Argyll and Bute Council Development Services

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

Reference No : 13/01379/MFF Planning Hierarchy : Local Development Applicant : Dawnfresh Farming Limited Proposal : Formation of fin fish (Rainbow Trout) farm comprising 10 No. 80m circumference cages plus installation of feed barge Site Address : Sailean Ruadh (Etive 6), Loch Etive

DECISION ROUTE

Local Government Scotland Act 1973

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

• Formation of Marine Fish Farm comprising 10 No. 80m circumference cages, walkways, mooring grid and associated mooring lines, • Installation of feed barge.

(ii) Other specified operations

• Servicing from existing shore base at Inverawe; • Replacement of consented but currently unequipped shellfish farm.

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that permission be granted subject to:

i) a pre-determination hearing be convened in response to the number and complexity of the representations received;

ii) the prior conclusion of a section 75 legal agreement to secure the programmed removal of existing aquaculture equipment from the applicant’s existing sites known as Etive 1 (Inverawe West) and Etive 5 (Ardchattan Bay) as part of the rationalisation of finfish farming operations conducted by the applicants in Loch Etive;

iii) the conditions and reasons set out in this report;

iv) in the event that the required legal agreement is not concluded within four months, or such longer period as may be agreed between the parties during that four month period, then the application should be refused for the reason set out in Section U below.

(C) CONSULTATIONS:

Scottish Government (EIA notification) – no response.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (08.08.13) – No objection in terms of nutrient enhancement or cumulative impact with other fish farms in the loch. A CAR authorisation (CAR/L/1042067) has already been issued to the applicants for a proposed biomass of 2,500tonnes. A technical variation to that licence will be required for this subsequent lesser scaled proposal, with modelling for a reduced biomass. It is likely that such a variation would be granted. Maximum biomass and discharges will be controlled via CAR and hence planning conditions relative to these aspects are unnecessary.

Scottish Natural Heritage (12.08.13) – do not object to the proposal as it does not have adverse consequences for national designations, so they therefore confine themselves to advice to the Council in its determination of the application.

SNH notes that the seabed below the site includes components of the ‘burrowed mud’ UK BAP habitat which is predominantly found on the west coast of Scotland and which is collectively a biotope of international conservation status. However, this habitat is likely to be widespread in Loch Etive and therefore there are no objections to the impact of the proposal’s predicted depositional footprint.

It is noted that in the absence of any consolidation of existing sites, the proposal would not satisfy the advice within the Loch Etive Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan. Policy Zone D considers this zone to be at capacity for aquaculture, other than in the event of consolidation or rationalisation of existing sites. The Council should satisfy itself that the existing character of the loch will not be adversely affected by the landscape or noise consequences of this proposal. SNH are of the opinion that, in particular, the development will be a prominent feature in the landscape when viewed from the road from Barcaldine, which affords one of the few available elevated views of the loch. Although this visibility is short lived, the manner in which the foreground of the loch is concealed by topography has the effect of a perceived narrowing the apparent width of the loch, and the presence of the bay behind the equipment would result in the farm appearing to cover a greater proportion of the loch surface than it actually would in practice.

In view of the relationship with the nearby Loch Etive Woods SAC and the consequences of the development for otter which is one of the designation’s qualifying interests, a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ should be carried out by the Council. No concerns are identified in terms of interaction with predators or with wild

fish. Some mitigation measures to protect breeding bird colonies on the nearby island of Eilean Faoileag are recommended in the event permission is granted.

Marine Scotland Science (23.08.13 and 17.09.13) – No unacceptable water column impacts identified. An amendment to the applicant’s authorisation for its existing farms will be required for this additional site. It is recommended that the site is operated in consultation with other operators within Management Area 15b. Stocking density and husbandry practices proposed appear acceptable. The site is within 5km of burns and rivers known to contain Atlantic salmon and se trout populations including the River Awe. There is no history of sea lice treatment having been required in Loch Etive but appropriate licensable quantities of chemical treatments are being sought as a contingency. Escapes pose a risk to wild species due to competition and disease although proposed containment and escape contingency measures are acceptable. It should be noted that MS emphasises that the advice provided sets out the latest scientific knowledge on wild fish issues and does not support or object to the application in terms of wild fish interaction. Site specific mooring details have been requested and provided to Marine Scotland’s satisfaction.

