ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 12 JUNE 2012

40MW LEWIS WAVE ARRAY (REF NO 12/00169/CONSG)

Report by Director of Development

PURPOSE OF REPORT To determine the Comhairle’s view as a ‘statutory consultee’ in respect of an Environmental Statement (ES) submitted in March 2012 to the Scottish Ministers regarding plans to construct and operate a Wave Energy Convertor Array located off shore in Northwest Lewis, (an application for consent under Section 36 of the 1989 Electricity Act). The application also seeks a marine licence under part 4, Section 36 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. COMPETENCE 1.1 There are no legal, financial or other constraints to the recommendations being implemented.

SUMMARY 2.1 The Scottish Ministers have asked for the view of the Comhairle on a proposed Wave Array off the coast at Siader, North West Lewis. The application submitted to Scottish Ministers, on behalf of Lewis Wave Power Limited (LWP), comprises between 40 and 50 oyster devices with an installed capacity of 40 MW. An Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared by LWP. The Comhairle has until 21 July 2012 to submit comments on this ES and the proposed development. The Report summarises the ES; includes consultees’ comments received on the ES; it offers a conclusion and a recommended favourable view to be submitted to Scottish Ministers. Copies of the Non-Technical Summary of the ES will be made available in the Members’ lounge prior to the meeting of the Environment and Protective Services Committee on 12 June 2012.

2.2 The Report relates to the marine element (below high water mark) only of the proposal. A separate planning application will be submitted to the Comhairle for the determination of the onshore works.

RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended the Comhairle agrees that the: a) View at paragraph 15.8 of the Report be submitted to the Scottish Ministers; b) Comhairle inform Scottish Ministers that there is no public interest in holding a Public Local Inquiry for the Lewis Wave Array application.

Contact Officer Hannah Morrison Telephone 01870 604990 Email: [email protected] Appendices 1 Indicative Site Layout (Vol 2 ES Ch5 Fig 5.2 ) 2 Diagram showing how the Oyster WECs relate to the hydro electric power station ( Vol 2 ES Ch5 Fig 5.3) 3 Illustrations of the Oyster WECs (Vol 2 ES Ch5 Fig 5.4) 4 Plan of target scenario for WEC positioning in relation to nearest WEC (Vol 2 Ch5 ES Fig 5.5) 5 Indicative Illustration of the array layout (Vol 2 ES Ch5 Fig 5.6) 6 Illustration of rock or stabilization anchor (Vol 2 ES Ch5 Fig 5.8) 7 Oyster Technical Specifications (Vol 2 ES Ch5 Table 5.1) 8 Combined ZTV for Offshore & Onshore Development (Vol 3 Technical Appendices Fig 14.5) 9 Cumulative Zone of Theoretical Visibility [ZTV] (Vol 3 Technical Appendices Fig 14.13) 10 SEPA Response 11 Historic Scotland Response 12 Marine and Coastguard Agency Response 13 RSPB Response and Annex 14 Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society Response 15 Archaeology Comments 16 Economic Development Comments BACKGROUND

4.1 In March 2012, Lewis Wave Power Limited (LWP) submitted an application for consent under Section 36 of the 1989 Electricity Act. The application also seeks a Marine Licence under part 4, Section 36 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 in addition a decommissioning programme agreed with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and Marine Scotland - Licensing and Operations Team will be developed pursuant to Chapter 3 of the Energy Act 2004 for the 40MW Lewis Wave Array.

4.2 Lewis Wave Power, a wholly owned subsidiary of Edinburgh based Aquamarine Power Limited, proposes to install between 40 and 50 Oyster Wave Energy Convertors off the coast of North West Lewis in an area leased from The Crown Estate. Although this application only relates to the offshore element of this project, an agreement has been made with the Galson Estate Trust to construct, operate and maintain the proposed wave farm on land under their ownership.

4.3 The Report relates to the development of the proposed Lewis Wave Array which is located in inshore waters off the northwest coast of Lewis at Lower Siader. The Report relates purely to the elements of the development that lie below the high water mark.

4.4 The Oyster device is a buoyant, hinged flap attached to the seabed by monopole in depths of 10m to 15m. As waves pass, the flap pitches backwards and forwards, driving two hydraulic pistons which pump water at high pressure to a conventional onshore Hydro- electric turbine generator.

4.5 The development proposes the installation, 20 year operation and subsequent decommissioning, of 40 to 50 Oyster devices. Details of the devices are shown at Appendix 3 to the Report.

4.6 The entire development site encloses an area comprising 257ha. The proposed location and layout of the Wave Farm are shown on the Site Plan at Appendix 1; and the indicative Site Layout at Appendix 5 to the Report.

4.7 Accompanying the current application, LWP have included an Environmental Statement which is comprised of 3 parts: • Non-technical Summary: Volume 1 • Environmental Statement: Volume 2 • Appendices: Volume 3

4.8 In order to properly consider all relevant matters the Report is structured as follows: Section 4 Background; Section 5 Description of the Project; Section 6 Summary of Environmental Statement; Section 7 External Consultation Responses; Section 8 Internal Consultation Responses; Section 9 Representations; Section 10 Comments from Applicant Section 11 Policy Context; Section 12 Discussion of Proposals; Section 13 Issues Raised; Section 14 Policy Consideration; Section 15 Conclusion and Recommended view.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 5.1 Lewis Wave Power proposes to develop a wave energy array off the north-west coast of the Isle of Lewis. The array will have a generation capacity of up to 40MW of renewable power for export to the national grid.

5.2 The array will consist of between 40 and 50 Oyster wave energy convertors (WECs) also referred to as Oyster devices, depending on the design and therefore final power rating of the Oyster devices used. These devices will be positioned according to the best understanding of available wave resource, water depth, seabed gradient and seabed protrusions.

5.3 The Oyster array will be located in waters to the north of Siadar and to the west of Bhuirgh (see Appendix 1 Fig 5.2 Location Plan to the Report). The wave array will be configured in a linear formation running roughly parallel to the coast and will cover a distance of up to 3.2km from end to end and extends a maximum distance of 0.9km from the shore. Indicative locations for the individual devices are displayed in Appendix 1 Fig 5.2. These will be subject to micro-siting and the layout is indicative.

5.4 Depending on the option chosen for installation, the total area of seabed directly affected would be a minimum footprint of 46,520m2 (4.6ha) to a maximum footprint of 259,656m2 (26ha) which encloses a maximum site boundary of 257ha.

5.5 In addition to the Oyster devices there will be a requirement for supporting infrastructure both onshore and offshore. This will include pipe work which will connect the devices to a hydro- electric power station, located onshore, within an area of land to the north of Siadar village, please note this information is provided for context, but this application is solely related to the offshore aspects of the development below the high water mark.

5.6 The system is designed so that the off-shore components are as simple and as reliable as possible. The operation of the off-shore part of the project will not rely on any electrical components or active control functions operating in the marine environment. Once all four phases of the development have been installed and are operational the nominal peak output of the entire array will be approximately 40MW with a predicted average output of approximately 11.3MW. During periods of low wave action the output of the array may fall to 0MW.

Site Description 5.7 The waters off the north-west coast of Lewis are shallow and, while the seabed slopes gently down towards the continental shelf, the waters remain no deeper than 50m out to a distance of 4 to 5km from the coastline. The near shore environment is generally rocky with some areas of coarse sand and gravel in pockets between rock outcrops and boulders. With greater distance offshore the seabed becomes more stable and is composed of finer sands and gravels.

5.8 The bathymetry within the development site ranges between 10m and 15m depth, the depth range required by the Oyster Wave Energy Convertors (WECS). The seabed is reasonably level with few discernable anomalies.

5.9 The west coast of Lewis is a location with abundant wave energy, Atlantic swells arrive at the coast having been uninterrupted by any land mass for thousands of miles.

5.10 Wave Energy Convertors (WECs) Waves have the potential to provide a sustainable source of energy which can be captured and converted into electricity by WECs. Aquamarine Power Limited’s Oyster WEC technology is designed to harvest the wave energy from the near shore environment.

5.11 The power rating for each Oyster WEC which will be deployed at the Lewis site will be between 800kW and 1MW. This will determine the number of Oysters deployed in the array: 40 will be required if the power rating is 1MW; up to 50 if the rating is 800kW.

Oyster technology 5.12 The Oyster WEC is a buoyant, hinged flap, attached to the seabed by a monopole (see Appendix 3, Fig 5.4). As waves pass the flap it pitches backward and forwards with the motion of the wave and this movement drives two hydraulic pistons, which in turn push high pressure water through a pipe network to an onshore hydroelectric turbine as illustrated in (Appendix 2, Fig 5.3) of the Report.

5.13 Once the development is commissioned only the tops of the flaps will be visible offshore, protruding between 3m to 4.5m (at medium sea level) from the surface of the sea. Each flap will be between 26m to 33m wide and 12.5m from the top of the flap to the connecting hinge and will be 3.5m thick.

5.14 The design and colouring of the Oyster will be agreed with the Northern Lighthouse Board with regard to navigational safety. The top of the flaps will be painted yellow with the Aquamarine Power logo in blue, the rest of the device to be painted white. Full specification details are provided in Appendix 7 Table 5.1 to the Report.

5.15 The first Oyster WEC (Oyster 1) was successfully deployed at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC)’s Billia Croo site, on the West Coast of Orkney, in 2009. Oyster 1 delivered over 6000 offshore operating hours and survived two winters at sea.

5.16 Aquamarine Power recently installed the next-generation Oyster device called the Oyster 800 at the Billia Croo site. The high and low pressure pipelines which connect the onshore hydro electric power station with the offshore device were installed using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) which was completed in 2011. Work is currently underway to commission Oyster 800 by connecting it to the high and low pressure pipelines. Aquamarine Power also plans to install two further developments of the Oyster device, the 801 and 802 versions, in the same location creating the first Oyster array. Each Oyster WEC will have a generating capacity of approximately 800kW and all three will be connected to a single onshore hydro electric station. The maximum generating capacity of the three WECs will be 2.4MW.

5.17 The devices installed at the 40MW Lewis development will be similar to Oyster 801 and 802 in both design and appearance, but will include further design improvements based on lessons learnt from the Billia Croo project.

Device specifications 5.18 The final specifications of the Oyster devices deployed will be determined by experience gained from previous designs. A ‘Rochdale Envelope’ approach has been taken to describe the design parameters of the devices for the purposes of impact assessment. Appendix 7 Table 5.1 details the range of conceivable values for specifications of the Oyster WECs to be deployed at the Lewis site and Appendix 3, Fig 5.4 provides an illustration of the devices.

5.19 The Oyster WECs will be made of a combination of composites such as Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP), elastomers, marine grade rubber and steel and each will sit on one pre- installed monopile which will be drilled and grouted into the rock seabed. The monopiles will provide a secure and level base for the WECs on the seabed at approximately 13m MSL (Mean Sea Level) water depth.

5.20 The WECs have a design life of 20 years.

5.21 To ensure that maximum energy is extracted from the waves, the area below the WECs will be filled by “gap fillers”, these will take the form of wire cages or bags filled with rocks, or will be made of concrete accropodes. The ‘gap fillers’ will be placed around the monopile and under the bottom of the each oyster flap after it is attached to the monopile.

Oyster technical design 5.22 The WECs are designed to operate in water depths of between 10 and 15m below chart datum (CD). This means that they will be located between 300m (in the north of the site) and 750m (in the south) from the coastline. The WECs will be aligned approximately parallel to the coastline with a minimum separation distance of 20m (Appendix 4 Fig 5.5); although in the final layout the distance is likely to be larger than 20m.

5.23 High and low pressure pipelines will form a closed loop system with water being pumped from the WEC to the shore and back again. The fluid within the pipes will consist of: fresh water (94.9%), a hydraulic additive called Eco Stack Magic (5%) which will increase the lubricity of the working fluid and Agent 70 (0.1%) which is a defoaming agent.

5.24 Each WEC will be connected via one high pressure pipe (which will contain water that has been pressurised by the WEC) and one low pressure (return) pipe to a “common pipeline” (containing one high and one low pressure line) shared by other WECs. The “common pipeline” links all the WECs together and then connects via a number of “common to shore pipelines” to the shore based electricity generator. The WEC pipelines will either be secured to the seabed by the landing platform or will be secured by stabilisation anchors.

Hydraulic modules 5.25 Each WEC will contain up to four hydraulic accumulator modules. The accumulator modules have been designed to be recovered during maintenance and repair procedures which will occur during operation. Each hydraulic accumulator module will contain a bank of hydraulic cylinder accumulators. The hydraulic cylinder accumulator consists of the hydraulic cylinder, check valves, a pressure relief valve and isolation valves. Each accumulator module will also incorporate communications harnesses and junction boxes.

Landing platforms 5.26 On the shore side of each WEC a landing platform will be installed which will serve a number of functions. The platform will provide an area on which dedicated handling equipment can be landed from a support vessel during maintenance.

5.27 In addition the platform is likely to house the connection between the WEC and the common pipeline (Appendix 5 Fig 5.6).

5.28 The platforms will consist of a frame made from steel or composite and will be approximately 10m wide by 10m long, sitting proud of the seabed at a height of approximately 5m. The frame structure will be open sided and potentially will support a meshed top to allow for protection of the pipes. It will be fixed on top of the pipes to hold them in place on the seabed and will be attached to the seabed using up to 20 large rock anchors.

Pipelines 5.29 The common pipelines (Appendix 5 Fig 5.6) will each measure a maximum of 0.9m in diameter. Each common pipeline will run the length of the array and is likely to be a maximum distance of 3.5km in length. The common pipeline will be installed in sections that join each WEC to the previous WEC. Each section will be secured at both ends under the landing platforms and will have an additional stabilisation anchor point mid-way along the section. Stabilisation anchors will consist of a collar surrounding the pipeline which will be pinned to the seabed using rock anchors. A grout bag may be positioned under the pipeline which will be held in place by the rock anchors.

5.30 At up to eight separate locations the common pipelines (both high and low pressure) will be connected to “Shore Pipelines” (see Appendix 5 Fig 5.6) which will transport the hydraulic fluid to the shore. The Shore Pipelines will also consist of one high and one low pressure pipeline and will be installed using one of two options:

• The pipes will either be surface laid i.e. attached to the seabed using stabilisation anchors; or

• The pipes will be installed under the existing bedrock using a process known as horizontal directional drilling (HDD).

• Alternatively a mixture of the two installation methods will be used.

5.31 An umbilical cable will connect each WEC to the onshore control room located in the hydro electric power station. This cable will be installed within a conduit next to the pipelines and will be used to relay information regarding the performance of the devices back to the onshore hydro electric power station. The umbilical will contain a fibre optic data cable and a power cable to provide power to the sensors on the WEC.

Pipeline installation options Option 1: Surface laid 5.32 The configuration of the pipelines should a surface laid approach be adopted is yet to be finalised. The description below is based on a buildable scenario that would result in the greatest (worst case) amount of pipeline being installed.

5.33 Up to eight common to shore pipelines will connect the common pipeline to either a common landing area as displayed in (Appendix 5 Fig 5.6) or between two and eight separate landing areas. This will depend upon the final engineering requirements of the array.

5.34 Each common to shore pipeline will consist of one high pressure pipe and one low pressure pipe each of which will be 0.9m in diameter and will be between 700m and 2300m long. The shore pipelines will be secured to the seabed using stabilisation anchors positioned at regular intervals of approximately 50m.

5.35 All surface laid pipelines will be made from steel and may be painted externally. Aluminium alloy sacrificial anodes will also be used to protect the offshore infrastructures at approximately 1 per 50m of pipeline and one per individual steel structure. To provide protection to offshore surface laid pipes, the pipelines may be coated in concrete, or the pipelines may be made up of pre-fabricated concrete pipelines within which the high and low pressure pipelines are pushed through.

