ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 22 SEPTEMBER 2015
15/00134/FFPAES – TRILLEACHAN MOR FISH FARM, LOCH SEAFORTH, MARAIG, ISLE OF HARRIS EIA APPLICATION TO REPLACE THE EXISTING MARINE FISH FARM (COMPRISING 12 X 28.6M DIAMETER CAGES) WITH 8 X 38.2M DIAMETER CAGES AND INSTALL A FEED BARGE
Report by Director of Development
PURPOSE OF REPORT Since there have been 6 objections, the planning application cannot be dealt with under delegated powers and is presented to Committee for a decision.
COMPETENCE 1.1 There are no legal, financial or other constraints to the recommendation being implemented.
SUMMARY 2.1 This proposal relates to an existing fish farm site on the west side of Loch Seaforth between Maraig and Ardvourlie. It is proposed to replace twelve 28.6m diameter cages with eight 38.2m diameter cages and to install a new feed barge. The proposed change would allow an increase of maximum potential biomass from 1700 to 2500 tonnes. However, the maximum stocking density would be reduced from 18.4kg/m3 to 16.6kg/m3.
2.2 The application was subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the consequent Environmental Statement (ES) which accompanies the application concludes that there are no individual, cumulative or residual effects that would have a significant effect on the environment.
2.3 There have been objections from the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board (WIDSFB) and from six individuals. The principal concern raised by those objecting to the development is potential for harm to wild fish from sea lice. This has been assessed and it is considered that the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant would be sufficiently robust to outweigh the concerns raised by those objecting to the development. There have been no objections from consultees other than WIDSFB.
2.4 The application has been assessed against the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (OHLDP) including the Supplementary Guidance on Marine Fish Farms (SGMFF) and it has been concluded that the proposal would enable improved stock management without harm to the visual appearance of this part of the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area (NSA) and that the objections are of insufficient weight to justify any decision other than approval.
RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to this Report.
Contact Officer: Alastair Banks Tel: 01870 604990 Email: alastair.banks@cne- siar.gov.uk Appendices: 1 Conditions 2 Location Plan and Site Plan 3 Sea Lice Management Strategy 4 Map showing the site and nearby rivers
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 4.1 This is an EIA application relating to an existing fish farm site on the west side of Loch Seaforth between Maraig and Ardvourlie. It is proposed to replace twelve 28.6m diameter cages with eight 38.2m diameter cages and to install a new feed barge. 4.2 An existing 80 tonne grey feed barge would be replaced by a 200 tonne grey ‘Sea Mate’ feed barge which would be sited to the west of the centre of the cage group. The total surface area of the cages and barge would be 0.93ha (an increase of 0.15ha) with the moorings area extending to 50.02ha (an increase of 33.12ha). 4.3 The proposed change would allow an increase of maximum potential biomass from 1700 to 2500 tonnes. Potential production would increase from 2550 to 3750 tonnes per 22 month cycle, with fallow periods of two months. However, the maximum stocking density would be reduced from 18.4kg/m3 to 16.6kg/m3. 4.4 Normal hours of operation would remain the same as for the existing fish farm: 0800 to 1700. Exceptions to these times would be on account of operational requirements such as grading, harvesting and treatment. 4.5 The application states that the proposal would secure the employment of four full time employees. 4.6 The application form indicates that the site would be lit in accordance with the requirements of the Northern Lighthouse Board. Cage lighting would consist of 3 x 1000w lights, powered by a sound proof generator on the feed barge. The lights would be set 3-6 m below the surface and used between October and April. 4.7 The site will continue to be serviced from the applicant’s shore base at Scaladale. There are no plans for any further onshore development associated with this proposal. 4.8 The nearest operational fish farms (Noster and Seaforth operated by Marine Harvest) are 4.5km south, near the mouth of Loch Seaforth. These and the current application site lie in Farm Management Area 5b. The ES states, “SSC recognises the importance of effective site and loch health management, especially where more than one fish farm company shares the same water body. SSC intends to continue to operate the Trilleachan Mor site in synchrony with the existing neighbouring sites within Loch Seaforth, in terms of fallowing, stocking, harvesting and sea lice treatments. SSC is a member of the Farm Management Agreement (FMA) for the area. …This agreement was first signed in April 2014, reviewed in 2015 following the current cycle, and exists between SSC and neighbouring operator Marine Harvest. This arrangement will remain following the installation of the proposed Trilleachan Mor replacement site, and the Agreement will be appropriately updated and reviewed. …SSC have also produced a draft Farm Management Statement (FMS) for the proposed replacement site. The FMS will remain as a draft version until the site is stocked. ” 4.9 The proposal is within the class of local development within the Planning Hierarchy. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS 5.1 The application by The Scottish Salmon Company, 8 Melville Crescent, Edinburgh, was registered on 10 April 2015. 5.2 The EIA application was advertised for public comment in the public notices section of the Edinburgh Gazette on 17 April 2015 and in the Stornoway Gazette on 16 April 2015 as required by regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2011 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (The 2011 Regulations) apply to this proposal. 6.2 The proposed development is Schedule 2 Development – Category: (1d) in terms of the 2011 Regulations.
6.3 Having assessed the characteristics and location of the development and the characteristics of the potential impact as set out in Schedule 3 to the 2011 Regulations, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar on 29 January 2015 issued a Screening Opinion stating that in its opinion the proposed development was considered likely to have a significant impact on the environment and that the submission of an ES was required. An ES is a statement that includes the information required to assess the environmental impacts of the development and which the applicant is required to compile, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment and includes at least the information required in Part 2 of Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011.
PREVIOUS DECISIONS RELATING TO THE SITE 7.1 The following history relates to the site:
Ref No Description Decision Date 09/00193/MAR Proposed Marine Finfish Farming Site Unqualified 10.08.2009 Favourable View 10/00588/FFPAES Modification of existing fish farm. Approved 21.01.2011 14/00436/FFSCSC Replace the existing marine fish farm EIA 29.01.2015 comprising, 12 x 28.6m diameter cages, required with 8 x 38.2m diameter cages, configured in two groups (of 2x2) within an 88m grid layout. A new feed barge will be moored alongside the cages, located to the west of the centre of the cage grid.
RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 8.1 The full terms of the responses to statutory and other consultation by the Planning Authority can be read on file at the Development Department. The following is a summary of those relevant to the determination of the application.
SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY (SEPA) 8.2 No objection on the grounds that modelling has shown that impacts on the water environment should be within acceptable limits. “For your information, we can advise that we have received an application (technical variation) under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR). At this early stage of the CAR application process we can advise that we are not aware of any major obstacles which would not allow authorisation of the proposal. However, the maximum sustainable biomass and chemical usage for the site will be set once the CAR application has been determined. We will control the maximum biomass and discharges of licensed medicines through CAR and hence planning conditions relating to these aspects are unnecessary.”
SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE (SNH) 8.3 No objection. “This proposal will have no adverse effect on the integrity of the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area or the special qualities for which it has been designated. From the information provided we expect there to be no significant impacts on sensitive species or habitats of national conservation importance…We advise that the natural heritage interests which are likely to be affected by this proposal would not be considered of national importance.”
MARINE SCIENCE SCOTLAND SCIENCE (MSS) 8.4 No objection.