Argyll & District Salmon Fishery Board (07.08.11) – Object to the proposal as they consider it poses a significant risk to wild salmon and sea trout due to the risk of potential escapes and disease transmission. In the light of past incidents in Loch Etive and a recent Loch Awe escape event, the DSFB remains extremely concerned about the ability of the applicant to prevent escapes from their farms. Salmon angling in the Awe catchment is of significant economic value to the area in terms of direct income and indirect benefit, and the catching of escaped rainbow trout poses a reputational risk to this prime salmon fishery.

In pre-application consultation the applicants indicated their intention to surrender a site at the mouth of the River Awe, but this has not been carried forward into the application, so the addition of this site must represent a significant increase in the risk to wild salmonids. The applicants contend that the proposal represents a consolidation by virtue of the re-occupation of shellfish lease consent. However, given the difference between the impact of longlines and fish cages this must be regarded as a new fish farm site. Permitted development rights do not allow operators to switch between shellfish and finfish operations, which appears to confirm that they are to be regarded as different types of aquaculture and therefore this application ought not to be considered as consolidation. The Loch Etive ICZM plan affords a presumption against new sites being established in this zone.

Historic Scotland (08.08.13) – no objection as the proposal does not raise issues of national significance for historic assets within their remit.

Transport Scotland (07.08.13) – no objection.

Council’s Roads Engineer (18.07.13) – no objection.

Council’s Public Protection Officer (02.10.13) – no objection to the conclusions of the

applicant’s Environmental Statement re operational noise. Site lighting should follow Institution of Lighting Engineers’ published guidance.

Council’s Biodiversity Officer (26.08.13) – The site adjoins the Etive Woods SAC where otter are a qualifying interest. Otter, wild salmon and trout are important BAP species and therefore the potential impact upon them and any opportunities for mitigation measures require to be fully explored.

Northern Lighthouse Board (18.07.13) – no objection but advice given as to navigation marking and lighting requirements.

West Highland Anchorages & Moorings Association (16.09.13 ) – also replying on behalf of the Royal Yachting Association and the Clyde Cruising Club, confirm that initial concerns expressed by the RYA (24.07.13) about impediment to access to the Sailean Ruadh anchorage have been overcome following discussion with the applicants.

Clyde Fishermen’s Association – no response to date.

Scottish Water (04.11.13) – no objection.

Council’s Biodiversity Officer (25.07.11) – no objection but further comment sought about potential effects upon marine species. Concern that the proposal will reduce the width of the channel available for dolphin and porpoises.

Scottish Wildlife Trust – no response to date.

Taynuilt Community Council (19.08.13) – support the proposal. They consider that landscape, pollution and economic considerations are the most pertinent to the case. In landscape terms they consider development acceptable as the site has been used for finfish and shellfish farming in the past. Pollution concerns have been assessed by SEPA who will monitor the site to ensure that licence terms are met. The employment that Dawnfresh has brought to an economically fragile area is significant and the economic and employment contribution that this additional development can make to the area is the single most important issue.

Ardchattan Community Council (15.08.11) – have objected on the grounds of noise nuisance from the feeding mechanism, adverse visual impact and associated consequences for tourism, and the prospect that this development might be a precursor for additional development. Policy Zone D of the ICZM Plan indicates a presumption against the establishment of new sites in this section of the loch.

Connel Community Council (01.08.13) – have objected to the application as they are not persuaded that there will be significant employment benefit, that ecological impact will be negligible, or that the development will not give rise to significant visual impact especially from the north shore. ______

(D) HISTORY:

The site was farmed for trout in the early days of the fish farming industry between 1974 and 1977. It was subsequently the subject of a lease for mussel rafts which were then replaced by longlines following storm damage to the rafts. The site still benefits from a Crown Estate lease for the operation of a mussel farm although the site is not currently equipped. It is intended that the application proposal would supersede the consented shellfish site in the event that planning permission is granted

02/01228/MFF Modification to shellfish farm for Muckairn Mussels (change from 3 No. 10 x 10m rafts to 3 No. 220m longlines) – no objection to Crown Estate consultation.