Option 2: Directionally drilled 5.36 The shore pipelines may be installed using an HDD method of rock boring. The boreholes through which the pipes will be pulled, will be drilled from either one of two onshore locations or from an offshore location using a jack up rig.

5.37 If the boreholes are drilled from an onshore location several boreholes will be drilled from one or possibly two separate areas each up to 30m by 30m located within the onshore pipeline installation area shown in (Appendix 1 Fig 5.2). A maximum of 32 (16 for high pressure pipelines and 16 for low pressure pipelines) boreholes may be required to connect the common pipeline to the shore. From the point of breakthrough at the seabed the pipelines would be surface laid as described above.

5.38 In both cases, on completion of the pilot hole drilling and emergence at the exit point there will be some drill fluid discharge. The drill fluid comprises of seawater with a non-oil based drilling fluid such as bentonite, the safety data sheet for which indicates that the product is not considered toxic to aquatic organisms, and is a biodegradable drilling fluid. A closed loop recycling system will separate drill cuttings from reusable drilling fluids, meaning that at break-through of the seabed offshore or the land onshore there will be a limited quantity of seawater-based drill fluid and cuttings lost to the environment. Drill cuttings excavated offshore will be returned to shore and all captured cuttings will be collected for disposal by licensed contractors.

Pipelines connections 5.39 The junction between the individual WEC pipelines and the common pipelines is likely to be contained under the landing platform. Alternatively if a WEC is located at a distance of over 10m from the common pipeline the connection between the WEC pipeline and the common pipeline will be protected by a manifold structure which will be 6m by 6m and will similar in design to the manifold described in the paragraph below.

5.40 At the junctions between the common pipelines and the shore pipelines (see Appendix 5 Fig 5.6) there will be a manifold structure which will link these pipelines together. This manifold will be made from steel or composite and will be a structure approximately 10m by 10m and 5m high. As with the landing platforms it will consist of an open sided frame structure possibly with a meshed top to allow for protection of the pipes. It will be fixed on top of the pipes to hold them in place and will be attached to the seabed using rock anchors. The maximum number of these manifolds will be eight and the minimum number will be two if surface laid pipeline option is used or 32 if HDD is used. All surface pipes will be fixed to the seabed using stabilisation anchors that will be pinned using rock anchors.

Temporary pontoon 5.41 During the construction phase a temporary floating pontoon will be connected to the shore at a location within the onshore pipeline installation area (Appendix 1 Fig 5.2). The pontoon will facilitate rapid access for a small craft to and from the offshore development area, which will improve safety and help logistics.

5.42 The pontoon will be made from a mixture of plastics, steel and concrete. It will consist of a series of floating blocks with a metal handrail for safety. It is likely that it would be moored in place using concrete blocks on the seabed, which would attach to the pontoon via chains. It is likely that some civil engineering works will be required to support the pontoon, these would take the form of foundation works and a concrete access ramp.

Installation methodology

Offshore

Timing 5.43 The installation will be phased over a period of 4 to 6 years with installation of the first phase of 3MWs commencing in summer 2014. Installation work will take place between April and October of each year. Once each device is installed it will start operating, pumping high pressure fluid to shore and contributing to the electricity generation, whilst other devices continue to be installed. The expected installation schedule for all phases is as follows:

Phase 1 – 3MW - installation starts in 2014; Phase 2 – 7MW - installation starts in 2015; Phase 3 – 15MW - installation starts in 2016; and Phase 4 – 15MW - installation starts in 2017.

5.44 Pipeline preparation and installation will involve a tug, multi cat and dive boat. These vessels will be on and off site for a period of approximately two months depending on the phasing of pipeline preparation and installation in relation to the rest of the installation schedule.

5.45 Installation of the sockets and monopiles will be undertaken by a jack up barge such as Seacore’s Excalibur (size 60m x 32m x 3m draught). This barge will be supported by a single offshore tug (50 tonnes bollard pull or similar). Accommodation will be provided on board for all operations personnel, with shift changes at weekly intervals. Dive support will be provided by an on-board dive team.

Installation of monopiles 5.46 The jack up barge will be mobilised to site under its own power. It will use a marshalling area located in Loch Roag and/or Stornoway and then motor to the site. The legs will be lowered and deployed once on site. All eight legs of the jack-up barge will need to be on the seabed before operations can commence. In this position the footprint of all eight legs of the jack up barge is likely to be approximately 20m2. There is the potential that temporary grout bags will be positioned beneath one or more of the jack-up legs to ensure the barge is stable. Once the barge is stable the drilling of the monopile sockets will commence.

5.47 One monopile socket will be drilled into the seabed from the jack up barge for each WEC, using a single drill bit. The drilling methods to be used will make use of sea water and the drilling fluid, and all drill cuttings will be left offshore.

5.48 The steel pile will then be inserted into the socket and this will be grouted into place. The grout used for this purpose is cement based grout and will be dispensed using a grout line from the jack up barge. There is a potential loss of grout to the sea during routine grouting operations and flushing out of the grout hoses. However the amount of grout being pumped into the socket will be monitored from the surface and by divers and it is predicted that approximately 1m3 of grout may be lost from each operation equating to a total maximum loss of 50m3. The socket drilling and monopole installation will take up to 100hrs per monopole.

Installation of the WECs 5.49 Some seabed preparation work may be required for each of the foundations. This is likely to take the form of kelp removal and seabed levelling works. Divers will remove the kelp from the area and the kelp will be discarded offshore. It is hoped that seabed levelling activities can be avoided through micro-siting of each WEC but if needed it is likely to involve some rock removal/breaking operations. If it proves necessary to undertake rock breaking activities then an addendum will be submitted to accompany this ES which will investigate and assess the impacts of this activity.

5.50 Final assembly of the WECs will be carried out at a fabrication yard with direct access to the sea and the WECs will be towed by sea to Lewis. Following transportation of the WECs to Lewis, a facility is required where WECs can be offloaded. This is likely to be the Port of Stornoway. At this location the WECs will be moored against a quay wall for inspection and preparatory work for installation. The WECs will then be towed to a sheltered harbour in Loch Roag before being towed into position and installed.

5.51 Installation of the WECs will be achieved using one offshore tug (50 tonnes bollard pull or similar) plus two further work boats (multicats or similar) and a dive support vessel.

5.52 Four mooring anchors will be installed on each side of the WEC. Mooring anchors will be used to assist in securely lowering each Oyster WEC onto its foundation monopile, and for maintenance operations throughout the life of the project.

5.53 The WECs will be towed to site by the tug vessel and will be installed one at a time. The WEC will be floated over the pile and into position using tugs and then ballasted down to the pile in combination with a winch system (using the mooring anchors) to engage with the pile. The Oyster WEC will make a mechanical connection to the pile and will not be grouted.

Installation of landing platforms 5.54 Once the WEC has been installed a landing platform will be installed on the shoreward side of the WEC. This will be pinned to the seabed using up to 20 large rock anchors. Grout bags may be used to support the platform, and these will be held in place by the rock anchors.

Installation of pipelines 5.55 All pipelines to be installed in the offshore environment (shore pipelines, common pipelines, and WEC pipelines) will be manufactured at an existing facility that is yet to be determined (on either in Lewis or the mainland) and will be towed to site in one length. This is likely to involve one lead vessel and a trailing tug. The pipelines will be towed empty and supported with additional buoyancy and chains for stabilisation. If the shore pipelines are directionally drilled these pipes will be installed from the offshore location and will be pulled through the boreholes using a leader line.

5.56 Divers will remove kelp from the area up to 10m wide around where the surface laid pipelines will be installed. Some seabed levelling works may also be required as well as insertion of grout bags into any gullies in the seabed over which the pipelines will be laid. Once the seabed preparations are complete the pipelines will be flooded with seawater and lowered to the seabed.

5.57 Prior to installation of the pipes at the common landing area (Appendix 5 Fig 5.6) or at the separate landing areas the beach will be prepared to provide a level corridor on which to lay the pipes. The footprint for the construction corridor is 20m for each set of pipelines (a set of pipelines consist of one high and one low pressure pipeline) within the surf zone.

Installation of anchors 5.58 A number of different anchors will be used to secure the infrastructure to the seabed. These include: rock anchors, mooring anchors, and stabilisation anchors.

5.59 Rock anchors consist of a single pin which will be driven and grouted into the rock using divers supporting rock drills. It is anticipated that two sizes of rock anchor will be used in the Lewis array: small rock anchors: approximately 25mm in diameter and 0.5m in length and large rock anchors: approximately 50mm in diameter and 1.5m in length.

5.60 Mooring anchors will be used to winch the WECs into place & for mooring vessels during installation, operations and maintenance and will consist of three large rock anchors, an anchor plate and a shackle (see Appendix 6 Fig 5.8 to the Report). Mooring anchors are likely to be placed nearby the Oyster devices or on the seaward side of the devices. Holes for the three rock anchors will be drilled using a triangular template. The pins will then be secured in place using a Hilti concrete dispensed with a standard injection system.

5.61 Stabilisation anchors which are used to secure pipelines to the sea bed will comprise of a collar around the pipeline, possibly a grout bag under the pipeline and up to six small rock anchors. Stabilisation anchors will be placed approximately every 50m along the all surface laid pipeline (although they may be placed at smaller intervals when the seabed is uneven).

5.62 The larger rock anchors will be used to hold both the landing platforms and the manifolds in place. Up to 20 rock anchors will be used for each landing platform and up to 16 will be used for each manifold structure.

5.63 During construction up to three WECs will be stored (wet storage) in Loch Roag at any one time. They will be anchored to the seabed using designated anchorages and existing anchorage points, and the WECs will remain floating at this site. A separate application for a licence to conduct mooring activities within Loch Roag will be made if appropriate.

Operation 5.64 Once operational the oscillating action of the wave will move the WECs flap at approximately the same speed and timing as the passing wave. This movement will drive hydraulic pistons which will pump pressurised fluid (see below) back to the shore through the pipeline system. The onshore hydro electric power station will then convert the hydraulic pressure and flow via a pelton wheel turbine which in turn drive electrical generators.

5.65 The hydraulic fluid contained within the pipeline system will be fresh water that contains an additive to increase the lubricity of the working fluid. This lubricity is necessary to achieve the required sealing life and ensure maintenance is required only once every five years.

Footprint of the development 5.66 The surface laid option for installation of shore pipelines discussed above will result in the largest area of disturbance to the seabed (compared to the HDD option). The total area of seabed directly affected by construction of the development will be a maximum area of 259,696m2 (approximately 26 ha).

Total volume of seabed materials excavated 5.67 The HDD option for installation of pipelines to shore will result in the maximum amount of rock extraction (compared with the surface laid option). The maximum predicted amount of extracted materials as a result of the offshore drilling operations is predicted to be 12,770m3.

5.68 If the HDD option for shore pipeline installation is taken calculations suggest that the 10,127m3 will equate to a maximum weight of approximately 29,035 tonnes of rock. This would mean that the HDD option will result total weight of extracted materials of approximately 65,642 tonnes (with the addition of rock extraction for monopoles, mooring anchors and landing platform anchors).

SUMMARY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 6.1 The submitted Environmental Statement covers both the marine and terrestrial elements of the proposed development. As the Comhairle has only been consulted on the marine aspect of the development (below the high water mark) this section of the Report will only comment on the marine aspect of the proposal.

Physical Environment and Coastal Processes 6.2 This section of the Environmental Statement (ES) provides a baseline description of the physical environment of the development area including surface and sub-surface geology, physical processes (wave and tidal regimes) and sedimentary processes (bathymetry, geomorphology and sediment transport).

6.3 The ES states that it is considered that the development will have effects on the hydrodynamic and sedimentary process regimes, but these effects are not considered to be impacts. Therefore this section of the ES focuses on describing the changes/effects rather than defining the impact.

6.4 There are no habitats or species of conservation importance recorded within the development site and there are no sensitive coastal receptors present within the regional study area.

6.5 During construction effects may include localised changes to wave heights and periods, tidal current velocity.

6.6 The construction phase effects upon the hydrodynamic regime is anticipated to be localised, temporary in nature and will not result in the permanent alteration of the existing hydrodynamic regime. The assessment considers that the marine environment is able to accommodate these potential changes to the hydrodynamic regime. Whilst the effects will occur, they will be of negligible magnitude within the development area, the immediate surrounds, or further a field. The assessment concludes that the significance of any effect will be negligible and there is no mitigation proposed.

6.7 The operation of the Oyster wave array shall result in wave energy extraction resulting in change to wave energy and resultant potential for a reduction in wave height in the lee of the WECs.

6.8 The distance offshore is a key determining factor in whether the waves have the ability to regroup within the lee of the array. Due to the Oysters being located within approximately 1km from the shore, it is not anticipated that reduction in wave height shall be recovered via wave regrouping within the lee of the structures. Wave extraction is therefore anticipated to result in minor to major magnitude changes to the incident wave energy regime dependant upon the nature of incident wave energy.

6.9 During the operation of the array the presence of static structures within the marine environment has the potential to affect the tidal regime due to the interaction of tidal flows with these structures. These potential changes include changes to tidal current speed which manifest as flow separation and downstream turbulence. Such changes are anticipated to be within the bounds of natural variation localised, temporary in nature and reversible and therefore of negligible significance. Although no mitigation is proposed the assessment states that Visual, intertidal or bathymetric surveys will be undertaken at selected locations within the development site to assess the magnitude and extent of changes to sediment distribution patterns and coastal processes. The requirement for subsequent surveys will be planned depending on the results of initial monitoring. The requirement for visual, intertidal or bathymetric surveys will be discussed with MS-LOT and other key stakeholders.

6.10 Due to the bedrock dominated nature of the seabed and the grain size of seabed sediments, typically gravel and coarser grained fractions, any sediment displaced as a result of the construction processes is likely to settle within metres of disturbance. Any material disturbed into the water column due to the construction activities will rapidly return to the seabed. Any sediment that is disturbed and enters into suspension could subsequently be transported and dispersed by the prevailing tidal currents, and will be deposited on the seabed.

6.11 The assessment anticipates that during the construction phase any effect on the sediment distribution patterns and nearshore and longshore sediment transport process will be localised, temporary in nature and will not result in the permanent alteration of these features or their defining character. No migitation is proposed.

6.12 Small-scale (metres) localised changes to sediment transport processes and the morphological expression of the intertidal beach are anticipated as a result of the construction phase of the development upon geomorphological formations associated with the landfall. It is expected that the potential changes to geomorphological formations shall be reinstated to their pre-construction state upon cessation of the works.

6.13 The potential effects upon the bedrock platform and coastal geomorphology from foundation installation, pipe laying and working vessels are within the bounds of natural variation, localised, temporary in nature, and reversible. It is anticipated that these changes will be of minor magnitude. No mitigation is proposed.

6.14 During the operational phase of the proposed development the key change relates to wave energy reduction in the lee of the Oyster WECs. Such changes may potentially disrupt nearfield and longshore sediment transport processes. Given that longshore sediment transport along the coastline is acknowledged to be low, any potential effect upon the coastal system in terms of changes to the sedimentary regime may have important implications upon coastal development. 6.15 The main effects of the operational phase on sediments and sedimentary structures relates to changes in littoral processes and the development of scour around the base of the foundations and ancillary infrastructure caused by local acceleration of tidal current flow around static structures. The depth of scour will depend on the local physical conditions, the thickness of the mobile layer, if present, and in the case of coastal sedimentary structures, the cohesiveness of the substrate. The ES anticipates this to be within the bounds of natural variation, localised, temporary in nature, and reversible.