“The modelling report submitted indicates that the biomass being applied for can be supported at the site.” “The position of the site falls within management area 5b and as such will have an impact on, or be impacted upon by, sites within the SE Lewis, E Harris Disease Management Area as currently defined in Marine Scotland management area maps. The modifications proposed will not alter the disease management area for this site.” “From the information given in the application, the operation of the sites will be at an acceptable stocking density level of below 22kg/m3” With regards to sea lice control: “The applicants have stated that they believe the increase in biomass will have no impact or bearing on lice control, in fact the modification proposed will allow them to treat the site more quickly as there will be four less cages on site. Improvements to the sea lice management strategy, addressing factors that the applicant feel contributed to the difficulties with management of lice have also been submitted along with actions that will mitigate them being potential factors impacting future sea lice management. This is deemed satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen…The method of administration for bath treatments of sea lice chemotheraputants, full enclosure tarpaulins or wellboats, are deemed to be satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen.” “This development has the potential to increase the risks to wild salmonids. The applicant appears to be aware of the potential impacts on salmon and sea trout and has indicated that they intend to bring the site into synchronicity with local existing sites as part of an FMA, to which they have indicated that they are signatories (ISA Management Area 5b). They undertake to follow the practices recommended in the industry CoGP (Code of Good Practice) regarding containment and sea lice control, with suggested criteria for the treatment of sea lice set at 0.5 adult female L. salmonis per fish (1st February - 30th June) and 1 adult female L. salmonis per fish (1st July - 31st January) and a target of zero adult female lice in the spring ” Some uncertainty over control is nevertheless noted: “The site is located within a sea loch with another active farm (Marine Harvest operated), indicating that there could be potential for cumulative effects. The applicants have provided some information on the existing site's ability to control sea lice infestations, suggesting that this has not always been successful due to one occasion when the presence of gill diseases prevented sea lice treatment.” “The applicant now operates several sites with 120m cages and are therefore developing experience in operating cages this size; this is deemed satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen.” With regards to containment: “The escapes contingency plan provided is satisfactory in principle, however should be updated for the new proposed equipment. The information provided on equipment and strategies in place to minimise predator interactions at the site in question is satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen.”
WESTERN ISLES DISTRICT SALMON FISHERIES BOARD (WIDSFB) 8.5 WIDSFB object on the following grounds: Very high levels of sea lice that are causing significant damage to wild salmon and sea trout. Measures to control sea lice by the applicant are acknowledged; however, after recorded very high levels of sea lice in 2014, “at this time there is no guarantee that any of these measures are capable of preventing severe lice loads on site and the subsequent introduction of lice into the wider environment from occurring again.” “We therefore ask that planners apply the precautionary approach with respect to this application until such time as it can be shown that the range of 'new' measures that form part of the applicants request are shown to work. It is the position of WIDSFB that the measures to control or mitigate against unacceptably high lice levels are appraised in 12 months' time against lice data for the 2015 period. Only then, and if such measures have been shown to actually work should an increase in biomass be afforded consideration. Loch Seaforth is a medium - high risk area with respect to the
sensitivity of wild salmonids and in particular sea trout and local populations are already low. Every effort should be made to consider their wellbeing for economic, social and cultural reasons.”
8.6 WIDSFB clarifies that its objection is not to the change of equipment but to the proposed 800 tonnes increase of biomass.
HARBOUR MASTER 8.7 ‘I do not have any objections to this planning application on Navigational grounds. Any recommendations from the Northern Lighthouse Board in respect of Navigational marks and lights must be strictly adhered to.’
NORTHERN LIGHTHOUSE BOARD 8.8 No objection subject to provision of two lit marker poles and an all-round fixed white light on the feed barge.
ROYAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION 8.9 No objections.
WESTERN ISLES FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION 8.10 No objections.
HISTORIC SCOTLAND 8.11 No objections. COMHAIRLE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE Response – 29 October 2013 8.12 No objections subject to conditions controlling light and noise emissions.
REPRESENTATIONS 9.1 Representations have been received from the following: Mr Fred Martin (Director, Aline Estate) C/o Bancroft Private Equity GmbH & Co KG, Schottengasse 1, 1010 Vienna, Austria Mr Niall Robertson, Head Gamekeeper/Estate Manager, Tarbert Cottage, Aline Estate, Isle Of Lewis Mr Peter Martin, Clare College, Trinity Street, Cambridge Mr Calum Robertson, 16 Arivruach, Isle Of Lewis Mrs V Macaulay, 2 Longhouse Cottages, Aline Estate, Isle Of Lewis Mr Christopher Anderson, Kintarvie B, Arivruach, Isle Of Lewis 9.2 The full terms of the Representations can be read on the file at the Development Department. However, they can be summarised as follows: “Aline Estate lies on the shore of Loch Seaforth, which is already occupied by both a TSSC (The Scottish Salmon Company) and a Marine Harvest marine site - We have previously openly expressed our concerns regarding these sites. The narrow stretch of water through which wild fish must run past these fish tanks is a gauntlet already, and the location of these facilities is clearly taking a serious toll on our fisheries.” “It is not uncommon to catch sea trout in Loch Seaforth fisheries heavily infested with sea lice, anything up to a hundred sea lice on each fish being caught, which is hugely detrimental to the wild salmon and sea trout stocks migrating in through Loch Seaforth to the Scaladale, Vigadale, and Kintarvie rivers.”
“I have fished and live beside Loch Seaforth for many, many years and over this time fish numbers have seriously dropped and lice numbers have dramatically increased. I am seriously opposed to any further expansion of this fish farm which undoubtedly is the cause.” “…wild fish stocks which are already at seriously low levels. Whilst this site cannot alone be to blame for this, any increase in biomass in Loch Seaforth will only seek to exacerbate this persistent issue.” TSSC has failed to comply with the Area Management Agreement. “I see no useful reason why permission should be granted until TSSC can get its house in order.” “Risks to local fish populations through the use of chemicals and drugs causing pollution in the water as well as disease all pose a serious threat to our wild fish stocks which are already unsustainably low.” Threat to local employment as related to the wild fishery and associated tourism. “…we strongly object to an increase in biomass of 800 tonnes whilst a sea lice number remain extremely and dangerously high.” Cages should be moved out of Loch Seaforth and into more open waters to “give our fisheries a fighting chance to recover.” “I see no reason why increasing cage sizes will help with fish treatment when this has not been possible in the past due to 'the inability to treat the fish for welfare reasons'.” “…by TSSC’s own admission this site has been historically plagued with problems, an increase in cage biomass will lead to an increase in fish numbers despite TSSC's statement to the contrary.” “An over concentration of fish farms in the Western Isles has undoubtedly led to the dire fishing situation which we now face.” “I would also question the validity of seabed reports and survey done back in 2010 and would welcome fresh reports and findings to compare the environmental effects.” “I disagree with the findings regarding grey seal colonies. There is a colony obviously present to anyone who looks around the shores of Loch Seaforth.” “I would oppose the instillation of further lighting as recommended by the Northern Lighthouse Board and EH Uist & Barra.”
9.3 Most of those objecting to the development qualify their objections by saying that they have no objection to the modification of the existing infrastructure to ensure site safety and fish welfare. It is the implications of the biomass increase that is of concern to them.
VIEWS OF THE APPLICANT 10.1 The full details of the views of the applicant can be read on the file at the Development Department. However, they can be summarised as follows: 10.2 “The objections principally concern sea lice within the Loch Seaforth area and in particular the potential impact upon wild salmon and sea trout associated with fisheries in the Aline Estate. SSC have covered interactions with wild salmonids extensively in the Trilleachan Mor, Environmental Statement, in particular in Section 4.3 and Annex 9 and 10, which SSC are confident satisfy the concerns raised within these objection letters. Within one letter it is asserted that increasing cage sizes does not aid fish treatment. What was made clear in the Environmental Statement is that it is the reduction in cage numbers that aids the speed at which treatments can be conducted and thus improves treatment times, allowing the whole site to be treated quicker. Quicker treatments are more efficacious.