12/02095/MFF Formation of fin fish (Rainbow Trout) farm comprising 14 No. 100m circumference cages plus installation of feed barge – withdrawn 27.06.13 in favour of the current proposal.

(E) PUBLICITY:

The proposal has been advertised as EIA development in the local newspaper and the Edinburgh Gazette, with the publicity periods having expired on 15.08.13.

Note: Additional post-submission details augmenting the LVIA and otter survey work accompanying the Environmental Statement has not been deemed to amount to ‘additional environmental information’ requirement for an Addendum to the ES for the purposes of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, and therefore no additional publicity has been carried out.

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

(i) Representations received from:

Objections to the proposal have been received from 617 third parties and 221 expressions of support have been received. Names and addresses of those having submitted representations are listed in Appendix C to this report (some of whom have submitted more than one representation). The grounds of support and objection and the applicant’s comments thereon may be summarised as follows:

Supporters

Comments in support of expansion of the aquaculture sector

• Aquaculture is a successful business in the West of Scotland, bringing jobs and revenue to local areas and should therefore have local and Governmental support to expand and prosper;

• Sustainable fish farming takes pressure of natural and wild resources. Taking wild fish is unsustainable and methods of slaughter are poor, therefore aquaculture is the only way forward and it can be managed. Aquaculture is a hugely important element of food supply - the UN FAO estimates that just to maintain current per capita consumption levels an additional 23 million tonnes of fish will be required by 2020. This will need to come from aquaculture, considering that 80% of wild fish stocks are either fully fished to maximum sustainable yield or overfished.

• Fish farming is worth millions to the Scottish economy and Argyll & Bute must embrace any company willing to expand in a sustainable and environmentally responsible way. Farmed fish products are first class and bring export earnings right back through the economy to remote and rural villages and areas across the Highlands and Islands;

• Fish Farming sustains employment opportunities in rural areas, especially for young people who would & have in the past been forced to move away to cities, away from their families & local area to find work.

• The economy benefits not only from full-time sustainable jobs but fish farm developments also help support many service industries in our rural areas that benefit from fish farms such as, hotels, bed and breakfasts, cage suppliers, haulage firms and net manufacturers to name just a few with many more small firms relying on income from fish farm contracts;

Comments in relation to the farming of trout by Dawnfresh in Loch Etive

• Being a global industry, companies operating in Argyll need to operate at a level that provides economies of scale and this expansion would help Dawnfresh move to a more favourable position in their market place;

• Trout farming started close to this location more than 30 years ago and should be promoted and aided to continue for another 30yrs;

• The British Trout Association (BTA) supports the development and expansion of UK trout farming;

• Loch Etive trout is branded worldwide and will need growth in production to meet worldwide market requirements - it would be a great pity to stifle market development of a product which is proudly produced on Loch Etive and enjoyed by consumers around the world;

• Dawnfresh have revolutionised the acceptance of trout in the UK market with their exceptional Etive Trout, this in turn will help the trout industry in the UK, make trout a

more widely consumed product. It is vital that they are allowed to expand this market;

• Scotland is a world leader in salmon production and it should and could become so in marine trout if the industry is allowed to grow and expand. The proposed developments at Loch Etive are a pivotal step to this expansion without which the industry will be increasingly unable to compete with aggressively expanding foreign production;

• There is strong market demand, both at home and abroad, for large trout products and the constraint placed upon the development of this market through insufficient consents to realise the production required to meet both current and future market potential. Dawnfresh is at present one of very few companies producing large trout, and the only company that in the short to midterm is able to consider an expansion in production of large trout of this nature. The approval of this application will assist in the delivery of this, and more broadly of proposed Scottish Government targets for the expansion of finfish production to 2020, whilst ensuring and further increasing the contribution of this important industry to the local economy;

• This development will utilise the natural resources of the area by enabling high quality trout to be grown in an efficient manner. Modern aquaculture installations are of low visual and noise impact.