6.16 Variations in layout can result in the reduction of effects upon the hydrodynamic regime with subsequent changes to the sediments and sedimentary structures. However, it is not anticipated that an alternative layout would result in a significant reduction of the anticipated effects upon sediments and sedimentary structures while maintaining economic viability.

Soils, Hydrology and Hydrogeology 6.17 This section of the Environmental Statement relates to the onshore element of the proposal and is therefore not relevant to the Report.

Benthic Ecology 6.18 This chapter provides information on the presence, character and sensitivity of seabed communities within the vicinity of the Lewis Wave Array.

6.19 The substrate types present in the Siadar benthic survey area are characteristic of a wave exposed site, consisting predominantly of rugged bedrock. Boulder and cobble tend to occur in patches overlying bedrock or mixed with pebble and gravel in gullies and on other low- lying areas of rock. Coarse sand tends to be restricted to the inshore areas and was apparently mobile, occurring in ripples and with no obvious fauna associated with it. No substrate finer than coarse sand was observed.

6.20 None of the species recorded during the present survey is considered a Priority Marine Feature (as defined by SNH in their recent review of marine habitats and species). However, one of the biotopes identified as occurring within the study area is listed in the draft list of Priority Marine Features: ‘Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment’.

6.21 No benthic species or habitats of local, regional, national or European importance are expected to be lost, or to change substantially. However, the potential for changes in the wave energy present inshore of the devices may cause changes to ecology (an increase in the density of the kelp park and forests, which may increase the amount and species richness of the associated flora and fauna) and while the magnitude of these is unknown, is assessed as potentially being of between low and medium magnitude. Based upon negligible sensitivity and medium magnitude the significance of the impact is assessed as negligible.

6.22 Smothering may occur within the immediate vicinity of works with sediments generated during drilling works carried in suspension and settling in a layer thick enough to impair the feeding or survival of sessile filter feeding species. However, in a high energy environment, such as north-west Lewis, very rapid dispersal of any disturbed or produced fine sediments means effects will be temporary and short term. This combined with the negligible receptor sensitivity means that the impacts of increased suspended sediments are likely to be of negligible significance.

6.23 The ES states that the potential cumulative impacts on the benthic ecology would only be in terms of additive impacts as neither the Voith Hydro WaveGen nor Pelamis Wave Power projects will be on the same sort of seabed type.

6.24 The ES considers that the impact during construction, operation and decommissioning on the Benthic ecology will be negligible and there are no mitigation measures proposed. Ornithology 6.25 This chapter covers year 1 of the two year baseline survey data requested during the scoping opinion. Year 2 of the survey is currently being undertaken and is due for completion in September 2012. This chapter also covers both terrestrial birds and sea birds. The Report will only concentrate on the impact of the offshore development on ornithology.

6.26 A programme of consultation and survey has been undertaken to inform the ornithological assessment of the Lewis Oyster array. Studies undertaken have included field surveys using methods agreed with consultees to investigate breeding, migrating and overwintering bird populations.

6.27 A wide range of sea bird species occur in the marine survey area for the development, a high proportion of which were flying through the area and not using it in any other way. With the exception of red-throated diver, great northern diver and eider, which regularly use the survey area for foraging during the winter, the numbers of individual species that use the area for foraging during the breeding and winter seasons are very small in context of the size of their regional populations.

6.28 The assessment states that with regard to disturbance of seabirds that it is likely that noise and disturbance from vessels associated with construction activities would temporarily displace some foraging or resting seabirds from marine habitats. Potential adverse effects are likely to be greatest but not restricted to the period when birds breed. It is anticipated that the construction will take up to 4 years and therefore up to 4 breeding seasons. However, any construction disturbance will be temporary and short term. The assessment concludes that the predicted impact will be negligible and recommends best practice.

6.29 It is unknown how seabirds respond to Oyster WEC arrays as there are none in operation. However, the assessment looks at the impact of disturbance of seabirds by comparing how the seabirds respond to other manmade objects in the sea environment. The ES carries poses a hypothetical worst case scenario where foraging birds are displaced from the whole site plus a 250m buffer. The assessment concludes that less than 1% of the regional bird population will be displaced from the area and that the impact will be negligible consequently there is no mitigation proposed.

6.30 The ES states that the Oyster WEC could theoretically pose a collision or entrapment risk to diving seabirds leading to death or injury. However, it is not clear how this could happen with the design of the device proposed. The report acknowledges that the lack of studies on similar devices there is no information on how diving birds are actually affected by operational WECs.

6.31 With regard to cumulative impact with the Voith Hydro WaveGen 4MW and the proposed Pelamis Wave Power the ES states that there is the potential to increase displacement of seabirds from foraging areas. However, in the context of the area of coastal marine waters in the region this will be small. The assessment concludes that the cumulative effects of the three proposed projects are likely to be negligible.

6.32 The conclusion of the first year bird survey is that the impact of the development on regional bird species is negligible in terms of the EIA Regulations and therefore no mitigation is proposed. However Lewis Wave Power is also proposing to use good practice measures.

Marine Mammals and Basking Sharks 6.33 This chapter covers year 1 of the two year baseline survey data requested during the scoping opinion. Year 2 of the survey is currently being undertaken and is due for completion in September 2012. 6.34 This assessment was carried out using a desk based literature review and from shore based vantage point surveys. The species sighted during the vantage point surveys included grey seal, common dolphin, harbour porpoise risso’s dolphin, minke whale and basking shark.

6.35 The assessment looked at the potential impact of noise, collision risk accidental release of contaminants, indirect impacts from changes to prey resource, barrier effects and electromagnetic fields. Barrier effects and electromagnetic fields were not discussed as it was considered that marine mammals will be able to pass around the wave array and electricity generation will take place on shore.

6.36 The assessment concludes that the level of predicted noise during construction, operation and decommissioning have potential to cause small displacement areas, however, this is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on marine mammals and basking sharks. Collision risks with construction vessels and the Oyster devices is considered to be low, as is any significant impact in relation to potential contaminants and changes to prey resources

6.37 Although the first year survey suggests that the area is not an important feeding ground for any marine mammals, basking sharks were observed feeding within and close to the proposed development site during the vantage point surveys. However, the ES states that it is anticipated that any change to coastal process is unlikely to have a significant effect on the plankton resource as it will be on a relatively small spatial scale relative to the Outer Hebrides region used by basking sharks and therefore the magnitude for basking sharks will be negligible.

6.38 The chapter states that there may be an overlap in the construction period with the Voith Hydro WaveGen project which has the potential to increase shipping activity in the area and therefore collision risk.

6.39 The assessment concludes that overall the impacts to marine mammals are considered to be of minor adverse significance. Mitigation strategies are suggested where appropriate in line with Lewis Wave Power’s commitment to best practice.

Fish and Shellfish 6.40 This section of the ES discusses the existing environment with regard to the fish and shellfish resource within the vicinity of the development and the potential impact the development will have on these species.

6.41 Desk based assessments were used to establish a baseline for the species of fish and shellfish present within the study area. Two study areas were used were: • Local Study Area - which contains the offshore development area defined by the area covered by the benthic survey. • Regional Study area - is defined by International Council for Exploration of the Seas(ICES) rectangle 45E3 (which covers the north of Lewis from Loch Roag on the west coast to Loch Sealg on the east side of Lewis.

6.42 The key impacts identified in the assessment include barrier to movement, loss of spawning and nursery grounds and disturbance/ injury as a result of noise and vibration from construction.

6.43 According to studies migratory salmon travel parallel to the coastline and the assessment recognises that the array may form a barrier for the Siader river fish population during construction. However, the construction period will be short term and the assessment does not consider the impact to be significant. During the operation of the array due to the spaces between each Oyster, the assessment considers that the fish will be able to navigate round the devices. 6.44 The assessment acknowledges that the development has the potential to result in a temporary disturbance and loss of spawning grounds during construction as well as the permanent direct loss of parts of the spawning grounds during operation through a number of activities including the placement of the devices, pipelines and other associated infrastructure on the seabed. The ES considers that the size of the site is less than 1% of the size of the spawning grounds of the species affected.

6.45 Studies have been carried out with regard to the impact of noise created by the development on certain species of fish including Salmon, sea trout, hearing specialists and hearing generalists. The study showed that there would be no impact on salmon, sea trout or hearing generalist fish when exposed to drilling or operational noise while there is mild behavioural reaction out to a maximum of 5m may be seen with regard to vessel noise. For hearing specialist fish only vessel noise was predicted to be sufficiently loud to elicit a strong behavioural reaction and then to only 8m

6.46 It is proposed to design the gap fillers (under each Oyster WEC) to produce suitable sized burrow holes for lobsters, thereby increasing the suitable habitat for that species.

6.47 The assessment concludes that with the use of the mitigation measures the impact of the development on fish and shellfish will be negligible.

Terrestrial and Intertidal Ecology 6.48 This Chapter of the ES deals solely with the potential impacts of the development on terrestrial and intertidal habitats and species to mean low water spring (MLWS), including nature conservation issues and the risk of spreading terrestrial and coastal invasive and/or non native species. The Report discusses the development below the high water mark only.

6.49 The assessment states that the predominant rock habitats of intertidal zone are characterised by hard Lewisian gneiss. The shore itself consists of bedrock outcrops, boulders and shingle. There is a need for a temporary nearshore pontoon to be constructed in this area, which is likely to be fixed to the intertidal zone on concrete blocks and foundation works and a concrete access ramp may be required.

6.50 For the purposes of this impact the worse case scenario is taken into account where the pipes will be surface laid. This will involve some direct disturbance and habitat loss but this will be short term as the pipes will act as hard substrata and will be colonised. If this method of pipe laying is used there will be between 2 and 8 corridors of 20m width of intertidal habitat affected. The site will have to be levelled and any shingle or boulders moved to achieve this will be stored before being moved back to their location. The assessment considers with the use of mitigation that the impact will be of minor adverse significance.

6.51 During the operation of the wave array the assessment considers that the reduction in the wave energy as a result of the development may lead to changes to intertidal ecology. The assessment considered that the impact will be highly localised and the site does not include species or habitats of conservation importance. However, it does recognise that the magnitude of the impact is unknown but the impact is assessed as minor to negligible with no mitigation proposed.

6.52 With regard to Intertidal habitats there is not expected to be any cumulative impacts with other developments. Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 6.53 Where possible this section of the report concentrates solely on the off shore elements of the proposal, however in some instances it has not been practical to separate the onshore and off shore elements. For the purposes of this assessment the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) maps and visualisations show the maximum extent of visibility of the Oysters above sea level.

6.54 The Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (SLVA) considers effects on two Local Coastal Character Areas and on seven representative viewpoints within a study area defined within approximately 5km of the development. The SLVIA has been informed by computer-generated ZTV mapping and visualisations and verified by field assessment. The assessment has been based on assumptions of the likely appearance of the development.

6.55 The two local coastal character areas are Gabhsann to Mealabost and Mealabost to Rubha na Caillich.

Local Coastal Character Area: Gabhsann to Mealabost 6.56 The onshore and offshore components of the development will not be located in this Local Coastal Character Area although there will be some limited visibility of both the offshore and onshore components of the development on the south-western edge of this area and intermittent visibility of some the Oyster devices extending along the coastal edge.

6.57 The ES describes this Local Coastal Character Area as having an even coastal edge of low cliffs and narrow rocky coastal platform with few distinctive landform features. The sea is open and expansive with little marine traffic or activity. The immediate hinterland of the coast is settled in places although the middle section can feel secluded away from crofting fields and houses in the Gabhsann and Mealabost area.

6.58 Although some of the development will be viewed from this area both during construction and operation the assessment concludes that in terms of EIA regulations the potential impact will be minor adverse during construction and minor during the operational phase.

Local Coastal Character Area: Mealabost to Rubha na Caillich 6.59 Both the offshore and onshore components of the development will be located within this Local Coastal Character Area and will be widely visible, separately and in combination, across the area.

6.60 This Local Coastal Character Area has an even and low rocky coastal edge with occasional extensions of fragmented rock and narrow inlets providing some diversity together with the often huge waves characteristic of this exposed west coast. The hinterland is well-settled and although inter-visibility between land and the coastal edge/sea is restricted in places, the presence of nearby crofts and fenced land limits any sense of remoteness. The sea is open and expansive and while distant promontories are visible, there are few landmark features.

6.61 There will be direct physical impacts within this Local Coastal Character Area during the construction and operational phases including onshore work and offshore drilling rigs and other marine traffic and personnel positioning the Oyster devices over four phases each lasting approximately 9 to 10 months each and machinery and personnel constructing the onshore development.

6.62 The Oyster devices would be aligned parallel to the coastal edge and will introduce a series of obviously man-made structures to what is currently a largely unmodified coastal edge and sea. From the shore they will be low lying and will appear small in relation to the expansiveness of the sea. For some people the development may adversely affect their perception of the natural qualities of the sea while for others, the development may have a strong rationale related to its power thus reducing adverse impacts on the perceptual qualities of seascape.

6.63 The overall impact on this Local Coastal Character Area is judged to be moderate and adverse. These impacts would occur over 20 years, the anticipated life span of the development.

Potential visibility of the development 6.64 The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) map in Appendix 8 Fig 14.5 shows the likely extent of visibility for the offshore Oyster devices, the largest buildings within the onshore facility and the combined visibility of both offshore and onshore developments.

6.65 The offshore Oyster devices are located between 0.3km and 0.75 km from the shore. The extent of visibility will be limited by the low cliff edge of the coast and an intervening ridge of land which occurs between Siadar and Borve. Theoretical visibility is indicated on more distant headlands although beyond distances of over 3 to 4km the Oysters are likely to be barely perceptible because of their relatively small size. There will be glimpsed and distant views of the offshore devices from the A857. In areas where the Oyster devices can be seen, their partially white, partially yellow colouring (necessary for navigational safety and subject to agreement with NLB) will contrast with the sea and increase visibility.

6.66 The ZTV shows some visibility from higher ground further inland, these areas are largely unsettled and less frequented than the coastal areas and also lie beyond distances where potential significant visual impacts could occur given the size of the components of the development.

6.67 Appendix 8 Fig 14.5 shows the location of the 7 viewpoints used in the visual impact Assessment. The viewpoints range from 0.9km to over 3km to the nearest Oyster device. The devices will be seen from residential houses, drivers along the A857, locals and tourists visiting/walking in the area. Viewpoint 6 at south west of Baile an Truiseil has the lowest rating for visual impact at negligible, while the assessment considered that the impact will be of major significance at the car park for the coastal walk at Mealabost.

6.68 Potential cumulative effects on seascape/landscape and on views could occur with the consented Voith Hydro WaveGen 4MW Siadar Wave Energy Development. This consented development is situated in the shallow bay at the mouth of Abhainn Shaidair. The principal features of this development comprise a 250m long breakwater structure sited approximately 0.35km offshore and a Control Building located in the immediate hinterland to the bay.

6.69 There will be no cumulative effect from Viewpoints 1-3 between the proposals. Appendix 9 Fig 14.13 shows the ZTV for both the combined projects. Although aspects of both projects will be seen from Viewpoints 4-6, given the distances and degree of separation between the two projects when viewed from these points the cumulative impact is classed as negligible. At Viewpoint 7 some of the Oyster devices and the breakwater structure of the consented Voith Hydro WaveGen 4MW project will be theoretically visible from this viewpoint. The ES considers the impact to be negligible.