The Environmental Statement states that there ‘are no recorded seal haul-out sites in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site’ and goes on to say ‘the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) have recorded low numbers of harbour seals using rocks and skerries in Loch Seaforth as far up as Airidh a Bhruaich, and haul-out sites in the wider local area’. SSC has been clear within the Environmental Statement that seals are found within the local area even though there may be no official SMRU recorded haul-outs. Some letters refers to SSC’s failure to comply with the Area Management Agreement (AMA). It should be recognised that the AMA process has not existed for a number of years. The existing Trilleachan Mor site does however have a Farm Management Statement (provided at planning stage) and SSC is a signatory of the East Harris Farm Management Agreement (provided at planning stage) which includes the Trilleachan Mor site. One letter opposes the lighting recommended by the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB). NLB is the authority on navigational lighting whose recommendations form specific Conditions of a Marine Licence with respect to safe navigation and passage. All that was stated in the application is SSC’s insistence that NLB lighting recommendation would be fully adhered. This is to maintain safe navigation and passage.”
EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (ES) 11.1 The full details of the ES can be read on the file at the Development Department. The key issues addressed in the ES are: Benthic Environment Water Column Impacts Interaction with Predators Interaction with Wild Salmonids Landscape and Seascape Visual Assessment The key evaluation considerations are as follows: a) Benthic Impacts 11.2 The ES says that “use of the modelling tool AutoDEPOMOD enables the benthic impact of the site’s operations to be predicted and quantified. The modelling output indicates that the benthic impact will not exceed the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) used by SEPA. To further ensure EQS limits are not exceeded, the impact of the site’s operations on the benthic environment will be monitored regularly and feed management will be strictly controlled. The overall impact of the development on the benthic environment in the area is expected to be localised and classified as Medium, provided the regulatory controls are implemented and maintained.” Views of Statutory Consultees 11.3 Critically, discharges which could affect the benthic environment, would be controlled by SEPA through their licencing requirements under the Controlled Activities Regulations. SEPA has noted that “modelling was also submitted, as requested, and has estimated that the reconfigured cages could accommodate an increase in maximum biomass from 1700 tonnes to 2500 tonnes and remain within the sediment quality standards. It has also estimated acceptable quantities of sea-lice medicines for this biomass.” Conclusion 11.4 Having assessed the ES and placed due weight on the advice received from the statutory consultees, it is considered that the impacts on the benthic environment can be mitigated and managed and as such the potential impact on the benthic environment as a result of the development would not be significant.
b) Impact on Water Column taking account any cumulative impact 11.5 The ES says that “The ECE (Equilibrium Concentration Enhancement) calculations indicate that the proposed development at Trilleachan Mor will comply with UKTAG (UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive) and SEPA EQS values. The currents at Trilleachan Mor are sufficient to ensure dilution and dispersion of nutrients within the water column. The potential water column impact will be confined to a relatively small area within this region and the overall impact on the waters within Loch Seaforth is predicted to be minor.”
Views of Statutory Consultees 11.6 Discharges which could affect the water column would be controlled by SEPA through their licencing requirements under the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR). SEPA says “The applicant has submitted the Equilibrium Concentration Enhancement (ECE) estimate of nutrient input from the proposed site and other sites in the waterbody. The ECE was calculated as 10.18µg/l (including the amended result for Trilleachan in Appendix 7B) which is well within the UKTAG threshold level (which has superseded the SEPA Environmental Quality Standard of 168µg/l). Nutrient inputs from the current biomass in the loch (including that proposed for this site) will be unlikely to result in a downgrade to the status of the water body under the Water Framework Directive.”
Conclusion
11.7 Having placed due weight on the advice received from the statutory consultees, it is considered that in light of the modelling results and the controls exercisable by SEPA under CAR, the impacts on the water column will not be significant.
c) Impact on wild salmonid and other fish 11.8 The ES says that “Fish farming operations have the potential to interact with wild salmonids, in particular sea trout, as they tend to remain in coastal waters throughout the year. Such interactions may be associated with an increase in the incidence of disease, in particular parasitic infestations. It is recognised that wild fisheries are an important social and economic asset in the Outer Hebrides. Harris is a popular destinations for brown trout fishing, but also for sea trout and salmon fishing. The East Lewis and Harris Scaladale, Vigadale, Kintarvay and Sgiobacleit river systems support sizable runs of sea trout with some salmon. The potential interactions between farmed fish at Trilleachan Mor and wild salmonids are considered to be likely with the severity classed as ‘Major’. Overall the potential impact is considered to be ‘Very High ’. However, by implementing the (proposed) mitigation measures, the severity would decrease to ‘Significant’ and the likelihood would decrease to ‘Moderate’. Overall, by implementing the mitigation measures, the potential impact is reduced to ‘Medium’. The mitigation measures… include having a sea lice management plan, which is followed, reviewed and updated as appropriate. Appropriate management comprises site monitoring, fish monitoring (including regular sea lice counts), staff training, good husbandry, communication, synchronised stocking (single year class) and synchronous fallowing (where practicable). All of these management measures are put in place before considering medicine treatments. In addition the site will have consent for a full suite of medicines available at levels sufficient to treat biomass on site and with the option for alternating treatment products, and will employ synchronous treatments and strategic treatment programmes (as per CoGP FMA (Code of Good Practice Farm Management Agreement) objectives).”
11.9 With regards to controlling potential escapes, the ES adds “SSC employs specific escapes prevention and containment policies as recommended by the SSPO (Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation), SEERAD Escapes Working Group and the Industry Code of Good Practice. SSC has developed a site specific Escapes Prevention and Contingency Plan (see Annex 2), which details containment policies as recommended by the SSPO Code of Good Practice. The plan outlines measures which minimize risk of escapes, and protocols which should be implemented in the event of an escape. The plan also contains equipment attestations, which guarantee the integrity of cages, moorings and nets. This equipment has been selected taking into account hydrographic, wave climate and seabed substrate conditions at the site. There have been no reported escape incidents at the SSC Trilleachan Mor site, whilst under SSC management.”
Views of Statutory Consultees 11.10 The objections of the WIDSFB are recorded at paragraph 8.5 above and, although not objecting, paragraph 8.4 above notes some concerns raised by MSS. Conclusion 11.11 Having assessed the ES and placed due weight on the advice received from the statutory consultees, it is considered that the impacts on wild salmonid and other fish could be significant. However, it is also considered that the applicant has shown that the proposed development would secure improvements in management of this existing site and that impacts on wild salmonid and other can be mitigated and managed such that the potential impact on wild salmonid and other fish as a result of the development would be kept within acceptable limits and would not represent a significant impact on the environment. d) Wildlife Interactions 11.12 The ES says that “The faunal analysis show low species numbers and moderate to low abundance across the sampled stations. There is evidence of environmental impact at 115m N where abundance is highest and faunal composition is dominated by enrichment tolerant polychaetes. Results from 165m N are more similar to those from the reference stations (Ref. 1 and Ref. 2) where surface detritus feeders species are most abundant and enrichment polychaetes are generally absent. Sediment composition at all stations is similar making the reference stations comparable to the transect stations. Faunal results indicate healthy sediment conditions at 165m N, where composition is comparable to that of the reference stations. Within baseline station 115m N where enrichment polychaetes dominate composition and the index values were poor. However, the 115m N location is within the AZE (Allowable Zone of Effect) of the current site and thus some enrichment would be anticipated. Mitigation measures to limit sea floor impacts include adhering the CAR consent limits, using a feed nutritionist to ensure an optimal diet is produced and provided to SSC fish, with efficient nutrient conversion thereby minimising soluble nutrients released into the marine environment. In addition, feed wastage is minimised by effective feed control and site management. The site will have feedback loops in place to monitor feeding response and minimise feed waste. The operational staff will also have training in feed usage and methods to reduce waste feed.”