Comments in relation to the economic and employment aspects of the proposal

• Full time year-round employment is in chronically short supply in this area, and therefore any business seeking to make a long-term investment in productive capacity should be encouraged wherever possible. This is vital to broaden and diversify Argyll's economic base, and to help secure and sustain the future of rural communities, many of which are suffering marked demographic decline;

• Objectors claim that there will be 'no new jobs' from this project, but the conversion of existing posts from temporary to permanent will be very significant for the individuals/families concerned, and as with any business, improving economies of scale will obviously contribute to the job security of all the other employees as well;

• The increase in production would also help the in meeting targets set out by the Scottish government for increases in aquaculture production, brought about by the global demand for Scottish produced seafood. The approval of this application will also assist in the continuing drive to boost Scottish food and drink production for both domestic and export markets, again as promoted by Scottish Government as a national policy objective.

Comments in relation to water quality and nature conservation

• SEPA has already consented a larger fin fish farm on this site so environmental

concerns have been covered. With all the tight controls in place the development will not harm the marine environment;

• Sea lice have never been a concern on farmed fish in the brackish water of Loch Etive;

• The players in the fish farming industry, farmers and suppliers alike, are constantly looking into safety measurements to prevent escapes of farmed fish and are getting better every year. The Scottish Industry will soon have its own standards in regards to the equipment in use on their sites. Today most players are complying with the Norwegian Industry standard which has been in force for many years. The equipment supplied to Dawnfresh complies with the Norwegian Industry standard NS-9415 and is certificated to that effect.

Comments in relation to tourism, recreation and amenity.

• Dawnfresh have listened to the credible local objectors and reduced the scale, light pollution, noise and visual impact of the farm considerably and maintained access to the moorings for yachts;

• The area of the water which will be affected by this development is quite small in the context of the loch as a whole, and there will clearly be plenty of space left for the other activities which the loch is used for. Although the proposal represents a significant increase in size, the site itself has a long history of aquaculture use. Some of the concerns that have been raised about the negative impact which the fish pens would have on both recreational users and tourism in general are over-stated, and that the actual impact would be modest and acceptable on balance;

• Fish farming is of interest to tourists, who are generally keen to understand where their food comes from.

Comments in relation to other aquaculture development on Loch Etive

• There are already fish farms and numerous other enterprises on Loch Etive which demonstrates to local inhabitants that industry and amenity are not in conflict. The proposal has been amended to recognise these concerns and alleviate any impact.

• Dawnfresh already own the rights to have a Mussel Farm in this area. The visual impact of the proposed finfish farm on this site has been reduced compared with the previous application that was withdrawn following public consultation.

Objections

Application documentation and procedure, leases and licences

• There is no substantive difference between this new application and the previous one

and the revised proposal is no less damaging. It is puzzling that the Council should consider such a similar application. The way in which Dawnfresh have gone about changing their application is both underhand and symbolic of how they would go about their business on the loch;

• This development although smaller than the previous one will still have a detrimental effect to the Loch. I cannot help but think that the previous application was a bit of a red herring, in that the company was just trying its luck, knowing fine it would be rejected in the hope that a slightly smaller development would be accepted on its next application. It is a cynical approach by the developer to withdraw their last application and resubmit this only slightly smaller scheme which is still very unreasonable in size. It seems to have been submitted simply to try to wear down objectors through attrition;

• The applicant says he wants to grow the operations rather than consolidate them presenting the prospect of applications for further or larger installations;

• There is no detailed consolidation plan on the table from the applicants and their intentions are not clear in this regard;

• Insufficient consideration has been given by the applicants to alternatives having regard to their environmental effects and the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations;

• The new farm straddles the entrance to Sailean Ruadh as with the previous proposal but the submitted plans are unclear as to the location of the equipment, lines and moorings relative to the application site boundary;

• This revised application appears to differ from the earlier (unsatisfactory) application only in reducing the circumference of the enclosures from 100m to 80m. All other problems relating to the proposals remain. A reduction in the radius of each cage of less than 3 metres is visually of no consequence at all;

• I strongly object to any further licences being granted and would like unused licences revoked (the one nearest Airds Bay on the SW shore leading NW towards Airds Point).