6.70 Although there would be no significant cumulative effects from the representative viewpoints considered in the SLVIA, significant cumulative impacts could occur for people walking along the coast between Siadar and Mealabost, both in terms of simultaneous views where both developments are seen together and seen sequentially. There is no formal coastal route at present although a Core Path is identified along this section of coast in the Local Plan.

6.71 No mitigation measures are possible to reduce the visual impact of the offshore Oyster devices due to technical and safety constraints. Shipping and Navigation 6.72 Lewis Wave Power commissioned a Navigational and Safety Risk Assessment (NRA) for the development. As part of the assessment, the baseline conditions for vessels were established.

6.73 The methods used to carry out this assessment included consultation and desk based analysis and visual coastal surveys.

6.74 The assessment considered the collision risk between the development structures and vessels or between vessels, both during construction and operation. The baseline data indicates that with the exception of small fishing vessels which use the site on a regular basis, the site is currently subject to very low use by any other category of vessel. Mitigation measures have been suggested to reduce the hazard including liaison with local fishermen, planning operation for summer months/operating philosophy and plans for bad weather; establishing safety/exclusion zone philosophy for installation phase, vessel on site tasked with monitoring shipping/fishing in the area to warn them of the operations. Once the site is operational mitigation measures include marking and lighting and having the site marked on hydrographic charts, kingfisher charts and FishSAFE. The Report concludes in both cases providing the mitigations measures set out are implemented the residual impact will be of negligible significance.

6.75 The NRA considered that there is the potential for an increase in the number of incidents that may involve the search and rescue services. This is most likely during working vessels difficulties due to conditions for example jack up during installation. The nearest SAR helicopter and RNLI lifeboat are based in Stornoway 14 miles overland and 40nm by sea. There is also a new lifeboat station at Leverburgh approximately 54nm by sea. With several mitigation measures including: only constructing in suitable weather windows; surveys to be carried out of site where jack will be working; and tug remains on site; it is considered that the magnitude of the impact would be of minor adverse significance.

6.76 During the consultation phase of the NRA concern was raised regarding loss or partial loss of a device. The ES states that to minimise the risk of an oyster device being lost, they will be installed using foundation piles with all equipment being designed and certified for the local conditions. The devices will be installed in phases and will be monitored using a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system which will facilitate early identification and limit the consequences of any initial problems.

6.77 The assessment considers that in the unlikely worse case scenario instance that an Oyster flap broke free, it would most likely be under extreme storm conditions where the storm surge would play a much bigger role than tidal currents, in which case it is likely that the Oyster would end up on the shore. The NRA considered it very unlikely that tidal currents could become the main factor in determining the direction of travel of the Oyster flap. With regard to this risk two mitigation measures were identified developing an Emergency Response Cooperation Plan which will have the provision to alert the Coastguard if there is a risk that a device has broken free from its foundations in order for navigational safety warnings to be issued to shipping in the area and constant monitoring using SCADA system to ensure early detection of device malfunction. The assessment concludes that if these measures at implemented the impact will be reduced to negligible significance.

6.78 The NRA considered that there will be no cumulative impacts of the shipping impacts with the two other wave energy developments proposed for the west coast of Lewis.

Commercial Fisheries 6.79 The ES states that fishing activity off the north-west coast of Lewis is generally considered to be low, in comparison to the surrounding waters, and in terms of the UK average. Further consultation with the fishing industry has indicated that the development site is of low importance locally. The main species targeted within the study area are shellfish, in particular crab and lobster. The site is fished by up to four local vessels, which use the area on a regular basis.

6.80 For the purposes of this Chapter of the ES the same study area was used in the Chapter on Fish and Shellfish as set out in paragraph 6.40 above.

6.81 The greatest impacts to commercial fisheries are likely to be as a result of the displacement of vessels from the development site, which in turn may have economic impacts upon the fishermen who use that area. However, no impacts have been rated as having a higher significance than that of minor adverse.

6.82 The assessment considered the loss and displacement from traditional fishing grounds both during the construction of and operation of the array. There will be a temporary exclusion zone during the construction of the array which will result in some displacement from traditional fishing grounds. It is intended to work with the local fishermen to help reduce the exclusion zones in both size and duration. During construction period the ES concludes that the significance of the impact is negligible.

6.83 The ES states during the operation of the Oyster Wave array Lewis Wave Power will seek to develop a voluntary agreement with local fishermen which will result in the removal of all fishing activity from the development site for the duration of the development which is predicted to be 20 years and therefore the exclusion of the entire Local Study Area will occur over this period. This will be of a greater size than the exclusion zones used during the construction phase. Due to the small number of vessels using the area for fishing and the fact that the Local Study area is only 2% of the regional area the impact is considered minor adverse and there are no mitigation measure proposed.

6.84 As exclusions zones are proposed there is considered to be no impact with regard to danger and damage to fishing gear.

6.85 The ES states Lewis Wave Power is currently in discussions with relevant parties regarding the possibility of contributing support to the Western Isles Lobster Hatchery. The wave array area may be suitable for use as a nursery ground for lobster which will be seeded by the hatchery and protect from fishing pressure and disturbance.

6.86 The assessment predicts the economic impact of the proposed development on commercial fisheries is likely to be of negligible significance.

6.87 The assessment states that the two other proposed developments (Voith Hydro WaveGen and Pelamis Wave Power) may act cumulatively with the Lewis Oyster wave array to reduce the area available to commercial fisheries. However relative to the overall area that would remain available to commercial fishermen it is unlikely these cumulatively would result in increase in the significance of the impacts as assessed above.

6.88 In order to build the three wave energy projects (Lewis Wave Power, Voith Hydro WaveGen and Pelamis Wave Power) it will be necessary to upgrade local ports and harbours and associated infrastructure which may provide improved facilities for commercial fishermen. This may also lead to alternative employment for the fishermen.

Traffic and Transport 6.89 This chapter assess the potential impact of the development on traffic and transport, on both the off shore and onshore aspects of the proposal.

6.90 The majority of the material required for the off shore element of the proposal will be brought in by sea. 6.91 The ES states that the level of traffic movements will depend on the method used for laying the pipelines and therefore it has been agreed with the Comhairle that a Traffic Statement will be produced identifying full details of construction, operation and maintenance traffic movements, and will include swept path analysis of the junction of the A857 and New Road once the maximum size of vehicle is confirmed, to ensure adequate turning space is available. The most significant impact is anticipated to be the increase of HGV movements through Stornoway and turning at the junction of the A857 and the New Road.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 6.92 This chapter considers the potential impacts of the Lewis Wave Array development upon cultural heritage assets. Cultural heritage assets are here taken to comprise all assets that may be of archaeological or historical interest and adverse impacts considered include both physical damage and impacts upon setting.

6.93 The assessment states that no previously recorded cultural heritage assets are present within the offshore boundary of the study area and there is very limited potential for unrecorded assets to be present. The seabed here is composed of exposed bedrock, reflecting the high energy environment. Superficial deposits, which will have included former land-surfaces, have been scoured away by currents. There is limited potential for residual artefacts or debris from wrecks to be trapped in the fissures in the bedrock.

6.94 The rest of this Chapter discusses the impact of the onshore development which is not being considered under this application and will be assessed as part of the planning application process for the shore based element.

Onshore Noise 6.95 This Chapter of the ES addresses potential noise and vibration impacts caused by the Oyster wave array (including the hydro electric power station, surface laid pipelines, horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and associated infrastructure) on human receptors only. Noise and vibration effects on ecological receptors have been addressed in the Chapter on Marine Mammals and Basking Sharks (see above).

Water Quality 6.96 This part of the ES describes water quality of terrestrial, coastal and marine water features, and bathing and shellfish water quality within the vicinity of the development. For the purposes of the Report the terrestrial elements will not be taken into account.

6.97 The assessment states that a desk based review of the existing environment revealed that all water bodies within the vicinity of the development site have been assessed by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) as being of “good ecological status” and have been awarded a “pass” in chemical analysis. There are no designated shellfish waters within the immediate vicinity of the development and the nearest designated bathing waters are located over 80km from the development site.

6.98 The ES considers that there is potential for pollution to occur from spills or leaks of fuel, oil, and lubricants as well as from construction material that may enter the water column from the array itself.

6.99 There is the potential for some loss of grout during the pile and anchor grouting operations and when the grout hoses are flushed. The grout to be used will be non toxic and the quantities used will be monitored at the surface and by divers. It is expected that any leakage into the marine environment by either grout or spill and leaks from vessels will be dispersed quickly. The use of mitigation measures will reduce the residual impact to negligible. 6.100 There is a risk that the vessels used during the construction phase may introduce non native species to the area. It is proposed to conduct a risk assessment in agreement with Marine Scotland once the vessels have been confirmed to minimise this risk.

6.101 The ES states that any use and discharge of chemicals during maintenance will be subject to controls as part of consent requirements and it is expected that even should a spill occur, its scale and the nature of the contaminant will result only in a temporary, localised negligible magnitude effect to the medium value receptor, resulting in an impact of negligible significance. In a high energy marine environment, contaminants can be expected to rapidly disperse.

6.102 With regard to cumulative impact the ES states that there is potential for impacts associated with pollution to the marine environment to overlap with similar impacts created by the Voith Hydro Wavegen 4MW development at Siader. However the assessment concludes that due to the high energy nature of the environment and the distance between the two projects (1.4km) it is unlikely that the two projects will interact sufficiently to cause impacts of greater than minor significance to marine water bodies.

6.103 The assessment concludes that anticipated impacts of pollution to the marine environment has been assessed to be of no more than minor adverse significance and with appropriate mitigation this can be reduced to non-significant.

Socio-economics / Local Community 6.104 This chapter provides information on the potential socio-economic effects of the Lewis Wave Array. This includes potential implications of the project on existing employment, education, health, community at Siadar and the wider community in Lewis and the surrounding Western Isles.

6.105 The development of the 40MW Lewis Wave Array will bring with it minor beneficial socio- economic benefits. A number of local jobs will be created along with an increase in spend on local services during the construction and operation of the project. There will also be ongoing spend on local services associated with operation and maintenance.

6.106 The ES assesses the direct and indirect capital expenditure, indirect economic benefits during construction; effects on employment and community benefits during operation.

6.107 The ES states that the Oyster devices are likely to be floated into place and will not be assembled onshore. Whilst this is likely to be mainly carried out by specialist contractors there will be opportunities for local businesses to work with those contractors. There is an opportunity for at least some of the manufacturing to be carried out in Lewis, subject to tendering of appropriate works. Therefore the sensitivity of socio-economics to this impact can be considered to be medium, and an impact of long term temporary moderate beneficial significance is anticipated should some of the manufacturing be carried out in Lewis.

6.108 During the operation of the array there will be between 3 and 5 full time members of the Lewis Wave Power team based in Lewis.

6.109 The assessment also states that during the construction and installation activities there will be use of local vessels and dive teams where available and where appropriate. A small number of local jobs may be created and there will be an increase in spend on local services during the construction and operation of the project.

Tourism and Recreation 6.110 This chapter details the potential impact of both the marine and terrestrial elements of the development on both the local and wider area with regard to tourism and recreation. 6.111 The main direct effects of installation noise will be related to general disturbance that will be experienced by visitors to the coast within the immediate vicinity of the development site. However this area lacks beaches and easily accessible shoreline and has not been identified as experiencing high coastal and marine recreational activities. The installation noise may have limited but adverse effects on marine wildlife and seabirds. For an in-depth assessment of this topic, see the Sections on Ornithology and Marine mammals and basking shark above. This could potentially have an indirect small effect on those wishing to observe marine wildlife and on bird watchers.

6.112 Disturbance will be short-lived and given that no particularly noisy works are to be undertaken, effects will be confined to small areas around works site and along the access track, areas not specifically identified as wildlife watching locations.

6.113 During the consultation process the Scottish Canoeing Association raised the question of whether sea kayakers/canoeists transiting the wave array site would be able to pass inshore of the Oyster devices or whether they would be forced to navigate around the seaward side of the array. The Navigational Risk Safety Assessment completed as part of the project has concluded that sea kayakers and canoeists will be able to transit the proposed development site passing either inshore or offshore of the development.

6.114 Following consultation with Outer Hebrides Surfing Association it has been established that the development site does not provide suitable conditions for surfing and it is not thought that the development will affect current known surfing activities.

6.115 There may be short term, occasional disruption to tourists and visitors travelling along the A857 to tourist attractions and sites for recreation north of Siadar.

6.116 Access to the fields and to the coastal areas surrounding the development site will be maintained throughout all phases of the development. The only restrictions will be within the development boundary area shown in Appendix 1 Fig 5.2.

6.117 It is not anticipated that a significant number of tourists or potential visitors will be deterred from travelling to the area as a result of the development. The impact of disturbance to tourism and recreational activity is considered to be of negligible significance.

6.118 Existing activity within the direct footprint of the array and of the onshore works is very limited and it is not expected that construction will entirely prevent any activity from taking place, but rather, displace it temporarily. For example, recreational vessels will still be able to transit the north-west coast of Lewis, but may need to set a slightly different course. Displacement will only last for the duration of works and sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. As a result of these short term temporary effects the impact is considered to be of negligible significance.

6.119 If all three (Voith Hydro WaveGen, Pelamis Wave Power and Lewis Wave Power development) projects are built then Lewis would become an area of attraction for people interested in wave power technology and renewables. This may lead to an increase in visitor numbers to the Island and therefore a minor beneficial cumulative impact may occur.

6.120 Due to the distance between the Lewis Wave Power site and the Pelamis Wave Power site (approximately 25km) it is unlikely that these two developments would interact to produce adverse cumulative impacts on tourism and recreation. The Lewis Wave Power site may act cumulatively with the Voith Hydro WaveGen site at Siadar to produce minor adverse impacts on tourism and recreation if construction times overlap as they are in close proximity to one another. EXTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES 7.1 The following are comments received by Marine Scotland (and passed on to the Comhairle) in response to its consultation process:

Statutory Consultees

SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY 7.2 We ask that the condition in Section 2 Environmental management is attached to the consent. If any of these will not be applied, then please consider this representation as an objection. Please also note the advice provided below.

7.3 This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, which may take into account factors not considered at the Section 36 or Marine Licence stage.

Section 2 Environmental management 7.4 We welcome the general mitigation principles and pollution prevention measures set out in the Environmental Statement. We note the proposed overarching Health, Safety and Environmental Management System including the proposed Environmental Management Plan, Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, Construction Method Statement, Pollution Incident Response Plan and Construction Environmental Management Document in Section 23.6 of the Environmental Statement. We would wish to be consulted on the marine and terrestrial elements of all of these documents.

7.5 Some of proposed measures relate to works which may be regulated by us. However, many of the works will not be regulated by us and need to be covered by condition. Therefore, we request that a condition is attached to the consent requiring the submission of the above Health, Safety and Environmental Management System. If this is not attached, then please consider this representation as an objection. To assist, the following wording is suggested:

7.6 At least two (2) months prior to the commencement of any works, a site specific Health, Safety and Environmental Management System must be submitted for the written approval of the determining authority [in consultation with SEPA] [and other agencies such as SNH as appropriate] and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: to control pollution of air, land and water.

7.7 Other comments were provided by SEPA which relate to the land based element of the development not currently under consideration. The full consultation response can be viewed in Appendix 10 of the Report.

SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE 7.8 SNH has been given until the 1 June 2012 to respond, their comments will be reported to Committee.

Non Statutory Consultees

BT – RADIO FREQUENCY ALLOCATION AND NETWORK PROTECTION 7.9 No comment.

7.10 CHAMBER OF SHIPPING Having reviewed the environmental statement, in particular Chapter 15 “Shipping and navigation” and Appendix 15.1 “Navigational safety risk assessment”, I can confirm that the Chamber has no significant concerns regarding the project.