Views of Statutory Consultees 11.13 SNH notes the potential impacts on habitat and species and that “The burrowed mud habitat that constitutes much of the surveyed seabed has been proposed at a Priority Marine Feature and as such is considered to be of national marine conservation importance. This habitat is moderately sensitive to the impacts of marine fish farming, with burrowing crustaceans for example likely to be impacted by chemical deposition associated with sea lice treatments. This in turn (in combination with other factors) is likely to lead to localised degradation in the rich in-faunal communities found within the AZE of the proposed fish farm. Burrowed mud communities are however relatively widespread in the sea lochs and east coast of the Outer Hebrides, and the Trilleachan Mhor site cannot be considered exceptional in its conservation interest (from the information provided). Therefore we conclude there will be no significant impact on the conservation status of this habitat at the national level.
The proposed fish farm has been sited away from any significant harbour seal or grey seal haul out. We are unaware if the site is of importance for cetaceans, although harbour porpoise and other species have been recorded in the vicinity.” 11.14 Impact on the seabed habitat would also be a consideration for SEPA in its determination of a CAR licence and SEPA has said that the development should be capable of meeting the required standards.
Conclusions 11.15 Having assessed the ES and placed due weight on the advice received from the statutory consultees, it is considered that the impacts on wildlife can be mitigated and managed and as such the potential impact as a result of the development will not be significant.
e) Landscape and Seascape Impacts 11.16 The ES says that “The landscape & visual appraisal identifies and assesses the potential effects that the proposed modification of Trilleachan Mor Fish Farm, may have on the Steep Sided Outer Loch (1) Local Coastal Character Area (LCCA), and a key view looking south down Loch Seaforth which has been identified as a special quality of the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area (NSA)….. The Landscape and Visual mitigation measures include the installation of low profile black cages, which will be largely inconspicuous especially in dull conditions, set against the dark sea, and Harris hills. The proposed feed barge will also be of low profile and painted a dark, matt colour. There would be a slight increase in size in cages, but these would be reduced in number as compared to the existing fish farm. The viewpoint assessed representing one of the Special Qualities of the NSA has been predicted to receive a Minor Adverse Effect as a result of the distance of view and the limited change in scale and position of the Development, with the cages positioned slightly to the east of the existing cages and the feed barge screened by landform. Whilst there may be a Minor Adverse Effect as a result of the proposed development, these effects would not alter the key characteristics of the LCCA nor affect the long distance views down Loch Seaforth identified as a Special Quality of the NSA.”
Views of Consultees 11.17 SNH says “We advise that the proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the National Scenic Area or the special qualities for which it has been designated. We agree with the ES that adverse impacts will be minor.”
Conclusion 11.18 Having assessed the ES and placed due weight on the advice received from SNH, it is considered that the impacts on the landscape can be mitigated and managed and as such the potential impact as a result of the development will not be significant.
11.19 Other issues addressed by the ES are listed below, but none reveal any impacts on the environment that would be significant. Wildlife Interactions Commercial interests Operational impacts (transportation of pathogens) Impacts upon Species or Habitats of Conservation Importance, including Sensitive Species Navigation, Anchorage, Commercial Fisheries, Other Non-recreational Maritime Uses (MOD) Noise Marine Cultural Heritage Waste Management (non-fish) Socioeconomic, Access and Recreation Traffic and Transport
CONCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT OF EIA 11.20 Having evaluated the ES, and had regard to the advice of the consultee bodies and the input of third parties, it is concluded that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment in respect to all matters other than the potential for impact on wild fish from sea lice. Nevertheless, it is concluded that the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant (including introduction of Wrasse which feed on sea lice) combined with improved management capability offered by the smaller number of cages, would ensure that impact on the environment in this regard would be no worse than from the existing approved fish farm on this site and is likely to be better.
THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 12.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An assessment against the policies and provisions of the Development Plan is therefore made initially. This is then followed by an assessment of any other material considerations, prior to a conclusion and recommendation. Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (OHLDP) Policy 1: Development Strategy 12.2 All development proposals will be required to accord with the Development Strategy as well as other relevant Plan policies…..Supplementary Guidance will be prepared in relation to … fish farm proposals. Policy 1 Response: 12.3 The approach to development within the OHLDP is based on land use strategy that aims to encourage and facilitate good quality development in appropriate locations in line with the plan’s vision and objectives. 12.4 Supplementary Guidance: Marine Fish Farming (SGMFF) forms part of the statutory Development Plan and sets out a Spatial Strategy which identifies areas around the coast suited to ‘Potential Growth’ (identifying within this, areas which are subject to constraint) for marine fish farming, and areas which are ‘sensitive’ to new or further fish farming. 12.5 The proposal is assessed below against other relevant Plan policies and the SGMFF. Policy 2 – Assessment of Development 12.6 Underpinning each of the policies in the Plan is a requirement to demonstrate that development proposals: a) will not significantly adversely affect biodiversity and ecological interests and, where possible, result in an enhancement of these interests. (The online Biodiversity Planning Toolkit should be consulted for general advice and good practice on habitats and species, and the NBN Gateway for site specific biodiversity data); b) will not result in pollution or discharges outwith prescribed limits to the air, land, freshwater or sea; c) have been designed to take account of the requirements of safeguarding zones notified by the Health and Safety Executive, Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Services, Ministry of Defence, Marine Consultation Areas, relevant Harbour Authorities and Marine Protected Areas. All development will be assessed for its impacts individually, incrementally and cumulatively to ensure no significant detrimental effects arise… Policy 2 Response: 12.7 SEPA, SNH and MSS all consider that, subject to the proposed mitigation measures, the development would not have a detrimental impact on biodiversity. Discharges would be controlled by SEPA through its role in granting a licence under CAR. WIDSFB object on the grounds of potential further harm to wild salmonids, but it is considered that the proposed mitigation measures are sufficiently robust to safeguard this part of the biodiverse environment. There are no safeguarding zones affecting the site and the interests of the harbour authority and NLB may be addressed by conditions and by the Marine Scotland licensing process.