• The fact that any fin fish farm leases have been granted in Loch Etive amounts to irresponsible incompetence and a wreckless lack of concern for the environment;

• The Friends of Loch Etive are critical of the applicant’s pre-application consultation with the local community referring to inadequate advertising, misleading information

and the inability to draw reliable conclusions;

• The Friends of Loch Etive do not consider that the consultation response issued by the Taynuilt Community Council is an accurate reflection of local opinion and that it therefore misrepresents the view of the local community. A complaint has been lodged with the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland that alleged failure on the part of community councillors to accord with due process and alleged misrepresentation of public opinion prejudices the proper consideration of this planning application;

• The Friends of Loch Etive have also pointed out that the majority of objectors are of local provenance, whilst the majority of supporters are from addresses outwith Argyll.

Comment: It is entirely legitimate for the applicants to submit a further application in response to shortcomings identified in respect of a previous proposal. The revised application has been advertised as a resubmission and has attracted significant levels of representation. The application is materially different in that two cages have been deleted from either end of the farm, the dimensions of the cages and the feed barge have been reduced, and the proposed biomass reduced from 2,500 tonnes to 1,500 tonnes. The application plans indicate accurately the extent of the seabed mooring area and the surface equipment area. The pre-application consultation carried out by the applicants was non-statutory (only applicable to ‘major’ applications) and voluntary on the applicant’s part so is not of direct relevance to the determination of the application. With the exception of the site east of Airds Point, all other aquaculture development (pre-2007) has been consented by the Crown Estate rather than the Council as Planning Authority. It is a matter for the Crown Estate to determine how it responds to the issue of unused lease consents. It is understood that the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life does not have a remit for the conduct of community councillors. Local community opinion about the proposal is expressed in individual representations (with addresses recorded in the appendix) as well as by the community councils. It is a matter for individual Members to decide what weight to accord to the various representations received, insofar as they are material to the determination of the application, and having regard to the substance of those representations and the addresses from which they have emanated.

Objections founded on planning policy considerations and duties of consultees

• Planning policy, existing Structure and Local Plans, the Loch Etive ICZM Plan and other relevant non-statutory plans and guidance all strongly suggest that this application should be rejected;

• The proposal should be regarded as a new site rather than a ‘brownfield’ location as suggested by the applicants. The recently completed ICZMP establishes a presumption against further aquaculture developments other than in the event of rationalisation/consolidation. This plan has been prepared following significant public

consultation and failure to adhere to it would fatally undermine is credibility;

• The proposal would be harmful to the angling and anchorage interests acknowledged by the Loch Etive ICZM Plan;

• It is noted that both SEPA and SNH are failing to lead on the important matters of controls and safeguards, whilst continually promoting the Scottish Government’s agenda of facilitating an ill-conceived commercial rural development regardless of environmental and scenic impacts. Argyll and Bute Council needs to properly safeguard our local environment and the existing fragile rural economy where these Government Agencies are still failing to strike proper balances.

Comment: Neither Local Plan policy LP AQUA1 nor the Loch Etive ICZM Plan presume against aquaculture in Loch Etive. Indeed, the latter supports the sustainable operation of mussel and trout farming in the loch. Within Policy Zone D future development opportunity is however confined to the rationalisation and consolidation of existing sites, rather than by way of the establishment of new sites, in order to limit landscape and cumulative impacts which could arise from the inappropriate proliferation of multiple shellfish and finfish farms. It is a matter for individual consultees to determine how to respond to development proposals in the light of their particular remits.

Objections related to pollution considerations

• There is already a serious environmental concern over pollution in the Loch because of the Loch’s exceptionally narrow entrance and relatively small tidal flush - to have so many fish farms can only be detrimental to water quality and marine environment. Emptying and filling of Loch Etive does not occur normally as with other sea lochs because of the Falls of Lora. It therefore seems foolish to consider increasing the concentrations of nitrogenous waste from the fish and uneaten feed within the water. The mussel fishermen are already trying to rectify one environmental disaster - let's not create another;

• Concerns regarding pollution of a beautiful loch caused by a build-up of uneaten food, medication against disease and the possibility of chemical treatments being used to treat sea lice

• Concerns are expressed about the chemicals used to control sea lice. Although the applicants say they have only used them once, they may be required by legislation to use them if lice become too numerous. No one can say for certain what will happen with lice when much larger numbers of fish are caged.