COAST HEBRIDES 7.11 No concerns with the proposals, we shall not make a formal response at this time.

THE CROWN ESTATE 7.12 No comment.

HSE 7.13 Environmental Impact Assessments are concerned with projects likely to have significant effects on the environment. HSE’s principle concerns are the health and safety of people affected by work activities. HSE has no comments on this environmental statement.

HISTORIC SCOTLAND 7.14 This response covers our comments under the terms of the above Regulations and concentrate on our statutory remit for scheduled monuments and their setting, category A listed buildings and their setting, gardens and designed landscapes included in the Inventory and designated wreck sites (Protection of Wrecks Act 1973). In this case, our advice also includes matters relating to marine archaeology outwith the scope of the terrestrial planning system. The Western Isles Council’s conservation and archaeology services will also be able to advise on the adequacy of the assessment, the likely impacts and the mitigation proposed for the historic environment.

7.15 In summary, we are broadly content to agree with the findings of the ES that significant impacts on cultural heritage features within our statutory remit are unlikely. We are also broadly content with the assessment of potential impacts on marine archaeology. In light of this, we offer no objection to the proposal.

7.16 Overall, I welcome that the ES is clear and that it references our Managing Change in the Historic Environment technical guidance note on setting and the relevant marine archaeology guidance. I have some concerns however with the sensitivity criteria used (Tables 188.4 and 188.5) which assign negligible values to cultural heritage features that are poorly preserved, or those that are regarded as being ‘imperceptible in the landscape.’ We would argue that monuments do not necessarily need be visually prominent to have a significant setting, and that their condition does not affect their level of significance or the potential impact on them.

7.17 Other comments were provided by Historic Scotland which relate to the land based element of the development not currently under consideration. The full consultation response can be viewed in Appendix 11 to the Report.

JOINT RADIO COMPANY 7.18 No Observations.

MARITIME AND COASTGUARD AGENCY 7.19 The Environmental Statement and embedded NRA has addressed the key issues identified by MCA in the response letter provided on 20th June 2011.

7.20 As expected the traffic within the area is low, and the risk mitigation measures take due cognisance of this. The ES has addressed the MEHRAS and adequately quantified the cumulative impacts within the area.

7.21 Navigational marking for array devices should be referred to the Northern Lighthouse Board, and the UK Hydrographic Office.

7.22 Particular consideration will need to be given to the provision of SAR resources and Emergency Response & Co-operation Plans (ERCOP) will need to be in place prior to construction commencing. The ES section 15.5.25/26 makes reference to MCA resources, which is in accurate; the developer will be expected to have accurate response plans embedded within the ERCoP.

The MCA have cited 16 conditions which are provided in full at Appendix 12 to the Report.

7.23 If these conditions are met I am able to advise you that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has no objection to consent being granted provided that measures are also taken to ensure that details of the proposed works are promulgated to maritime users through notice to mariners and/or navigational warnings.

7.24 Please note, however, that a charge will be levied on the developers where appropriate, by MCA, for the transmission of maritime safety information, via Navtex or Coastguard VHF radio network, in respect of the proposed works. Agreement by the developers to pay any such charges should, ideally, be a condition of the consent if they are likely to be used.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 7.25 No Objection.

NORTHERN LIGHTHOUSE BOARD 7.26 The site area shall be marked using Marker Boards onshore adjacent to the most Northerly and Southerly extremities of the site, NLB should be consulted regarding these locations. The Marker Boards shall be diamond shaped with a width of 1.5 metres and a length of 2.5 metres, painted yellow with the inscription ‘Wave Energy Site’ painted horizontally in black. The structures shall be mounted at least 2 metres above ground level and be clearly visible from seaward. A yellow light, flashing once every 5 seconds (Fl Y 5s), with a range of 2nm should be mounted at the centre of the diamond.

7.27 The statutory sanction of the Northern Lighthouse Board will be required to display such navigation lights. Application forms can be found at www.nlb.org.uk

7.28 We recommend that the upper section of each device be painted yellow to ensure daymark conspicuity as per International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) recommendation O-139. The devices should be actively monitored, and a contingency plan developed to respond to any reported catastrophic failure events. This should include the transmission of local Radio Navigation Warnings.

7.29 During the device(s) preparation, installation, operation/maintenance and decommissioning phases we would require that adequate notice is given to the mariner in consultation with the Western Isles Harbour Master. We would recommend that such Notices to Mariners or Local Radio Navigation Warnings clearly state the nature and duration of these works.

7.30 The Hydrographic Office should be informed of the device(s) location and the onshore cable marker boards in order that Admiralty Chart 2720 can be updated to give information of the installation.

OUTER HEBRIDES FISHERIES TRUST 7.31 This response is on behalf of both The Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust and the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board.

7.32 Offshore renewable developments have the potential to directly and indirectly impact diadromous fish including Atlantic Salmon, Sea Trout and European eel. These species use the coastal areas around Scotland for feeding and migration and are of high economic and conservation value.

7.33 Previous survey work carried out by OHFT have identified the presence of wild migratory salmonids and eels in several of the coastal rivers situated along the North West coast of Lewis that subsequently lie in close proximity to probable feeding grounds and migratory routes utilised by Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) and Sea Trout (Salmo trutta L.) around the coastal fringe.

7.34 The Borve River (Abhainn Bhuirgh) is known to contain spawning Sea Trout and to the South West of the proposed site the Siadar, Barvas and Arnol Rivers (Abhainn Shiadair Bharabhais & Abhainn Arnol respectively) all support populations of Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout. To the North East the Dell River (Abhainn Dhail) also enters the sea and supports spawning Sea Trout.

7.35 OHFTs main concern with Lewis Wave Power’s proposal would be the location of the wave array in relation to the mouth of the Rivers Borve and Siadar. Returning Sea Trout could be impeded from returning to the Borve River as the array is directly adjacent to the river outflow. The other rivers mentioned above would be off less concern in terms of impacts to wild migratory fish because of their greater distance from the proposed wave array however it should be taken into consideration that migrating Salmon, Sea Trout and European eels are likely to be present around this stretch of coastline at certain times of the year. Consideration does need to be given to the fact that, aside from the potential impacts to the Borve River, the Siadar River supports Atlantic Salmon in addition to Sea Trout and is also in relatively close proximity to the wave array. Atlantic Salmon and Sea trout are protected under various aspects of legislation, primarily the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 15).

7.36 We would ask that construction activities, especially drilling of monopiles into the sea bed should not be carried out between June – mid October as this is when returning Salmonids will be entering coastal waters. The period of May – mid June can also be a sensitive time of the year as this is when smolts leave their natal rivers and could therefore also be vulnerable to construction associated noise. The effects of works at sea are largely unknown however Hawkins, 2006 investigated the effects of both percussive and vibratory pile driving on migratory fish and showed that even at relatively large distances away from the area of activity the associated noise can disrupt normal behavioural responses. For these reasons the precautionary approach would be to avoid construction activities at sea between May – mid October.

7.37 It should be noted that the current understanding of the behavioural characteristics of post smolt Salmon and Sea Trout are that Salmon tend to head directly out to open water upon leaving their river of origin where as Sea Trout smolts will tend to stay close to the coast for sometime where they engage in feeding activity. This may therefore indicate that native Sea Trout populations may be effected to a greater degree by this development than Salmon post smoltification.

7.38 OHFT is pleased with the design of the proposed installation with respect to the absence of underwater power cables as this will preclude any potential effects resulting from electromagnetic fields however it would be useful if we could have more information on noise generation from the array once in operation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that migratory fish may use the noise of breaking waves to orientate themselves with the coastline as a means of locating their natal rivers. Section 7.6.39 of the environmental statement indicates that the wave regime is likely to be disrupted around the installation with a shadow zone created between the array and the coastline. This may have the potential to disorientate returning migratory species.

7.39 Given the paucity of information on coastal migration routes for Atlantic Salmon and European eel and inshore habitats for Sea Trout, and the uncertainty surrounding the potential negative effects of marine renewable devices, it is important that the developer should recommend a scientifically robust monitoring strategy to assess any impacts either on stocks as a whole, or on particular rivers as necessary.

7.40 Due to the uncertainties surrounding the potential negative effects of novel marine renewable devices, the renewables industry and Scottish Government, as I understand, have adopted a strategy of survey, deploy and monitor. In order to assess the potential impact of developments the developer should provide information on all species and abundance of fish within the development area, the information contained within the E.S. appears to have achieved this. The onus is on the developer to provide adequate information on which to base an assessment of risk. Where there is a potential risk to salmonid populations, baseline survey data should be collected for a minimum of 2 years prior to construction to establish pre-construction characteristics. Following construction, there should be 3-5 years post development monitoring, with scope to extend this period if impacts are detected. 7.41 Monitoring throughout the development phase should be carried out to identify impacts and allow remediation at the earliest opportunity for sites where there are thought to be risks to migratory fish populations. The experimental design of the monitoring programme should focus on the risks presented by the development and be clearly justified. Methods of analysis, reporting mechanisms and links to site management should also be clearly identified. These methods must be statistically robust to detect change and any monitoring must feed back into site management to trigger remedial action/restoration. 7.42 There are a couple of further points that OHFT feel have been omitted from the relevant sections of the E.S. Whilst we welcome the in depth consideration of the potential loss of habitat, both benthic and intertidal, that may occur in and around the proposed installation little has been eluded to with regards to potential aggregation effects. As stated within the E.S. the wave array will effectively assume the function of an artificial reef once all construction is completed. Whilst the aggregation of prey items around physical structures might be seen as a positive effect, possible negative effects may include the associated aggregation of predators which may increase competition/ predation pressure with respect to wild salmonids and migratory eels. It is therefore important to ensure that such effects are quantified and assessed in the Environmental Statement. 7.43 OHFT/WIDSFB would also appreciate a more detailed assessment of the risks posed by collisions with the wave array; something we feel is not adequately addressed in section 12.6.60 of the E.S. In relation to wild salmonids it is incorrect to assume that fish are “entrained within the water and therefore will move in a similar way and direction to the WECs”. Aside from spending a considerable proportion of their lives in open sea conditions salmonids also swim up stream during spate conditions in order to locate spawning grounds and are therefore quite capable of swimming against wave and tidal induced currents. We would therefore appreciate additional consideration of this potential impact. Parallels should be drawn to data gathered from the hydro electricity industry on such effects. RSPB 7.44 This response relates to offshore components of the proposed development and we will respond separately to the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar on the application for onshore components. These applications have been made on the basis of a submitted ES, which only reports on 13 months ornithological survey work (to Sept 2011), although it is made clear that 24 months of baseline work are to be completed. In their advice of 23 Jan 2012 on Year 1 Bird Survey Results and requirements for Habitats Regulations Appraisal, SNH made a recommendation, which we fully support, that a full two years data should be submitted to provide a more robust and informed data gathering process. In addition a report by Natural research Ltd and Royal Haskoning to SNH and Marine Scotland (although not formal guidance by either statutory body), endorsed by Scottish Environment Link of which RSPB Scotland is a member, stated: 7.45 “Surveys of the distribution and abundance of marine birds on the sea to inform wet renewables projects will normally consist of a series of repeated survey visits extending over two or more years for site characterisation surveys, and over longer for monitoring purposes.” 7.46 The reasoning behind the requirement for more than a single year’s survey is that bird numbers and distribution on any area of sea may vary markedly from year to year: two years of survey (provided the results are fairly consistent) would provide some reassurance that the observed pattern is typical. RSPB Scotland is, therefore, concerned that Marine Scotland is being asked to consent these applications on the basis of only 13 months survey. RSPB Scotland therefore objects to this application as we cannot be sure that the development will have no serious adverse impacts on bird populations. 7.47 The agreed approach to a Rochdale Envelope allows an assessment to be made based on the potential area of search and the likely footprint of activity within each parcel of potential development. However, we ask that we be further consulted on elements of the proposed development requiring finalisation, as outlined in Para 2.3.1 of the ES, including:

• The method of installing the pipeline connections between the devices and the onshore powerhouse; • Depending on the outcome of the pipeline installation method, the number and exact location of the pipelines • The footprint of the devices and their exact location (subject to micro-siting post consent); and • The size of the gap fillers under each device

7.48 Any issued consent should be conditional on an agreed programme of bird monitoring pre and post construction. This is required both to ensure that impacts of the development are in line with predictions made in support of the application and to inform assessment of future developments of this type. As the technology is new and its environmental impacts have not been tested at the scale of a commercial array of devices, such monitoring is essential. Fuller commentary on these and other matters is provided in the annex of this consultation reply at Appendix 13 of the Report.

ROYAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION 7.49 I have read the Environmental Statement for the above development and, on behalf of RYA Scotland, confirm that we do not object to this proposal. We welcome the statement that there are currently no plans for safety or exclusion zones while the devices are in operation. The view of RYA is that education is a much more effective mitigation measure than regulations. By day when visibility is good the wave farm is unlikely to be a significant hazard. In strong onshore winds it is unlikely to be a greater hazard than the shore itself. However, we do have some concerns that I mention below. The ES was written before the RYA position paper on offshore wave farms was published. Please let me know if you do not have a copy. The Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) correctly mentions that the RYA UK Coastal Atlas of Recreational Boating shows only a single lightly used route near the array site. Please note that the marked routes are best estimates of typical routes taken and are not recommendations. In onshore winds, recreational craft will keep well away from this dangerous lee shore. However, in strong offshore winds craft may be much closer inshore. Moreover a vessel might inadvertently stray into the array in conditions of poor visibility (night time or fog) either because of a navigational error using chart and compass or where electronic navigation aids were not functioning, e.g. due to jamming of a GPS signal or loss of an aerial. I am disappointed that the marking and lighting has not yet been agreed with NLB and MCA. IALA 0-1 39 provides some guidance but we feel that while lights at each end of the array may be adequate for large vessels with a bridge well above sea level, for small recreational craft a distance of 3 km is a rather large gap between lights. Lighting must also take into account the obscuring of lights by swell or waves, a particular hazard for small craft. We agree with the proposal to colour the devices. However, in normal conditions the devices will presumably appear like a reef with breaking water clearly marking their position to an alert sailor and in conditions of adverse visibility the colour will be irrelevant. Having an additional two fixed lights onshore is a useful suggestion. These could possibly be sectored. Information about the location of the array should appear in the Clyde Cruising Club Sailing Directions and Anchorages - Part 4 Outer Hebrides as this is a document that is used by most recreational sailors using these waters. This could recommend, for example, that vessels remain in water deeper than 20 metres in the vicinity of the array. Section 15.6.29 considers that collision with a device that has broken free is unlikely to pose a risk to vessels. This may be true for fishing vessels but is unlikely to be true for small recreational craft with a GRP hull, particularly if damage is caused to the rudder or propeller.

7.50 In 15.3.6 it is stated that the whole area from the devices inshore should be a no anchoring zone. If the devices act to calm the seas in their lee, and I do not know whether this is the case, then anchoring inshore of them in strong onshore winds may be a sensible strategy in case of force majeure. This would be less appropriate if the pipelines were on the surface rather than being directionally drilled. The anchor penetration depth for recreational craft is only about 20 cm.

SCOTTISH CANOE ASSOCIATION 7.51 ‘…The only comment to make is that sea kayakers would wish to normally hug the coast and keep inshore. If works or cables coming onshore prevent this, there could be a safety issue. We could comment at a later stage about any navigation warding signs or safety protocols’.

SCOTTISH FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION 7.52 ‘Given this is in the shallow inshore water round Lewis, the Western Isles association are the most appropriate to comment on this proposal.’

