, Campbeltown – 23.09.09 (x) Network Carradale Ltd., c/o Heston, Carradale, Campbelton – 07.10.09 (xi) Mrs P Galbraith, West View Cottage, Mount Gerald, Dingwall – 08.09.09

In addition, the Planning Department has received two petitions of 31 and 21 names respectively in support of the proposal.

Letters Commenting on the Proposal

Jamie McGrigor MSP – by e-mail