12.8 The proposals are therefore assessed to comply with Policy 2. Policy 5 – Landscape 12.9 Development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area, ensuring that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained. The Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment (WI-LCA) will be taken into account in determining applications and developers should refer to Appendix 1 of this plan for a summary of this guidance. Development proposals in National Scenic Areas should satisfy the appropriate tests in Policy 28 Natural Heritage. Landscapes with the special qualities of ‘wild land character’ currently fall within the Remote Area Classification of Policy 1 Development Strategy. Policy 5 Response: 12.10 The proposed cages would be black and low profile to minimize visual impact. The barge would also be of low profile and painted a dark, matt colour. This would allow the development to be assimilated to some extent into the surrounding land and seascapes. Despite the proposed fish farm extending further to the east than the existing one, it would not affect the long distance views from the Aline area (including the A859) towards the open sea with the cages remaining a distant element in these views. The steep sided land on the adjacent west side of Loch Seaforth means that the site would be hidden from houses in the nearby village of Maraig to the southwest. SNH has said that the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the National Scenic Area or the special qualities for which it has been designated. 12.11 Land to the east of the site has been identified by SNH as a ‘Wild Land’ area (Eisgen). Wild land areas are the most extensive areas of high wildness. They are identified as nationally important in Scottish Planning Policy, but are not a statutory designation. It is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the sense or character of wildness of the Eisgen area and SNH has not raised concerns on this issue. 12.12 It is therefore concluded following assessment, that the new development can be absorbed into the landscape ensuring the overall integrity of the landscape character is maintained. The proposal is considered to accord with Policy 5. Policy 28: Natural Heritage 12.13 Development that affects a National Scenic Area (NSA), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or National Nature Reserve (NNR) will only be permitted where: it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated, or any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. Where there is good reason to suggest that a protected species is present on site, or may be affected by a proposed development, the Comhairle will require any such presence to be established and, if necessary, a mitigation plan provided to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts on the species, prior to determining the application. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a European protected species unless the Comhairle is satisfied that: there is no satisfactory alternative, and the development is required for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, and the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a European protected species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 unless the development is required for preserving public health or public safety. Applicants should submit supporting evidence for any development meeting these tests, demonstrating both the need for the development and that a full range of possible
alternative courses of action have been properly examined and none found to acceptably meet the need identified. In addition to the conditions listed above, developers are encouraged to assess the impacts of their proposed development on UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and habitats and Local BAP habitats and species. Developers should refer to the Scottish Biodiversity List* for a full list of animals, plants and habitats considered to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland (this list includes all UK priority species). Policy 28 Response: 12.14 Impact on the NSA has been addressed at paragraph 12.10 above. There are no other nature conservation designations affecting the site. The proposed fish farm has been sited away from any significant harbour seal or grey seal haul out areas. SNH is unaware if the site is of importance for cetaceans, although harbour porpoise and other species have been recorded in the vicinity. All cetacean species are classed as European protected Species which means it is an offence to disturb them. Acoustic Deterrent Devices which form part of the anti-predator strategy have the potential to cause such disturbance and thus an offence if a licence is not obtained. 12.15 Atlantic salmon are a protected species under the Habitats Regulations - Schedule 3, Annex V and, both ancestral brown trout forms and sea trout are on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species List. The potential impact on these species from escapes and sea lice in particular is a relevant consideration. However, for the reasons given in paragraph 11.19 above it is considered that such impacts would be kept within acceptable limits. 12.16 It is therefore concluded that the proposed development and as such the proposals comply with this policy. Policy 22: Fish Farming and Marine Planning 12.17 In reaching planning decisions, the Comhairle will have regard to the National Marine Plan and subsequent Regional Marine Spatial Plans in so far as they impact within the inter-tidal zone and on the wider coastal zone. Proposals for new marine fish farming developments or amendments to existing marine fish farming sites will be assessed against the Supplementary Guidance for Marine Fish Farming which forms part of the Development Plan. The Supplementary Guidance sets out a spatial strategy and a development policy framework to guide fish farming development in the Outer Hebrides. The spatial strategy identifies areas for potential growth including areas subject to constraint, and areas that are sensitive to new or further fish farming development, while the development framework sets out a suite of detailed development policies against which fish farming proposals will be assessed. Policy 22 Response: 12.18 The National Marine Plan is discussed at paragraphs 13.2 -13.7 below and a review of the proposal in terms of the Spatial and Development Policies in the SGMFF follows: SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE FOR MARINE FISH FARMING (SGMFF) Spatial Strategy Policy 1: Areas for Potential Growth 12.19 The application site is within an area of potential constraint identified by this Policy on account of it being within an NSA and a Scottish Government Locational Guidelines Category 2 area as designated by MSS (last updated June 2015) on the basis of MSS predictive modelling to estimate nutrient enhancement and benthic impact in sea lochs or similar water bodies supporting aquaculture. Policy 1 requires that any identified constraints must be addressed.
Spatial Strategy Policy 1 Response: 12.20 It has been concluded that there would be no harmful impact on the NSA and MSS has not objected on the basis of its locational guidelines. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy 1.
SGMFF – DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Development Policy 1: Siting & Design in the Landscape 12.21 Development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area. The developer will be required to submit information which demonstrates that the proposal can be satisfactorily integrated with the landscape through appropriate siting and design. Siting ‐ The placement, layout, and orientation of installations should reflect the scale and subtleties of the surrounding landform, coastline and coastal character. Design – The scale, configuration, number, cage grid size, and the form and height of feed‐barges and support structures, should ensure the proposal is capable of being absorbed into the landscape/seascape with minimal intrusion. Details of the colour of cage structures, nets, top‐nets, barges and other surface equipment should be submitted, together with a statement detailing how the proposed colour scheme is appropriate to minimise landscape and visual impacts arising from the proposed development. Details of the associated on‐shore facilities will also require to be submitted and will accord with Development Policy 8. A design statement is required for developments within a National Scenic Area (NSA). The design statement for proposed fish farming development within an NSA will be expected to demonstrate how the proposed development responds to the Special Qualities of the specific NSA and explain how the proposal has paid special attention to the desirability of safeguarding or enhancing the NSA’s character or appearance. Proposals will be assessed to ensure that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained and if sited within an NSA, against the special qualities of the NSA. Development Policy 1 Response: 12.22 SNH considers that the proposals would not adversely affect the special qualities of the NSA and the proposed cages and barge would be of an appropriate siting, scale and colour to comply with this policy. Development Policy 2: Water Quality and Benthic Impact 12.23 Proposals will require to be accompanied with modelling and calculations which demonstrate that the benthic and water column impacts of the proposed farm are localised and within environmental limits. Proposals will be assessed to ensure to ensure that impacts on water quality and benthic environment are minimised or mitigated. Proposals will also be assessed against the requirements of LDP Policy 9 Water Environment. Proposals for new marine fish farming development and/or extensions to existing sites will not be permitted in locations where they would have a significant adverse impact on water quality. Development Policy 2 Response: 12.24 SEPA has confirmed that it is unlikely that there would be a detrimental impact to the water body due to nutrient loading. The predicted impact from nutrient enhancement is expected to be low. As such it is concluded that the potential impact on water column will not be significant. 12.25 Both SNH and SEPA acknowledge that the rate of deposition from the site is unlikely to cause an adverse effect on the benthic habitat with a proportion of the waste arising being assimilated by other marine organisms over the year. 12.26 Having given due weight to the responses from statutory consultees, the development is assessed to comply with this policy.
Development Policy 3: Other Marine Interests 12.27 Developers should provide evidence that potential impacts of new or extended fish farm sites on commercial fisheries, wild fisheries, MOD activities, navigational routes, anchorages, and recreational and leisure activities have been identified. Where there are likely to be conflicts, details of impacts and the mitigating measures proposed should be submitted. Proposals for new or extended fish farm development will be permitted where it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on wild fish populations, either individually or cumulatively with other finfish developments. Applications for new finfish farms or extensions to existing farms to increase cage surface area by 50% or more should include the following information: Location and where available catch data of salmon producing rivers which are judged to be potentially adversely impacted on in the loch system; A statement as to whether the area is known to support sea trout fisheries. The Comhairle will seek the advice of Marine Scotland Science and the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board in respect of the information provided with regard to wild fish in informing its determination of an application. Development Policy 3 Response: 12.28 Subject to conditions there would be no harm to navigation and there have been no objections on these grounds. There have also been no objections from WIFA or any other party on the grounds of impact on commercial fishing interests. 12.29 As already mentioned above, the potential for harm to wild salmonids from sea lice is of serious concern to WIDSFB and the those objecting to the development who represent wild fishing interests in the area. Their concern is based on episodes of high sea lice infestation in Loch Seaforth which, they consider, shows that the applicant’s management of sea lice controls have been ineffective. In countering these views the applicants have said that the proposed change to a smaller number of larger cages will help improve their management of the site and that, as part of an improved suite of anti-sea lice measures, ‘cleaner fish’ which feed on sea lice will be introduced. Wrasse would be used for this purpose in the first instance. 12.30 The table below shows returns from the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation’s monitoring of sea lice levels in the area:
SSPO Fish Health Average number of Average number of Average number of Management adult female lice adult female lice adult female lice Report 2014 – Q1 0.59 (January) 0.33 (February) 0.83 (March)
2014 – Q2 0.31 (April) 0.90 (May) 0.25 (June)
2014 – Q3 0.18 (July) 0.66 (August) 4.12 (September)
2014 – Q4 11.45 (October) 19.73 (November) 6.78 (December)
2015 – Q1 4.20 (January) 1.68(February) 0.52 (March)
2015 – Q2 0.48 (April) 0.65 (May) 0.25 (June)
12.31 These figures show high lice levels in this area in the second half of 2014, with a return to acceptable levels in the first half of this year. The recorded high lice levels give weight to the objections, but the return to more normal levels gives weight to applicant’s claim that management processes have succeeded in bringing the outbreak under control. 12.32 Overall it is considered that the management processes associated with the proposed new fish farm should secure and maintain acceptable sea lice levels. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy 2.