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT - PORTS AND HARBOURS BRANCH 7.53 No comment.

SURFERS AGAINST SEWAGE 7.54 ‘Surfers Against Sewage (SAS) supports onshore and offshore renewable energy developments when they are placed appropriately.

7.55 SAS are concerned that the impacts on the surfing resource and recreation have not been adequately investigated. SAS are also concerned that the surfing community, both resident on the Isle and the visiting surfers have not be consulted about the potential impacts.

7.56 SAS have published guidance for offshore developers to use in their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The SAS guidance can help developers produce a more robust EIA without being more onerous. The guidance clearly defines what surfing waves are and where they can be found. It also details how and why offshore renewables can impact surfing. SAS would urge the developer to use the guidance and consult the established surfing community on the Isle at the earliest possible stage. SAS would also like to be consulted further and would also recommend that the Scottish Surfing Federation and the local surf clubs are also consulted throughout.’

SCOTTISH WILDLIFE TRUST 7.57 ‘The Scottish Wildlife Trust supports the development and deployment of renewables where they are shown to be environmentally sustainable, i.e. where any localised, regional and wider impacts on ecosystem health are shown not to be significant and/or irreversible.

7.58 We believe that baseline monitoring to inform the consenting process for wave or tidal arrays should be conducted for a minimum of two years for mobile species. In many cases two years will not enable a full consideration of annual variations in abundance. We note that the ES has been submitted prior to the completion of baseline monitoring, which SNH have advised should continue to September 2012. We would therefore expect that consent, if provided, would be conditional on the completion and appraisal of the second year of baseline monitoring programme. We would also expect an addendum to the ES to be produced and circulated to allow final assessment of the scheme.

7.59 We believe that the uncertainty of the impacts of a full array and the non-availability of data from neighbouring proposals (Pelamis near Loch Roag and Voith Hydro at River Siadar) are severely limiting factors in any assessment of the cumulative effects as required by the EIA Regulations. It is disappointing that across the marine renewables sector, research, baseline data collection and monitoring are not yet accompanied by effective and accurate communication of results. We would like to see improved collaboration between developers on environmental data collection for wave and tidal devices. Improved management, sharing and access to monitoring data is essential to ensure that cumulative impacts can be predicted and avoided or mitigated, and lessons fed back into adaptive management.

7.60 Finally, while we welcome the applicants’ commitment to the development of a ‘deploy and monitor’ strategy in partnership with Marine Scotland and its advisers, we would like to see independent scrutiny of the monitoring programme and a firm commitment to the dissemination of results to inform future decision making.’

TRANSPORT SCOTLAND 7.61 ‘The proposed development represent and intensification of the use of this site however the percentage increase in traffic on the trunk road is such that the proposed development is likely to cause minimal environmental impact on the trunk road network. On this basis TRBOD has no comment to make.’

WESTERN ISLES FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION 7.62 ‘…Firstly we must stress that Section 16 Commercial Fisheries of the ES is seriously flawed and does not give an accurate reflection of the fishing importance or displacement issues that would affect the fishing fleet should the development proceed.

7.63 Secondly, Aquamarine Power had indicated at earlier meetings with the fishing industry that any cabling between the offshore site and the shore would be fully trenched and would not present any new hazards, allowing fishing with pots to continue uninterrupted between any offshore development and the shore.

7.64 At both meetings with the Outer Hebrides Inshore Fisheries Group (OHIFG) on 27 March and WIFA on 21 April industry were notified that possibly up to 8 cables lying on the seabed might be running between the offshore site and the shore. Clearly, this significant material change to that discussed earlier is totally unacceptable to the fishing industry, as cables lying on the seabed would present the potential for snagging gear for under 10 metre vessels hauling creels within the area.

7.65 The fishing industry insist that all cabling between the offshore site and the shore must be trenched or else covered in rock armour to prevent the possibility of gear snagging. We would object to the development proceeding until such a guarantee was confirmed in writing.

7.66 The identified search area covers one of the most productive lobster ground areas on the West coast of Lewis, with the value of landings from that area far in excess of those quoted within the fishing report. Local fishermen state that the observation report between September 2010 and September 2011 is wrong and they can provide accurate information showing their activity in the area. My personal experience of having fished that area resulted in landings of £26,000 for one month’s fishing with 720 pots in autumn 1988 from the search area. Lobsters are as plentiful in the area now as then, furthermore, shellfish prices have also increased therefore a more realistic and balanced approach should be undertaken to identify the economic importance of this area.

7.67 The economic importance of the search area at local level is extremely high, with 10 fishermen dependent on the area for part of their livelihood. Those fishermen all live in fragile areas where alternative employment opportunities do not exist. Exclusion from the search area would have a devastating impact on the future viability of the vessels that fish in that area. The fishing industry cannot accept the reference in the report that the development site does not support locally important fishing grounds, this is simply not true.

7.68 Fishing activity within the ICES square 45E3 varies significantly, with lobster only available in very limited sections of that square and it’s simply misleading to imply that the fishing effort within the search area can be simply displaced to other areas outwith the search area. The search area consists of the best lobster grounds to the West of Lewis and adjacent areas will simply not return the same catch per unit effort to vessels, so vessels earnings will be reduced. Furthermore, displacement of effort will impact on other vessels as their traditional grounds will have additional pots and will result in reduced catches for those vessels. 7.69 Adequate gaps will have to be identified at various stages within the project to allow access for smaller fishing vessels, between the devices, to allow steaming from fishing grounds close inshore to more offshore grounds, to prevent vessels having to steam long distances around either end of the development. 7.70 In conclusion, the fishing industry accept that they will lose access to some valuable fishing grounds, however, they will be able to work alongside the proposed development provided additional safeguards of trenching cables between the offshore site and the shore are guaranteed. This will enable fishing vessels to continue their fishing operations in safety on their traditional fishing grounds in the full knowledge that there will be no underwater snagging of gear on cables. Failure to provide such guarantees will result in the fishing industry having no option but to object to the proposed development.’

WHALE AND DOLPHIN CONSERVATION SOCIETY 7.71 The waters surrounding the Western Isles offer one of the richest cetacean habitats in the UK. Many species not found in other parts of the UK are routinely found in coastal waters. Large gaps still remain in our knowledge of the cetaceans which live year round or migrate through our waters and this is especially true for the west coast of Lewis. No clear picture exists of the importance of this site for a number of species, including all three cetacean species that are Priority Marine Features (PMFs) and drivers in the Scottish marine protected area (MPA) project. 7.72 The land-based surveys conducted provide a snapshot of the diversity of cetaceans found in this area. Full scientific scrutiny of the data should be undertaken to ensure that development can safely proceed without impact on the marine environment. Observation monitoring should then continue during development to understand any displacement impacts, although significance will be difficult to determine given the existing data.

7.73 Focus of monitoring should be on understanding (and where required) minimising the effects on local cetacean populations. A well thought through scientific monitoring plan should be put in place to provide such evidence, including investigation of strandings along the coast line and novel techniques to assess collisions, entanglements and other direct incidents that may occur. This will be a considerable challenge. In-field monitoring should continue during development and post-development so that potential impacts can be assessed and adaptive management applied.

7.74 We have little information about how cetaceans will interact with other new renewable structures being placed in the water column and therefore other significant impacts may still come to light as the industry develops. Collisions with wave devices can be envisaged, and particularly when large numbers of devices are placed in the water covering a relatively large area, such as that being proposed.

7.75 Only one year’s data is available, which severely restricts confidence in interpretation and is not adequate to make a full assessment. Two years data should be required.

7.76 As in all developments, noise modelling outlined in the ES should be ground-truthed with real in-field data for accuracy.

7.77 Table 11.2 identifies a number of sources from which data have been obtained. Detailed boat survey work in the region has been undertaken by the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust (HWDT) and these dada are now available. They should be considered in the assessment.

7.78 We note that table 11.3 does not include an UNKNOWN column under magnitude of impact. Given the newness of the wave sector, there must be some scope for uncertainty surrounding the magnitude of potential impacts. 7.79 Given the potential value of the site for a number of species and the unknown nature of the potential impacts, we suggest that independent scientific advice should be provided on what a suitable monitoring programme might look like to efficiently document and understand any potential impacts, and to understand those impacts that may not be monitorable at the current time. Such an independent scientific panel could be formulated to consist of the relevant expertise, including from the Scottish Association of Marine Science (SAMS), where most research into impacts of wet renewables has been undertaken to date. WDCS would welcome involvement.

7.80 The full response from the WDCS is provided at Appendix 14 to the Report.

7.81 VOITH HYDRO WAVEGEN Having reviewed the documentation we wish to report we have no objection to the project as described.

7.82 Marine Scotland advises that the following organisations did not response to the consultation request: • Marine Safety Forum; • Scottish Fisherman’s Organisation; • The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards.

INTERNAL CONSULTATION RESPONSES

ARCHAEOLOGY 8.1 “…Matters related to Cultural Heritage and Archaeology are considered within Volume 2, chapter 18 and Volume 3, Appendix 18.1 & 18.2 of the Report. The report identifies the range of relevant cultural heritage sites or features to be assessed including above ground (the built heritage), below ground remains, marine, submerged and palaeoenvironmental information. I welcome the inclusion of a dedicated chapter to assess the potential impact of any development proposal upon the cultural heritage resource. 8.2 In reviewing the report Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Baseline Offshore, Appendix 18.2 of the ES there are a number of inaccuracies.

• The title on page 1 reads ‘Isle of Lewis Wave Array, Onshore Element. • On page five section 4.6 regarding the potential for unrecorded maritime assets; paragraph 3 mentions Viking remains in Uig. There are numerous coastal settlement sites relating to this period on the Westside and Ness and it would have been more sensible to discuss these. • Again in paragraph 6 the passage of U-Boats through The Minch mentions a single known loss U-905; however the losses of U-965 and U-1021 are also recorded in this maritime area. • The site location and description on page 2 lacked adequate detail to pinpoint the location of the development.

8.3 The majority of the response related to the onshore element of the development which is not being taken into account in the Report. The full response can be viewed in Appendix 15 of the Report.

CONSERVATION OFFICER 8.4 The proposals are not in close proximity to any listed buildings or designated Conservation Areas and, therefore, there will not be any adverse impact on such resources. It is unlikely that there will be any such designations in the near future and therefore the development is unlikely to have an impact on such resources in the future. I, therefore, do not have any comments to make on the proposals. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8.5 The Comhairle accepts that Marine Energy Technology is in its infancy but that sustained support for the industry is necessary in order to retain Scotland’s competitive advantage in this sector and to realise long term transformational benefits for the Outer Hebrides. As the marine energy sector matures, the Outer Hebrides stand to benefit considerably from employment in fabrication (Arnish), in research (Lews Castle College UHI) and in the wider supply chain throughout the islands.

8.6 A project of this type will deliver a significant range of benefits for the Outer Hebrides and these can be summarised as follows: • Reputational. The project reinforces the Outer Hebrides growing reputation as a Test Bed for cutting edge marine energy technology in an area of unrivalled resource. This project places the Comhairle in a position of leadership and enhances the possibilities for future inward investment in this sector; • Research and Development. This project gives rise to new research opportunities at Lews Castle College UHI and consolidates work already going on through the Hebridean Marine Energy Futures project for which Aquamarine is the lead industry partner; • Fabrication. This project offers clear opportunities to Arnish Yard and the associated manufacturing supply chain. The Environmental Statement is not explicit regarding capital investment for this project but it is reasonable to assume a signficant contract value. Development Department staff will work with the developer and the manufacturing supply chain to ensure that benefits are maximised; • Job Creation. The Environmental Statement is not explicit regarding capital expenditure but, if fabrication and other supply chain impacts can be captured locally, there is potential for significant job creation from the project. Up to five FTE jobs are anticipated from long term operational impacts. This would normally be considered a minor beneficial impact but, at this stage of the economic cycle in the North West of Lewis, any job creation has to be considered important; and, • Community Benefit. Direct community benefit payments are unlikely due to the embryonic stage of this industry and the marginal economics involved in its implementation. However, there is scope for considerable community benefit through reform of The Crown Estate. The Comhairle is engaged at national level, arguing for substantial reform of The Crown Estate and, in particular, the ability of local communities to control their own maritime resources and to achieve greater benefit from seabed lease revenues. If Crown Estate reform takes place, there is potential for highly significant community benefit impacts from projects like this.

8.7 Aquamarine’s conclusion that the project, as it stands, brings with it minor to moderate beneficial socio-economic impacts seems reasonable but the project is far more important for that it helps facilitate in the long term in terms of a thriving West of Hebrides marine energy sector.

8.8 Economic Development’s full comments can be viewed in Appendix 16 of the Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 8.9 No comments to make at this stage.

HARBOUR MASTER 8.10 Your attention is drawn to appendix 15.1 Navigational Safety Risk Assessment, and the results of the Hazard Review Workshop contained therein.

8.11 We believe the findings, that navigational risk associated with this project is tolerable, and as low as is reasonably practicable, represent the opinion of all those attending the workshop.

8.12 Measures identified in mitigation are clearly defined and we would expect full compliance with these.

8.13 Particular reference should be made to the marking of the site, in accordance with any guidelines from the General Lighthouse Authority (Northern Lighthouse Board), and the ongoing maintenance of any navigation aids.

INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR 8.14 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above application. Documents related to the application have been circulated to the members of the Coast Hebrides Forum and while many of the individual member organisations will make their own response, as Coast Hebrides has only received responses which indicated there are no concerns with the proposals, we shall not make a formal response at this time.

TECHNICAL SERVICES – ROADS 8.15 As stated in the Non-Technical Summary (17.2.2) a Traffic Statement will be provided by the developer when the method of construction has been finalised. This will provide details of construction, operation and maintenance traffic movements.

8.16 When this information has been submitted Technical Services will be able to comment fully on the application.

REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 At the time of writing the Report no third party representations had been received by the Comhairle or Marine Scotland.

COMMENTS FROM APPLICANT 10.1 At the time of writing the Report no additional comments from the developer have been received by the Comhairle as Planning Authority.

POLICY CONTEXT 11.1 This section of the Report aims to discuss, in general terms, current planning and other policy context relevant to the Lewis Wave Array development. The section does not however seek to evaluate the proposal against policy.

Climate Change and Energy Policy 11.2 Climate change is seen as the main challenge to deliver future development that is sustainable. The principal area of agreement concerns the urgent need to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. In Scotland it is the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 that sets out the Government’s commitment to reduce green house gas emissions and reduce Scotland’s vulnerability to the impacts of Climate Change. The Act introduces ambitious, world-leading legislation to reduce emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050. 11.3 Other key framework documents on Climate Change are: • Government Economic Strategy; • National Performance Framework; • Climate Change Delivery Plan; • UK Climate Impacts Programme; • Patterns of Climate Change Across Scotland, SNIFFER, 2006. 11.4 An increase in the amount of renewable energy generation (electricity and heat) as a means of reducing carbon emissions in support of efforts to tackle climate change is supported. The Scottish Government's Climate Change Act sets a target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, including emissions from international aviation and shipping. It also sets a world- leading interim target for a 42 per cent cut in emissions by 2020.

11.5 The Scottish Government is committed to promoting the increased use of renewable energy sources from onshore, offshore wind, wave and tidal power. This commitment recognises renewables' potential to support economic growth. It also seeks to provide new opportunities to enhance the manufacturing capacity and to provide new employment, not least in the remote and rural areas. 11.6 The Government has set clear targets for renewable electricity, a target has been set for renewables sources to provide the equivalent of 11 per cent of Scotland's heat demand by 2020. Similarly, Ministers want renewable sources to generate the equivalent of 100 per cent of Scotland's gross annual electricity consumption by 2020. 11.7 Sustainable development is integral to the Scottish Government's overall purpose – “to focus government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth.”