• Pollution caused by this proposal will finish off the wild mussels in the loch.

• The Loch can be described as having a very special assemblage of plants and animals, which must surely be in danger from the pollution inevitably associated with large fish farms.

• Loch Etive is not being re-supplied with sea water as with most sea lochs, and pollution and disease must pose an increased relative risk for wild fish stocks.

• The large amount of fresh water entering the loch coupled with the restricted flow of salt water make Loch Etive a unique and hydrologically complex habitat, especially its upper basin. It would be surprising if the models used by SEPA to predict water flow and subsequent pollutant dispersal took the effects of this unique situation into account. Pollutants entering the slower moving saltier water may not be dispersed as readily as the models suggest.

• The River Awe will be in serious threat from the pollution, disease and escape of farmed trout.

• Data from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has found that almost two thirds of marine fish farms are either unsatisfactory or borderline in their level of seabed pollution;

• SEPA have experienced problems with the operation of the applicant’s farms on Loch Etive due to borderline benthic classifications, biomass limits being exceeded and the operation of sites with different cage configurations to those modelled;

• The cumulative impact of the pollution that will be caused by this proposal must be considered in conjunction with all the other rainbow trout farm operations in Loch Etive, and particularly the impact on the protected priority sea-bed habitats that will be further degraded as a huge new area of the sea-bed is smothered by organic wastes from the farm

• Lice pollution, benthic impact and escapees have caused massive damage to the most beautiful parts of Scotland and its ecosystems

• The World leaders of fin fish farming, the Norwegians, never (in Norway) site fin fish farms between the mouth of a salmon river and the sea - as is the case in Loch Etive.

• There are sufficient fish farms in Argyll, some of which have already cause considerable environmental damage. Monitoring of the existing farms by public authorities would appear to have fallen short of the standard required.

Comments: Scottish Planning Policy makes it clear that the pollution control regime is separate to the land use planning system and that Planning Authorities should not seek to

duplicate controls exercisable under separate statutory powers by other regulatory bodies. In this case Marine Scotland and SEPA have considered the application in the light of Scottish Government Locational Guidelines which look at cumulative benthic impact and nutrient enhancement in enclosed water bodies. Both of these statutory consultees have concluded that the addition of the proposed new farm would not change the existing lowest risk category status of Loch Etive modelled both as the entire loch and treating the lower loch as a single water body. SEPA have responsibility pollution control in relation to the operation of individual sites and consider the impact of a new site in relation to existing sites. A CAR licence has already granted by SEPA for 2,500 tonnes peak biomass at this site, which is in excess of the 1,500 tonnes proposed to be held in association with this lesser scaled proposal. Monitoring of the operational aspects of sites related to the CAR licence and fish health is conducted by SEPA and Marine Scotland’s Fish Health Inspectorate.

Objections related to amenity considerations

• Light and noise pollution would be a major concern especially for those across the loch, the prevailing winds coming from the south/south west.

• In the tranquil setting of Loch Etive the noise from this development will be particularly intrusive and disturbing, all the more so as noise travels a considerable distance over still water.

• Sound will also travel over water from feeders and seal scarers continuously day and night, causing disturbance to residents sleep at night.

• The huge cages which are being considered for this site will probably create an awful smell.

• The illumination of floodlights would ruin the tranquillity at night and cause nuisance and intrusion of privacy to locals in their own homes as light carries over water with added glare.

• The required navigation lighting will introduce additional intrusion at night.

Comments: As noise propagates over water there will be operational aspects of the site which will be audible at a distance. However, these are not expected to amount to a noise nuisance and the Council’s Environmental Health Officers have not objected to the proposal on grounds of disturbance to residential amenity. Operational lighting can be controlled by way of condition. Working on the site will not take place at night so there will be no need for night-time illumination other than for navigation safety. Navigational lighting is prescribed by the Northern Lighthouse Board. Odour is not a problem associated with the normal operation of fish farm sites.