Development Policy 4: Noise and Lighting 12.33 Developers will be required to provide details on noise and light emissions relating to the proposed development, along with details of any mitigating measure that will minimise the impacts. This should include details of surface and underwater lighting and if sited within 2km of a residential property, details of noise generating equipment and hours of operation. The Comhairle may require the applicant to provide further technical information or undertake survey work if the information submitted is not considered adequate. Proposals will be assessed to ensure that impacts arising from noise and lighting at fish farms are minimised. Development Policy 4 Response: 12.34 Noise from fish farming operations is predominantly intermittent and is almost entirely confined to daylight hours. Compressors used for circulating oxygen and for the lift up system are also used and can be a potential source of noise. In order to mitigate these noise issues the correct balance between the need to use portable electricity generators or compressors and the appropriate management of the noise which they create would be ensured by fitting silencers/mufflers to equipment where possible and avoiding unnecessary running of generators. 12.35 The applicant has stated: “Every effort is made to keep noise to a minimum. This is done by adhering to the following methods: Reducing boat journeys between the shore base and the farm site; Insulation of power generating equipment and feeding systems; and, Restricting working hours to 8am to 5pm with the exception of grading, harvesting and treatments.” 12.36 Subject to conditions recommended by the Comhairle Environmental Health Officer, the proposals are considered to comply with this policy. Development Policy 5: Operational Impacts 12.37 Information on the arrangements for waste management at the proposed site and should be submitted along with the planning application. The proposal should be designed so as to minimise any negative impacts arising from the operation and will be assessed to ensure adequate waste management measures; no adverse environmental or amenity impacts arising from the servicing and operation of the site; and satisfactory measures for the restoration of the site, including removal of redundant equipment. Conditions will be imposed on the grant of a planning permission to ensure management of equipment during fallow periods exceeding six months and to control the removal of damaged equipment and to ensure restoration of the site following cessation of operations. Development Policy 5 Response: 12.38 The ES says, “A Site Specific Fish Mortality Plan includes details of the method and frequency of removing mortalities, how they are disposed of and details of actions in the occurrence of a mass mortality event. Empty feed bags are baled on site and returned for recycling. Any cage sections, feed pipes etc., fit for use are reused within the Company or offered to local community projects where appropriate or recycled. Any remaining unusable waste is uplifted by an authorised carrier and disposed of via licensed landfill. Special Wastes (e.g. oil, batteries) are removed by maintenance contractor, or disposed of via licensed facility” 12.39 In response to requests from MSS for further information about how ensiled waste would be dealt with, the applicant has said: “Ensiled waste is pumped into tankers and transported to the mainland for disposal by incineration. A number of specialist waste contractors handle this material.” This has satisfied MSS which has no remaining concerns on this issue. Similarly, SEPA has not asked for any further information. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with this policy.
Development Policy 6: Cumulative Impact 12.40 The potential cumulative impact of a proposal, in conjunction with all other existing and consented fish farming developments in the same loch system will be a factor in determining the acceptability of a development proposal. This assessment will have regard to the information submitted in relation to other policy areas and the potential cumulative impact on: landscape & seascape character, including visual impacts (farms within same view from key viewpoints); noise and lighting impacts; carrying capacity of loch system; and water column and benthic impacts. Where adverse cumulative impacts are significant and cannot be mitigated, planning permission will not be granted. Development Policy 6 Response: 12.41 The applicant currently operates one site within Loch Seaforth (Trilleachan Mor) but it also holds SEPA consents for two other sites which are in long term fallow (Ardvourlie and Maaruig). Marine Harvest has two operational sites near the mouth of Loch Seaforth (Noster and Seaforth). SNH has raised no cumulative landscape or visual impact concerns. The use of low profile matt cages and the orientation of the groups of cages parallel with the coast reflect the scale of the surrounding coastline and reduce cumulative impact. 12.42 MSS, SNH and SEPA have no objections with respect to cumulative impact on benthic or water column environments. Noise and light impacts are unlikely to have significant cumulative impacts given the remote location of the site in relation to residential properties. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development complies with this policy. Development Policy 7: Economic Benefit 12.43 Proposals should include details of the anticipated economic benefits for the Outer Hebrides arising from the proposed development including direct and indirect employment (FTE and part time). The assessment should have regard to the potential for displacement of local jobs both within or outwith the sector. The potential benefits will be assessed to ensure there is no detrimental effect on the benefits to be derived from other economic activities unless it can be demonstrated that the benefits from the fish farming development outweigh the others. Development Policy 7 Response: 12.44 Fish farming operations in coastal and island communities make a contribution to the rural economy and provide many jobs. The applicant states it “is an important employer in the Western Isles, and this proposed site will ensure the long term viability of the area for the company. A minimum of 3 - 4 full time equivalent posts will be maintained for this site. The proposed replacement site at Trilleachan Mor will support a variety of local businesses, such as local shops and filling station/fuel depots for routine supplies, local hauliers for deliveries not possible by boat, and local tradesmen and suppliers. Local contractors will be used where required for special projects (such as mooring works and survey works), as well as dive teams on a regular basis.” 12.45 Those objecting to the development argue that approval of this application would threaten the viability of the local wild fishery, which is an important local employer and supporter of the local tourist industry. 12.46 On balance it is considered that, given the conclusion that management of the proposed site should ensure that there would not be an unacceptable impact on the wild fishery, the proposed development would be comply with Policy 7. Development Policy 8: On‐Shore Facilities 12.47 The Comhairle will only permit a marine fish farm development proposal where the associated shore based facilities are located within the Outer Hebrides. Where new or upgraded on‐shore facilities are necessary to service a development, developers are required to submit the planning application for on‐shore facilities simultaneous with the associated marine fish farming application. On‐shore facilities will be assessed against Local Development Plan policies. Developers proposing to utilise existing facilities will be required to identify the shore based location and facilities from which the development will be served in the planning application.
Development Policy 8 Response: 12.48 The proposed development would be serviced from the existing shore base at Scaladale which would comply with this policy.
CONCLUSION OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE ASSESSMENT 12.49 Having assessed the proposal in terms of the OHLDP and the SGMFF (including siting and design, landscape, operational impacts, other marine interests and cumulative and incremental impacts, water quality, noise and lighting impacts) the proposals are assessed to comply with these provisions of the Plan.
MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 13.1 Having carried out an assessment against the Development Plan, the Planning Authority requires to identify and consider relevant material considerations for and against the proposal and assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the Development Plan. The weight to be attached to any relevant material consideration is for the judgment of the decision maker. Scotland’s National Marine Plan 13.2 The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 require that public authorities must take decisions in accordance with the Marine Plan, unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. They must also have regard to the National Marine Plan in taking other decisions if they impact on the marine area. 13.3 Scotland’s National Marine Plan (NMP) was adopted by the Scottish Parliament in March 2015 and is a material consideration. 13.4 The NMP states: “Aquaculture contributes to sustainable economic growth in rural and coastal communities, especially in the Highlands and Islands. Many communities depend on the employment and revenue it provides and, as a growing industry, it has potential to contribute to future community cohesion by providing quality jobs in rural areas and helping to maintain community infrastructures such as schools, ferries and other services subject to the continued management of risk.” 13.5 With regards to wild salmon and migratory fish the NMP states: “The farming of salmon carries a risk of impacting on wild salmonids. There is an ongoing programme of research to establish the effects of interactions with wild salmonids, primarily because of the potential impact of sea lice, but also because the potential for impact of escaped farmed fish on the genetic stock of wild salmonids is, as yet, not fully understood. Introduction of disease to wild populations is also a risk. There is a continuing presumption against further marine fish farm developments on the north and east coasts to help safeguard migratory fish species.” 13.6 The NMP contains 14 Policies related specifically to Aquaculture. Of these, the following are of particular relevance to this proposal: a) AQUACULTURE 5: Aquaculture developments should avoid and/or mitigate adverse impacts upon the seascape, landscape and visual amenity of an area, following SNH guidance on the siting and design of aquaculture. b) AQUACULTURE 6: New aquaculture sites should not bridge Disease Management Areas although boundaries may be revised by Marine Scotland to take account of any changes in fish farm location, subject to the continued management of risk. c) AQUACULTURE 7: Operators and regulators should continue to utilise a risk based approach to the location of fish farms and potential impacts on wild fish. d) AQUACULTURE 12: Applications which promote the use of sustainable biological controls for sea lice (such as farmed wrasse) will be encouraged.
Comment 13.7 The support of the NMP for sustainable growth of aquaculture principle is a material consideration of weight in support of this application. In response to impact on wild fish and the policies: a) SNH considers that the impacts upon the seascape, landscape and visual amenity of this area would be acceptable. b) The application site is within the ‘SE Lewis, E Harris Disease Management Area’. It would not bridge areas. c) Risk to wild fish is recognised and is addressed by a Sea Lice Management Strategy (see Appendix 3) and by measures to prevent escapes. d) The use of wrasse is one of the measures proposed by the Sea Lice Management Strategy.
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 13.8 SPP paragraph 249 states: “Aquaculture makes a significant contribution to the Scottish economy, particularly for coastal and island communities. Planning can help facilitate sustainable aquaculture whilst protecting and maintaining the ecosystem upon which it depends. Planning can play a role in supporting the sectoral growth targets to grow marine finfish (including farmed Atlantic salmon) production sustainably to 210,000 tonnes; and shellfish, particularly mussels, sustainably to 13,000 tonnes with due regard to the marine environment by 2020.” 13.9 Paragraph 250 states: “The planning system should: play a supporting role in the sustainable growth of the finfish and shellfish sectors to ensure that the aquaculture industry is diverse, competitive and economically viable; guide development to coastal locations that best suit industry needs with due regard to the marine environment; maintain a presumption against further marine finfish farm developments on the north and east coasts to safeguard migratory fish species.”
13.10 Paragraph 252 states: “Applications should be supported, where necessary, by sufficient information to demonstrate: operational arrangements (including noise, light, access, waste and odour) are satisfactory and sufficient mitigation plans are in place; and the siting and design of cages, lines and associated facilities are appropriate for the location. This should be done through the provision of information on the extent of the site; the type, number and physical scale of structures; the distribution of the structures across the planning area; on-shore facilities; and ancillary equipment.”
13.11 Paragraph 253 states: “Any land-based facilities required for the proposal should, where possible, be considered at the same time. The planning system should not duplicate other control regimes such as controlled activities regulation licences from SEPA or fish health, sea lice and containment regulation by Marine Scotland.” Comment 13.12 The SPP’s support for development of aquaculture in principle is a material consideration of weight in support of this application. The applicant has found the site to be a good production site and it supports local employment and services. The statutory consultees are satisfied that all issues are acceptable with the exception of harm from sea lice raised by WIDSFB and those objecting to the development. This will be discussed further in the conclusion below, including considering the point made in SPP paragraph 253 that regulation of sea lice and containment is a matter for Marine Scotland.
Representations 13.13 The submission of six objections is a material consideration as they are valid in planning terms. They focus on harm to wild salmonids, which is addressed in the conclusion below. With regard to the other three points of objection, these have been addressed by the applicant as recorded in paragraph 10.2 above. CONCLUSION 14.1 The proposal is to replace twelve 28.6m diameter cages with eight 38.2m diameter cages and to install a new feed barge on an existing operational fish farm site. 14.2 The appearance of the proposed development and its likely impact on benthic and water column environments and on navigation are all considered to be acceptable. 14.3 The key issue of concern to WIDSFB and those objecting to the development is potential harm to wild salmonids from sea lice. Harm could potentially arise from escapes of farmed fish too, but this has not been raised as an objection and the applicant has prepared an escapes contingency plan. 14.4 With regards to harm from sea lice, it has been noted in paragraph 11.7 above that the Scaladale, Vigadale, Kintarvay and Sgiobacleit river systems support sizable runs of sea trout with some salmon. These provide a significant source of wild fishing potential that is an important contributor to the local economy. The wild salmonids also have a degree of protection under the Habitats Regulations. 14.5 Even though sea lice originate in the wild, the potential for fish farms to act as a nursery for multiplying sea lice is recognised. The SSPO figures for recorded sea lice numbers on fish farms in this area clearly showed unusually high numbers in the second half of 2014. These sea lice levels have subsequently reduced. Nevertheless, it is understandable why the WIDSFB and those objecting to the development have raised concerns. 14.6 The development management role of the planning authority is concerned primarily with the installation of the equipment (cages, feed barge etc.) and those objecting to the development have specifically said that they do not object to the change of equipment, just to the proposed increase in biomass. SEPA states that control of biomass is a matter for it to control and in this case (as it has regularly stated in consultation replies on other applications too) it says, “we will control the maximum biomass and discharges of licensed medicines through CAR and hence planning conditions relating to these aspects are unnecessary.” However, when challenged over its role to take account of potential spread of sea lice as a consequence of allowing increases in biomass, SEPA has indicated that its licensing under CAR focuses on the environmental consequences of discharges on the benthic environment and water column. Similarly, although SPP paragraph 253 says that regulation of sea lice and containment is a matter for Marine Scotland, MSS says that its controls are focused on the health of the farmed fish, not spread of lice to wild fish. 14.7 Further debate is being had with the industry and relevant agencies to try and provide better clarity on this issue. However, as this issue has been included by the applicant in the ES accompanying this planning application it is appropriate to address it as part of the determination of this application. Regard has therefore been had to the mitigation measures set out in the ES and due weight placed on the advice of consultee bodies. 14.8 It is concluded that the objections on the grounds of harm to wild fish from sea lice are of insufficient weight to justify a refusal of this application for the following reasons: a) The proposal is to upgrade and modernise an existing fish farm which has a permanent planning permission. b) Although the proposal would allow for an increase in biomass, it is accepted that the reduction in the number of cages would allow easier access for monitoring and, where required, treatment. c) The applicant’s monitoring methods have improved in recent times, notably by checking one in every 5 farmed salmon for lice rather than one in every 10, thereby
enabling earlier detection and treatment when necessary. d) Treatment methods have also improved recently, notably through the introduction of ‘cleaner fish’ (usually wrasse). e) The applicants have committed to abiding by a robust Sea Lice Management Strategy (see Appendix 3) supplemented by a Farm Management Agreement with the other nearby operator, Marine Harvest, in which both companies commit to essentially the same strategy. Compliance with the Sea Lice Management Strategy may be secured by condition. f) It is in the applicant’s own interests to minimise sea lice infestation in the interests of securing the best possible quality of farmed salmon. g) Notwithstanding a degree of ambiguity over regulatory responsibilities, SEPA and MSSS have some locus in the process of sea lice controls and neither has objected to the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION AND REASONS 15.1. It is concluded, overall, that the proposal is acceptable. The ES has been assessed and it is accepted that there will not be a significantly adverse effect on the environment. General support is offered by the NMP and SPP and, subject to conditions, the proposal is assessed to comply with the OHLDP and SGMFF. The principal concern raised by those objecting to the development, namely potential for harm to wild fish from sea lice, has been assessed and it is considered that the mitigation measures proposed would be sufficiently robust to outweigh the concerns raised by those objecting to the development. It is therefore recommended that the planning application be approved.