Scottish Planning Policy: National Planning Framework 11.8 In 2008 Scottish Ministers began the process of preparing a second National Planning Framework (NPF2) that acknowledges that the islands’ continue to face the problems of population and economic decline. 11.9 NPF2 was published on June 25 2009. Unlike the first Framework, NPF2 provides spatial guidance for a range of national developments based on the principle of promoting sustainable economic growth. Climate Change is seen as one of the principal challenges and recognises the role that renewable energy would play in addressing it.

11.10 NPF2 sees rural areas as being well placed to contribute to and benefit from the development of renewable energy given the location of the necessary wind, wave and water resources. It aims to develop the extensive renewable energy potential while safeguarding the environment and communities to achieve the Government’s commitment to development and sustaining Scotland’s energy industries. 11.11 The potential of the west coast for renewable energy development is recognised and to that end NPF2 has included, as one of the national developments, grid reinforcements to support renewable energy development and specifies a new sub sea cable link to the Outer Hebrides.

Scottish Planning Policy and Advice 11.12 The Scottish Government’s key policy document on the operation of the Planning system is ‘Scottish Planning Policy’ (SPP) which was published in February 2010. This document provides a statement of the Scottish Government's policy on nationally important land use planning matters. The treatment of any large scale renewables application is guided by the framework set out in SPP.

11.13 SPP provides a positive framework to encourage the development of renewable energy technologies and sets targets for the production of energy from renewable sources. Some key policy issues are raised in the SPP as noted below.

• In relation to renewable energy, SPP encourages planning authorities to support the development of a diverse range of renewable energy technologies, guide development to appropriate locations and provide clarity on the issues that will be taken into account when specific proposals are assessed.

• When considering cumulative impact, Planning Authorities should take account of existing renewable developments, those which have permission and valid applications for developments which have not been determined; • When granting planning permission, Planning Authorities should include conditions for the decommissioning of developments, including their ancillary infrastructure, and for site restoration. Planning Authorities should also ensure that sufficient finance is set aside to enable operators to meet their restoration obligations, and should consider financial guarantees through a planning agreement. A range of benefits are often voluntarily provided by developers to communities in the vicinity of renewable energy developments. These can include community trust funds. Such benefit should not be treated as a material consideration unless it meets the tests set out in Circular 1/2010 Planning Agreements. 11.14 The general thrust of SPP, with regard to renewables is towards a positive approach and a clear focus on the Development Plan as the key means to guide development. The Comhairle’s Development Plan is discussed in more detail below.

11.15 Additional Scottish Planning advice of importance to this application includes web based renewables guidance, which supersedes ‘PAN 45’. Although there is no specific advice on wave power there is advice on hydro power schemes

11.16 In particular, the advice provides detail on landscape and biodiversity issues: Siting in the Landscape and Design Considerations: Whilst hydro power schemes are inherently tied to the location of the water resource there may be scope to adjust the precise siting of the components to achieve good integration with local landscape characteristics. Habitats and Species: The EIA would be expected to establish whether or not there are any significant impacts on the biodiversity of an area, including aquatic ecosystems, habitats and species, e.g., breeding birds and/or freshwater fish. Areas of particular concern may relate to water quality, water quantity and flow, the transport of sediment, water temperature, impacts on migratory fish and freshwater pearl mussels. In designing a hydro scheme, it is likely that special account will have to be given to the ecological status of the water environment, as well as aquatic species and habitats, particularly those protected under the EC Habitats Directive. It should be noted that hydro power can provide natural heritage benefits. Social and Economic Considerations: Planning authorities are required to take into account social and economic considerations (alongside environmental and cultural considerations) in assessing planning applications. SEPA also has specific duties to consider the environmental, social and economic effects of proposed controlled activities when determining water use licence applications to ensure that the requirements of the Water Framework Directive are satisfied. Planning authorities and SEPA have duties to co-operate and adopt an integrated approach, as far as practicable, in exercising their respective functions.

Mitigation: Many of the impacts, and therefore the opportunities for their mitigation, will be unique to individual schemes. Mitigation measures will be reported in the Environmental Statement. Typically, careful attention to location, design, finish, construction and operational arrangements can help to minimise adverse landscape impact, can provide opportunities for access and recreation, can reduce risk to water quality and fish stocks, and can reduce impacts on amenity from construction and traffic. Careful attention should be given as to whether conditions would be more appropriately included in the planning or water licence consent.

Development Plan 11.17 While the proposal is for offshore development and consequently is largely outwith the remit of the land use plans, a number of Development Plan policies may have relevance in determining the Comhairle’s view. Western Isles Structure Plan 11.18 Strategic Land Use Policy is set out in the Western Isles Structure Plan, approved in 2003, and detailed local guidance is set out in the Western Isles Local Plan, adopted June 2008. Preparation of the new Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan has commenced, which will in due course supersede the existing Development Plan. It is anticipated that the Local Development Plan will be formally adopted early 2013. In the interim, the Proposed Plan is a material consideration in considering planning applications.

11.19 The Structure Plan’s key aim is to provide a land use planning framework for sustaining the communities of the Western Isles by: Setting out policies that: • promote sustainability and improve quality of life; • encourage population retention, inward migration and address the imbalances in the demographic structure; • help support those who wish to live, work and invest in the Western Isles.

11.20 A number of more specific Structure Plan policies have a bearing on this application, covering the topics of Development Management, Resource Management, Economic Development, and Transportation. The main renewable energy policy, a criteria based approach, is contained in the Structure Plan, policy ED2 below:

ED2 Development of Alternative and Renewable Energy Resources: 11.21 ‘The Comhairle, in partnership with other public agencies and the private sector, will develop proposals that help realise the latent renewable energy development potential of the Western Isles. It will also promote improvements to the interconnector with the mainland to enable the export of energy. Development proposals for hydro, solar, wave, tidal and wind (on-shore and off-shore) energy schemes and associated infrastructure, including proposals for non-grid, domestic- scale schemes, will be viewed positively, subject to satisfactory assessment of all of the following: i) the impact on local communities and any other existing or proposed land uses and interests; ii) the impact, including cumulative impact, on natural and built heritage resources; iii) the local and wider benefits that the proposal may bring; iv) the adequacy of reinstatement arrangements; v) the requirements of other Structure Plan policies. Non-permanent structures will normally be approved for a temporary period. Having regard to the above criteria, the Local Plan will identify potentially suitable sites including provision of safeguarding or exclusion areas to ensure that future neighbouring developments or activities do not undermine the viability of the energy resource.’ 11.22 RM11 Habitats and Species The Comhairle will not normally grant consent for developments on land or water that would have a significant adverse effects upon habitats or species listed under the EC Habitats Directive*, the EC Wild Birds Directive** or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)***. The Comhairle will encourage the appropriate management and enhancement of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild flora and fauna. In the event of a proposed development having an adverse impact on breeding or resting places used by these species, it should only proceed if: i) action must be to preserve public health or safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature; and ii) there is no satisfactory alternative; and iii) there will be no adverse impacts on the species as a whole. * Annex 1, 2 & 4 **Annex 1 ***Schedules 1, 5 and 8 11.23 RM15: Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other Archaeological Sites The Comhairle will support proposals that seek to protect, enhance and interpret Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other archaeological sites. Development proposals affecting nationally important remains (whether scheduled or not) and their settings will normally not be permitted.

Where development is likely to affect an archaeological monument, site or possible remains:

i) early discussion with development control officers and the regional archaeologist is encouraged; ii) the developer will normally be required to allow the regional archaeologist (or nominee) access to the development site at any time during the course of development to make such recordings as may be reasonably required; iii) the developer may be required to arrange or fund an archaeological evaluation prior to the determination of planning applications in areas of potential importance; and iv) the developer may be required to arrange or fund an archaeological excavation, and/or recording of the affected monument or site where in situ preservation is not possible. Western Isles Local Plan 11.24 A number of Local Plan Policies are relevant to this application LPED3: Safeguarding Renewable Energy Resources Development proposals adjacent to sites with planning consent for renewable energy development will be considered carefully in order to safeguard the viability of the energy resource. LP/ED4: Aquaculture and Marine Planning Powers In assessing development proposals the following considerations will be taken into account: a) location and design of installations and associated facilities; b) biodiversity, landscape and other natural heritage features; c) access and servicing considerations; d) appropriate measures to deal with the issues of pollution, disease and navigational considerations; e) appropriate operational (including associated noise and lighting impacts) management, monitoring and site restoration arrangements; f) the incremental or cumulative impact of the proposal; g) the impact of development on communities, tourism and upon areas used for recreational purposes.

Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 11.25 The OHLDP is in the latter stages of progressing towards adoption and may be viewed as a material consideration. 11.26 Policy 19: Energy Resources

The Comhairle will support proposals that contribute to meeting the targets and objectives of the National Planning Framework 2, the Climate Change Act, and the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan in relation to electricity grid reinforcement, infrastructure and renewable energy generation. Proposals for onshore renewable energy projects and oil and gas operations (including extensions to existing or proposed developments and land based infrastructure associated with offshore projects) will be assessed against the details below and be required to demonstrate all the following: a) appropriate location, siting and design including the technical rationale for the choice of site; b) no unacceptable adverse impact (including cumulative) on: landscape, townscape and visual aspects, natural, built and cultural heritage resources; the water environment; peatlands; aviation, defence and telecommunications transmitting and receiving systems e.g. broadband; public health and safety, and amenity (including noise and shadow flicker as appropriate); neighbouring land uses, transport management and core paths; c) acceptable decommissioning and site reinstatement arrangements; d) phasing arrangements, where appropriate; e) the contribution towards meeting national energy supply targets and local economic impact; f) where appropriate, compliance with the Supplementary Guidance for Large Scale Wind Energy Developments >20MW, which the Comhairle will adopt as statutory Supplementary Guidance as part of the Development Plan. The type, scale and size of the proposed development will have a significant effect on the way the Comhairle will consider an application and the level of accompanying information that will be required. Conditions and, where necessary, a planning agreement may be used to control the detail of the development. Non-permanent elements of a development will be granted permission consistent with their lifespan and/or projected period of use. Development proposals adjacent to sites with planning consent for energy development will only be approved where the viability of the energy resource can be safeguarded. In line with the Zero Waste Plan the Comhairle will support ‘energy from waste’ developments subject to other development plan policies and appropriate identified end users.

11.27 Policy 28: Natural Heritage Any development proposal which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site and is not directly connected with or necessary to the conservation management of that site will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment by the Comhairle. Development which could have a significant effect on a Natura site will only be permitted where: • an Appropriate Assessment has demonstrated that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, or • there are no alternative solutions, and • there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. 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. All Ramsar wetland sites are also Natura sites and/or Sites of Special Scientific Interest and are included in the statutory requirements noted above. 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. 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. For development affecting a species of bird protected under the 1981 Act there must also be no other satisfactory solution. 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. Development affecting the Loch Stiapavat, Local Nature Reserve (LNR) should aim to enhance the site and will not be permitted if it will have an unacceptable impact on the features of interest of the site. 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). *http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/biodiversity-scotland/scottish- biodiversity-list/

Other Relevant Matters 11.28 ‘It's in Your Hands: A Strategy for the Conservation and Enhancement of Biodiversity in Scotland’ sets out the vision for Scotland's biodiversity. It gives a 25 year framework to conserve and enhance biodiversity for the health, enjoyment and well-being of the people of Scotland, in the context of the EU commitment to ‘protect and restore the functioning of natural systems and to halt the loss of biodiversity’. 11.29 The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 places a statutory duty on all public bodies to further the conservation of biodiversity in exercising any of their functions. Planning Authority functions play a key role in fulfilling this duty and in ensuring that the natural environment remains a key consideration in the sustainability of human activity and to quality of life. 11.30 There are a number of other publications and guidance published which have relevance to this application. These include: • CnES Western Isles Local Biodiversity Action Plans; • Habitats and Wild Birds Directives (Habitats Directive (SE circular 9/95 - revised 2000); • SNH policy on Renewable Energy 2002; • Marine Renewable Energy and the Natural Heritage: An overview and policy statement (2004); • Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Volume 1 No 18: Further Scottish Leasing Round (Saltire Prize Projects): Regional Locational Guidance. September 2010 • Guidance on Survey and Monitoring in Relation to Marine Renewables Deployments in Scotland (2011); • Controlled Activities (Scotland) Regulations – 2005; • RSPB National Bird Sensitivity Mapping 2006; • Marine (Scotland) Act 2010; and • Scotland’s National Marine Plan – Pre - consultation draft March 2011.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSALS 12.1 The current scheme comprises an array of from 40 to 50 Oyster Wave Energy Converters a proposed installed capacity of 40MW plus associated offshore infrastructure at a site off the northwest coast of Lewis between Lower Siadar and Borve. The consultation process on the Environmental Statement has highlighted a number of objections and concerns: OBJECTIONS RSPB 12.2 RSPB Scotland objects to this application as they cannot be sure that the development will have no serious adverse impacts on bird populations. They have concerns that only 13 months survey has been completed when it is recommended that at least 24 months survey is carried out by the developer. In their advice of 23 Jan 2012 on Year 1 Bird Survey Results and requirements for Habitats Regulations Appraisal.

12.3 The issue of incomplete baseline survey has been raised by consultees. However, it is considered that this issue should not result in an objection by the Comhairle, but it would be a recommendation to Marine Scotland that the Comhairle is reconsulted when this data becomes available.

WESTERN ISLES FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION 12.4 The Western Isles Fishermen’s Association (WIFA) is objecting to the proposal unless the pipes between the Oyster array and the shore is either buried or covered in rock armour to prevent gear snagging.

12.5 The developers are proposing to contribute funding to the Western Isles Lobster hatchery as part of this commitment it is proposed to have a no fish zone around the wave array in agreement with Outer Hebrides Inshore Fisheries Group. The size of this no fish zone will be determined once the final details of the project are clarified. The creation of the no fish zone addresses the objection by the WIFA.

SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY 12.6 SEPA are not objecting providing that a condition is attached to the consent requiring the submission of the above Health, Safety and Environmental Management System. If this is not attached, then please consider this representation as an objection. To assist, the following wording is suggested:

12.7 At least two (2) months prior to the commencement of any works, a site specific Health, Safety and Environmental Management System must be submitted for the written approval of the determining authority [in consultation with SEPA] [and other agencies such as SNH as appropriate] and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: to control pollution of air, land and water.

MARITIME AND COASTGUARD AGENCY 12.8 The MCA have cited 16 conditions which are provided in full at Appendix 12 to the Report.

12.9 If these conditions are met I am able to advise you that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has no objection to consent being granted provided that measures are also taken to ensure that details of the proposed works are promulgated to maritime users through notice to mariners and/or navigational warnings.

NORTHERN LIGHTHOUSE BOARD (NLB) 12.10 The Northern Lighthouse Board have requested that the site area shall be marked using marker boards onshore adjacent to the northerly and southerly extremities the details of these boards are detailed in Paragraph 7.26 above.

12.11 The NLB recommend that the devices should be actively monitored, and a contingency plan developed to respond to any reported catastrophic failure events. This should include the transmission of local Radio Navigation Warnings.

12.12 During the device(s) preparation, installation, operation/maintenance and decommissioning phases we would require that adequate notice is given to the mariner in consultation with the Western Isles Harbour Master. We would recommend that such Notices to Mariners or Local Radio Navigation Warnings clearly state the nature and duration of these works.

12.13 The Hydrographic Office should be informed of the device(s) location and the onshore cable marker boards in order that Admiralty Chart 2720 can be updated to give information of the installation.