Objections in respect of traffic

• It would create a substantial increase in heavy traffic on roads which are already fragile and barely suitable for light traffic, this in itself creating significant air pollution.

• There would be endless disruption from traffic with very fast truck drivers on the Inverawe and Taynuilt Roads.

• At the junction of the Inverawe road onto the A85 the visibility to the west is very much inhibited by the parapet of the bridge and the traffic travels very fast on this section of the road.

Comments: The farm will be constructed, stocked, operated and harvested by sea. In particular regular feed deliveries to the feed barge will be by boat. There will only be limited additional vehicle movements to and from the Inverawe shore base and the Council’s Roads Engineer has not objected to the proposal on access or road safety grounds.

Objections in respect of marine and nature conservation interests

• Loch Etive is a unique environment to not only Scotland and the UK but the world. It has many as yet unregistered subspecies of fauna, fish and bird life and the well documented impact of a fish farm of this size would be devastating to biodiversity;

• The loch constitutes a unique natural ecosystem, being supplied as it is with an abundant input of fresh water, while yet being constricted in its supply of salt water. The ecological and scientific importance of the loch is well understood - it is a designated Marine Conservation Area and is wreathed with Special Areas of Conservation, SSSIs and Special Protection Areas. It has been acknowledged as one of the most sensitive sea Loch in Scotland to oxygen depletion, and the warmer water temperatures and increased numbers of high intensity rainfall events caused by climate change are likely to increase this pressure on the loch. • Fish farms, especially when present in some numbers, must pose a real threat to wildlife like seals, otters, and certain birds through control measures aimed at protecting farmed fish stocks;

• The area of the loch in question is home to families of otters, a hunting ground for migrant ospreys and sea eagles. It is also virtually adjacent to the active seal colony on Sgeri Nan Ron and colonies of breeding sea birds on Eilan Faoileog;

• Otters are an interest of the adjacent Etive Woods SAC. As they are pisciveous they are likely to be attracted to the site with the risk of entanglement in nets. The use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices at the site also poses the risk of disturbance. Permission should not be granted in the event of reasonable scientific doubt’ as to the effects upon SAC qualifying interests in line with European case law;

• The Golden Eagles and Osprey of Loch Etive as well need to have a preserved environment to flourish;

• Common and harbour seals are present in the area and are likely to be attracted to the site. Predation poses a risk of mass escape incidents. Seal control entails the use of acoustic devices which are detrimental to the interests of a range of wildlife. Dawnfresh as a company according to government figures has had to resort to the licenced shooting of 9 seals at its sites in 2001-12;

• Ducks can caught up in predator nets and gulls and gannets caught in top nets can be a problem;

• There is also evidence that keepers at fish farms are shooting at ospreys. While a criminal act, fish farms and game keepers are not known for their respect for the law or wildlife;

• There has been a recent report of porpoises entering Loch Etive for the first time for some years. Cetaceans are at risk from disturbance from the operation of the site, particularly in the event of the deployment of Acoustic Deterrent Devices;

• There is a clear risk to the health, feeding grounds and general habitat of many different types of wildlife and a strong likelihood of an increased rate of mass fish escapes from the cages resulting in the culling of local seals to safeguard the cages. Additionally there is a well-known seal colony on that would find the farm irresistible giving Dawnfresh every right to shoot them.

Comments: Scottish Natural Heritage has not objected to the proposal on nature conservation grounds subject to recommended conditions. The accompanying Habitats Regulations ‘Appropriate Assessment’ has concluded that notwithstanding any disturbance to individuals associated with the operation of the site, the proposal will not have unacceptable consequences for designated interests at population level within the Loch Etive Woods SAC.

Objections in relation to landscape, visual and amenity, and historic environment considerations

• Loch Etive is a national asset in terms of its beauty, tranquillity and world-famous views of Ben Cruachan and the surrounding hills. The siting completely destroys one of the iconic views of the area that is of Ben Cruachan with the woods of Airds point and Loch Etive in the foreground.