APPENDIX 1
SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Condition 1 Throughout the lifetime of the development to which this planning permission relates the developer shall monitor and audit sea lice levels and implement mitigation & management measures, in accordance with the terms of the Sea Lice Management Strategy attached to and forming part of this planning permission, unless the Comhairle as planning authority has approved a revised Sea Lice Management Strategy in writing.
Reason To ensure that best practices are undertaken to mitigate the potential impacts of sea lice loading in the marine environment in general and on wild salmonids in particular.
Condition 2 The site shall be marked by means of 2 lit yellow poles, `exhibiting a yellow flashing light, character flash one every twelve seconds (FI(4) Y 12s) and fitted with a yellow multiplication cross topmark. One pole shall be positioned at the most North-Easterly corner of the group of cages and the remaining pole at the most South-Easterly corner of the group of cages. The poles used should be at least 75mm in diameter and not less than 1 metre in height above the site equipment hand rails, the light should be installed on the top of the pole. The poles should be positioned such that at least they can be clearly seen by vessels approaching from all navigable directions. The multiplication cross should measure a minimum of 75cm in length by 15cm in width.
Reason In the interests of navigational safety.
Condition 3 The feed barge on the site is required to exhibit an all round fixed white light, which should be exhibited from a point at least 1 metre above any obstruction. The nominal range of the light should be 2 nautical miles.
Reason In the interests of navigational safety.
Condition 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.
Reason In the interests of visual amenity and public safety.
Condition 5 If anti-predator nets are used, either above or below water, they must be properly installed and maintained to ensure effective protection. Any changes to the permitted anti-predation measures stated in the Environmental Statement supporting the planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for consideration and approval prior to any installation and use.
Reason To minimise the impact of the development on predators, protected species and the environment.
Condition 6 In the event that the fish cages or associated equipment approved by this permission cease to be in operational use for the growing of finfish for a period exceeding three years, they shall be wholly removed and the site restored to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within 4 months of being notified, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Planning Authority. For the purpose of clarity, under such circumstances the permission so granted will cease.
Reason To prevent degradation of the site in the event of cessation of operations.
Condition 7 The feed barge on the site shall at all times be painted a muted matt grey or black or an alternative colour agreed in writing beforehand with the Comhairle as planning authority.
Reason In the interests of visual amenities.
Condition 8 Throughout the life of the development to which this planning permission relates, no means of artificial illumination, other than that required for navigation, shall be directed "off-site" so that the spread of direct light from any source does not extend more than 100m from the site, without prior written approval form the Planning Authority.
Reason To protect the amenity of the natural environment.
Condition 9 The "Rating noise level" generated by the development and associated operations, including sea going vessels, when measured at any noise sensitive dwelling in accordance with the requirements of BS4142:1997 - "Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas", shall not exceed the background noise level by 5 or more Decibels. It is assumed that the "Rating Noise Level" includes an acoustic feature correction of 5 decibels.
Reason To protect the amenity at noise sensitive premises.
Condition 10 Should any reasonable complaints (by residents in nearby noise sensitive dwellings) be received in respect of noise levels, the developer shall fully investigate these complaints and, to establish noise levels at any affected property, shall undertake noise monitoring which shall be carried out by a suitably qualified noise expert or consultant previously agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and which shall be carried out in accordance with BS4142:1997 -"Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas".
Reason To quantify the loss of amenity at noise sensitive premises resulting from the operation of the development.
Condition 11 Should any noise monitoring undertaken in accordance with Condition 10 above demonstrate that the noise thresholds in Condition 9 are being exceeded, the developer shall submit a scheme of mitigating measures to the Planning Authority for written agreement within three months of the breach being identified. The agreed mitigating measures shall be implemented within three months of the written agreement or within any alternative timescale agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter retained throughout the life of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason To ensure adequate mitigation is in place to protect amenity at noise sensitive premises.
APPENDIX 2
Location and Site plans:
APPENDIX 3
THE SCOTTISH SALMON COMPANY - SEA LICE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY for TRILLEACHAN MOR FISH FARM, LOCH SEAFORTH: i. Lice monitoring protocols (minimum categories of lice recorded, counting frequency, numbers of fish and cages sampled) Lice monitoring will be in accordance with the Code of Good Practice, in particular; - Personnel carrying out lice counts will have appropriate training in lice recognition and recording and will be able to demonstrate post-training competence - A minimum of weekly monitoring will take place throughout the year - Pens and fish will be sampled at random - Where there are more than five pens per site, five salmon will be sampled from each of five pens to give a total of twenty five fish. - Where the site consists of less than five pens, all pens will be sampled to give a total of twenty five fish. A similar number will be sampled from each pen. - Fish will be netted straight from the pen into anaesthetic solution. - Each life cycle stage of Lepeophtheirus salmonis will be counted in turn i.e. adult females, mobile stages, chalimus. - All identifiable life cycle stages of Caligus elongates will be grouped together - After completing the lice counts on the fish from each pen, the tub containing the anaesthetic solution will be examined for sea lice which may have been shed from the fish and any lice found added to the total. - A record will be made of the name of the person carrying out the count, the pen number, and the water temperature - Minimum sea lice recording requirements are i) Lepeophtheirus salmonis - chalimus, non-gravid mobiles (pre-adult males and females, plus adult males) and adult females with or without egg strings; and ii) Caligus elongates – mobile stages. ii. Treatment plans (inc. available treatments for each site, plans for synchronisation of treatments, lice treatment thresholds/targets) Sea lice treatments will be administered at the Trilleachan Mhor site synchronously with all other marine salmon farm operators in MA W13. The company Lice Treatment Strategy will be employed at the site, unless otherwise directed by the Company Biologist or MSS Fish Health Inspectors. The levels of sea lice medicine consented at Trilleachan Mhor are sufficient to ensure efficacious treatment of the whole site. Standard Operating Procedures will be followed to maximise effectiveness of treatments, in particular, bath treatments. Treatment trigger levels will be in accordance with the Code of Good Practice. iii. Plans for sensitivity testing If a sea lice treatment appears to have failed, this will be communicated immediately to the Regional Manager and Company Biologist. Plans for sensitivity testing will be led by the Company Biologist. iv. Use of cleaner fish Cleaner fish (wrasse) may be used at the Trilleachan Mhor site throughout the cycle. TSSC will ensure the appropriate biological consents are in place prior to stocking. v. Sharing of lice data TSSC is a signatory to the East Loch Tarbert Farm Management Agreement and voluntarily shares lice data with the other signatory to this agreement. Lice data is, and will continue to be, submitted to the SSPO for inclusion in the regional health reports and the Fish Health Database.
APPENDIX 4
Map showing the Trilleachan Mor fish farm site and nearby river systems