12.14 Although the Comhairle is not the determining authority with this application, it is considered that the conditions that these organisations (SEPA, MCA and the Northern Lighthouse Board) are requesting are reasonable and it is recommended that the conditions specified should be included in any consent granted by Marine Scotland.

OUTER HEBRIDES FISHERIES TRUST (OHFT) 12.15 The Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust’s (OHFT) have raised several concerns. The main concern with Lewis Wave Power’s proposal would be the location of the wave array in relation to the mouth of the Rivers Borve and Siadar. Returning Sea Trout could be impeded from returning to the Borve River as the array is directly adjacent to the river outflow.

12.16 The OHFT have requested that a precautionary approach is taken and construction activities at sea between May – mid October should be avoided. This is to avoid impacting upon both smolts leaving their natal rivers and the time when returning Salmonoids enters coastal waters. A study (Hawkins 2006) found that that even at relatively large distances away from the area of activity the associated noise can disrupt normal behavioural responses.

12.17 The Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust would find it useful if they could have more information on noise generation from the array once in operation to enable further studies on the impact of noise on returning migratory species.

12.18 The Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust has commented that little has been alluded to with regards to potential aggregation effects. As stated within the ES the wave array will effectively assume the function of an artificial reef once all construction is completed. Whilst the aggregation of prey items around physical structures might be seen as a positive effect, possible negative effects may include the associated aggregation of predators which may increase competition/ predation pressure with respect to wild salmonids and migratory eels. It is therefore important to ensure that such effects are quantified and assessed in the Environmental Statement.

12.19 They would also appreciate a more detailed assessment of the risks posed by collisions with the wave array, which they feel is not adequately addressed in the ES.

12.20 The applicant is proposing that the off shore work is carried out between April and October, with preparation work taking place between February and April. It is considered that to prevent the work during the summer will be unreasonable as there will health and safety issues if this work were to be carried out during the winter months.

12.21 The applicant is proposing to carry out further monitoring of the site once it is deployed to assist in the understanding of the wave arrays and any possible impacts they may have to the environment. Therefore the request for further monitoring and information is not deemed to be unreasonable.

Western Isles Fishermen’s Association 12.22 The Western Isles Fishermen’s Association (WIFA) raised concern over ES Section 16 Commercial Fisheries and its accuracy of the fishing importance or displacement issues that would the fishing fleet should the development proceed.

12.23 They argue that there are significantly more fishermen that use the area than stated in the report and that that exclusion from the search area would impact on the viability of the vessels and that the area is important fisheries ground.

12.24 The WIFA state that the search area consists of the best lobster grounds to the West of Lewis and adjacent areas will simply not return the same catch per unit effort to vessels, so vessels earnings will be reduced. Furthermore, displacement of effort will impact on other vessels as their traditional grounds will have additional pots and will result in reduced catches for those vessels.

12.25 They request that adequate gaps will have to be identified at various stages within the project to allow access for smaller fishing vessels, between the devices, to allow steaming from fishing grounds close inshore to more offshore grounds, to prevent vessels having to steam long distances around either end of the development

12.26 The Comhairle recognises the importance of the fishing industry to the local economy. It is therefore recommended that further discussion takes place between the developer and the local fishermen and that an agreement is reached, which safeguards the local fishing industry before the Scottish Ministers make their final decision.

RSPB 12.27 RSPB request that they be further consulted on elements of the proposed development requiring finalisation, including: • The method of installing the pipeline connections between the devices and the onshore powerhouse; • Depending on the outcome of the pipeline installation method, the number and exact location of the pipelines • The footprint of the devices and their exact location (subject to micro-siting post consent); and • The size of the gap fillers under each device

12.28 Any issued consent should be conditional on an agreed programme of bird monitoring pre and post construction. This is required both to ensure that impacts of the development are in line with predictions made in support of the application and to inform assessment of future developments of this type. As the technology is new and its environmental impacts have not been tested at the scale of a commercial array of devices, such monitoring is essential.

12.29 RSPB is requesting to receive further information and consultation. It is considered reasonable that when this information is finalised that a reconsultation takes place.

12.30 It is also considered that a condition requiring monitoring is also not unreasonable considering that this is new technology.

SURFERS AGAINST SEWAGE 12.31 Surfers Against Sewage raised concerns that the impacts on the surfing resource and recreation have not been adequately investigated and that the surfing community, both resident on the Isle and the visiting surfers have not be consulted about the potential impacts.

12.32 The applicant has consulted with Outer Hebrides Surfing Association it has been established that the development site does not provide suitable conditions for surfing and it is not thought that the development will affect current known surfing activities. It is therefore considered that this concern does not merit an objection from the Comhairle.

ROYAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION 12.33 The RYA raised various issues. Vessels in strong winds maybe much closer inshore and a vessel might inadvertently stray into the array in conditions of poor visibility.

12.34 The RYA expressed disappointment that the marking and lighting has not be agreed with the NLB and and MCA. Concern was expressed that lights at each end of the array may be adequate for large vessels with a bridge well above sea level, for small recreational craft a distance of 3 km is a rather large gap between lights. Lighting must also take into account the obscuring of lights by swell or waves, a particular hazard for small craft.

12.35 They suggested that Information about the location of the array should appear in the Clyde Cruising Club Sailing Directions and Anchorages - Part 4 Outer Hebrides with a recommendation that vessels remain in water deeper than 20 metres in the vicinity of the array.

12.36 They disagreed with the assessment of Section 15.6.29 which considers that collision with a device that has broken free is unlikely to pose a risk to vessels. The RYA argued that while this may be true for fishing vessels but is unlikely to be true for small recreational craft with a GRP hull, particularly if damage is caused to the rudder or propeller.

12.37 The Northern Lighthouse Board has suggested lighting of the site and that the site is marked on the Admiralty Chart 2720. Although NLB have recommended that the devices should be actively monitored the ES has stated that the devices will be monitored and an emergency plan will be developed which will include alerting the Coastguard if there is a risk that a device has broken free from its foundations in order for navigational safety warning to issued to shipping in the area.

SCOTTISH WILDLIFE TRUST 12.38 The Scottish Wildlife Trust raised the issue of the 2 year base line survey not being complete and that in many cases two years will not enable a full consideration of annual variations in abundance. The Scottish Wildlife Trust expects an addendum to the ES to be produced and circulated to allow final assessment of the scheme.

12.39 SWT believe that the uncertainty of the impacts of a full array and the non-availability of data from neighbouring proposals are severely limiting factors in any assessment of the cumulative effects as required by the EIA Regulations.

12.40 As stated above this issue has been raised by several consultees. However, it is considered that this issue should not result in an objection by the Comhairle, but it could be a recommendation to Marine Scotland that the Comhairle is reconsulted when this data becomes available.

HISTORIC SCOTLAND 12.41 Historic Scotland while having no objection to the proposal did have some concerns with the sensitivity criteria used (ES Chapter 18: Tables 188.4 and 188.5) which assign negligible values to cultural heritage features that are poorly preserved, or those that are regarded as being ‘imperceptible in the landscape.’ Historic Scotland argued that monuments do not necessarily need be visually prominent to have a significant setting, and that their condition does not affect their level of significance or the potential impact on them. It is considered that the issue raised by Historic Scotland does not merit the Comhairle submitting an objection.

ARCHAEOLOGY 12.42 Although the Comhairle’s Archaeology service had no objection to the marine aspect of the proposal the issue of a number of minor errors and inaccuracies in the Offshore Cultural Heritage Baseline Appendix 18.2 of the ES was raised.

12.43 There were a few inaccuracies found in the Environmental Statement, however, none of them were of any significance that would merit an objection from the Comhairle.

ISSUES RAISED FROM REPRESENTATIONS 13.1 No representations from the public have been received.

PLANNING POLICY CONSIDERATION 14.1 The Comhairle’s ‘planning’ view on the project should be based primarily on the following key policy matters: • Development Plan policy; • Supplementary Planning Guidance; and • National Planning Guidance and national policy context. 14.2 The national policy context, as set out above in the Report, is broadly supportive of wave energy and the Lewis wave array proposal will contribute to furthering the aims of Scotland’s Second National Planning Framework.

14.3 An assessment against the key aspects of the Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance does raise a number of issues:

Policy Ref: Western Isles Structure Plan/RM8/9/11; Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan - Proposed Plan Policy 28 Natural Heritage; Scottish Planning Policy 142-145 14.4 Based on the responses from the consultation above it can not, as yet, be determined if natural heritage issues are fully addressed. The main concern raised is lack of data – only 1 year and not the two years requested during the scoping opinion to form the baseline survey data.

Policy Ref: Western Isles Structure Plan/RM15 – Historic Environment, Western Isles Local Plan/RM2; 14.5 Although the environmental assessment concluded that due the high energy marine environment there is limited scope for unrecorded assets to be present. There were inaccuracies raised by the consultees with regard to the section on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. Although Historic Scotland disagreed with the level of importance set against the monuments, they have raised no objection to the application and it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with these policies.

Policy Ref: Local Plan LP/ED3 Safeguarding Renewable Energy Sources 14.6 This proposal will be adjacent to another proposed wave energy site; however, it is considered that the viability of the energy resource will not be affected.

Policy Ref: Local Plan LP/ED4 Aquaculture and Marine Planning Powers 14.7 With the exception of the natural heritage criteria, which cannot be fully assessed at this time. It is considered that with regard to the comments from SEPA, Northern Lighthouse Board, Harbour Master and Economic Development the proposal is in accordance with the rest of this policy.

Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan - Proposed Plan – August 2011 14.8 The LDP- Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan - Proposed Plan is now a material consideration as it has been approved by Comhairle (although policies may change prior through examination process).

Policy Ref: Policy 1 –Development Strategy 14.9 All of the marine element of the development, currently under consideration, is classed in the outwith settlements classification of the LDP. However, the development is resource based and is generally supported by Policy 1 of the LDP.

Policy Ref: Policy 9 Water Environment 14.10 This policy requires protection of water resources including no deterioration in ecological status and flood management. These issues have been addressed in SEPA’s response with outstanding issues requiring conditions to be attached to any consent.

Policy Ref: Policy 19 Energy Resources 14.11 This policy provides the main direction for assessing renewable energy development. This is designed primarily for assessing on-shore development or onshore development ancillary to an off-shore proposal. Proposals for onshore renewable energy development and land based infrastructure related to offshore development are required to accord with 5 criteria, set out in Policy 19. Although not directly relevant to the current proposal under consideration apart from natural heritage the information provided by the application in the Environmental Impact Assessment shows compliance with the 5 criteria.

Draft Marine Fish Farming Supplementary Guidance 14.12 It is important to ensure no conflict arises between the proposed development and the potential for marine fish farming. While it is not yet finalised, the draft Marine Fish Farming Supplementary Guidance provides the Comhairle’s view in relation to offshore fish farming development. 14.13 The proposed location lies within the Spatial Strategy Policy 1 of the draft supplementary guidance which indicates the preferred areas for the location of new fish farming proposals. 14.14 Development Policy 3: Other Marine Interests provides developers with criteria for considering other marine users when developing fish farming proposals. The policy provides protection to areas identified for energy exploitation and requires that they are avoided for fish farming development unless the energy resource is not sterilized. 14.15 Any interest in developing this area for fish farming is anticipated to be very limited because of the very exposed nature of the site – possibly the reason it is attractive to energy developers. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDED VIEW 15.1 The aim of the Report has been to provide a balanced representation of the issued concerns with this proposal. The Report allows the Comhairle as a Statutory Consultee to reach a view on the marine elements of the development and the ES as submitted, and put forward comments to Scottish Ministers. 15.2 The view of the Comhairle will be forwarded to Scottish Ministers regarding plans to construct and operate an Oyster Wave Array located off shore in North West Lewis, an application for consent under Section 36 of the 1989 Electricity Act. The application also seeks a marine licence under part 4, Section 36 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. 15.3 The application is for the construction of a 40MW Oyster wave array, which will consist of between 40 and 50 devices. The numbers of Oyster devices to be used will be determined once the energy rating of the devices has been finalised. The pipes between the Oyster devices and the shore will either be laid on the seabed surface or will be drilled under the surface. 15.4 There have been no third party representations received either by the Comhairle or by Marine Scotland. 15.5 The main issues raised by other consultees were the lack of baseline data for the assessment of the impact of the development on the natural heritage; impact of the development on local fisheries; conditions and further information being requested; and concern about inaccuracies in the accompanying Environmental Statement. 15.6 Due to the information submitted on the natural heritage it is not possible to fully assess this element of the proposal against the Development Plan. However, with the exception of the natural heritage the Development Plan supports the proposal. It is considered that none of the objections raised by the consultees merit an objection by the Comhairle. However, if further information is submitted on natural heritage issues the Comhairle can fully assess the proposal against the Development Plan. 15.7 The only potentially significant impact in terms of the EIA Regulations, after mitigation, is localised visual impact, however, the visual impact of the Oysters can not be reduced due to navigational safety. Albeit there would appear to be no good reason to allow the company logo’s on the WEC devices. 15.8 After reviewing the application details and having reached the conclusions noted above it is recommended that the Comhairle:

• supports the proposal, subject to the Scottish Ministers applying the conditions suggested by SEPA, MCA, Northern Lighthouse Board and RSPB; • requests the conditions as set out below; • wishes to be consulted on any addendum to the Environmental Statement including any additional baseline survey data for Ornithology and Marine Mammal and Basking Sharks. • recommends that further discussions take place between the developer and the local fishermen and that an agreement is reached which safeguards the local fishing industry before the Scottish Ministers make their final decision. • is of the view that there is no public interest in holding a Public Local Inquiry for the Oyster Wave Array application. • recommends that the Scottish Ministers are satisfied that there are adequate safeguards to ensure that if the Oyster array falls into disrepair that the WECs and associated works can be removed and the site restored • is of the view that the above comments are without prejudice to the determination of the planning application for the onshore element of the proposal. Proposed Conditions

Condition 1 Throughout the life of the development no symbols, signs, logos or other lettering (other than those required for health and safety) shall be displayed on any part of the Oyster Wave Array.

Reason In order to minimise the visual impact of the proposal in the interests of visual amenity.

Condition 2 If any of the equipment for the Oyster Array is transported by land then a Transport Management Plan (including any off-site works). No part of the development to which this permission relates shall commence until the Comhairle has issued approval of the Management Plan in writing. The development shall then be carried out and retained throughout of the development in compliance with the approved Management Plan unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Comhairle as Planning Authority.

Reason In the interests of road safety and to ensure proper management of the development.

Condition 3 Before development commences, the following details shall be submitted to the determining authority (in consultation with the Comhairle):

• The method of installing the pipeline connections between the devices and the onshore powerhouse;

• Depending on the outcome of the pipeline installation method, the number and exact location of the pipelines; and

• The footprint of the devices and their exact location (subject to micro- siting post consent).

The development shall then be carried out and retained throughout the life of the development in compliance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing.

Reason In order to define the permission and avoid doubt.

Condition 4 Before the development commences details of any means of lighting the site during the construction of the Oyster WECS and pipeline installation shall be submitted for approval by Marine Scotland in consultation with Comhairle nan Eilean Siar. The development shall then be carried out in compliance with the approved details, unless agreed otherwise in writing.

Reason In the interests of visual amenity

Condition 5 Within six months of the cessation of regular use of an Oyster WEC, the Oyster WEC, associated monopole, and any other fitments associated with the development shall be removed and the site restored. For the purpose of defining, the cessation of regular use shall be defined as not being in use for a continual period of twelve months.

Reason In order to safeguard the natural qualities of the site.