• The proposal contributes to an unacceptable creeping industrialisation of the loch with adverse landscape and visual implications for an area of scenic and tourism value. Existing temporary leases for aquaculture sites have already been made permanent development consents, without public consultation, via the Scottish Government’s ‘Audit and Review’ process relating to historic aquaculture sites;

• It would be a tragedy if the classic view across Loch Etive, towards Ben Cruachan, was disfigured by the huge cages, as proposed. This famous view is seen in calendars and books all over the world, showcasing the very essence of Scotland. Argyll is privileged to have such a gift within its boundary, surely one of the most beautiful natural landscapes in the world.

• The proposed farm will be a visual intrusion on one of Scotland’s iconic Lochs. Dawnfresh’s own photo-montages demonstrate this, especially when viewed from the Ardchattan (north) shore of the Loch, and from Glen Salach which is one of Scotland’s most beautiful glens.

• Quite apart from the visual impact on the immediate neighbours to the south, the biggest visual impact will be on the outlook on the north bank around the historically important site of Ardchattan Priory. From this medieval and much visited point, the view will be completely changed.

• At present, any commercial activities on the loch have been sufficiently low key, or tucked away, so as not to spoil the landscape impact or create waste issues, but the proposed fish farm is too large and too intrusive. In some areas fish farms fit in with the scale of the landscape, but Loch Etive is not one of those areas that can absorb a development of this kind. There are enough scars on our landscape with wind farms and fish farms.

• Changing light and reflections on water mean that this will create a far greater visual impact than a development on dry land and of course it cannot be camouflaged or hidden.

• The wood at Airds Park is of special interest as native broadleaved woodland and also historically interesting as harvested by the C18 Bonawe furnace workings. Already one side of these formerly secluded woodlands is bordered by a visually intrusive fish farm;

• The proposal fails to preserve or enhance the special interest of Ardchatten Priory and Gardens as a historic environment asset of importance.

Comments: The scenic qualities of Loch Etive relative to its mountainous setting are recognised and there is a balance to be struck between the maintenance of landscape character and sustainable exploitation of the productive capacity of loch for shellfish and finfish farming. The Loch Etive ICZM Plan expresses the opinion that this central section of the loch is approaching capacity for aquaculture development in terms of landscape considerations and that further development would be best secured by way of the rationalisation and consolidation of existing sites. Although a mussel lease would be

superseded by the granting of this proposal on the same site,that in itself is not considered to release capacity insofar as the proposed finfish equipment would exert greater visual influence on its surroundings than the longline floats. With that in mind, it is recommended that permission should only be granted in the event that existing finfish farming equipment is removed from elsewhere in the loch. The applicants have offered to remove the existing site at Etive 1 (Inverawe West) which will afford some cumulative benefits across the loch as a whole. However, in order to ensure that some benefit from the removal of equipment accrues in ICZM Plan Policy Zone D it is also recommended that a commitment also be secured for the removal of other equipment at Etive 5 (Ardchattan Bay), which is closer to and inter-visible with the application proposal. This would also serve to enhance the setting of the historic assets Ardchatten by virtue of the removal of fish cages from the foreground of views over the loch.

Objections in relation to recreation and tourism interests

• Loch Etive offers some of the most beautiful scenery in Scotland and is a big pull for tourists to the area. The villages of Taynuilt, Kilchrenan and Loch Etive itself rely heavily on this traffic;

• The effect that this development will have on the visual environment is obvious to anyone, and ultimately, this can only adversely affect our major industry, tourism. The loch is of attraction both to people who live close to it as well as to tourists;

• Loch Etive should be preserved as a heritage site, as it has a rich history and strong associations in local folklore. It should be a source of pride for locals, and a place of adventure for tourists. This place has much more potential than is being realised at present, which could be destroyed by the ignorance and insensitivity of incoming big businesses;

• Apart from the desecration of a superb natural environment, employment related to tourism is hugely significant to the area and surely outweighs any marginal claims regarding employment relating to this development. The development will not create new jobs and may well threaten other jobs related to tourism and recreation along with economic and regeneration activity at Muckairn. There is no evidence that the suggested apprenticeships would be directly attributable to the development of this site. Whilst economic activity is a material consideration, the business plans of Dawnfresh are not. the development would be to the benefit of Dawnfresh but at the expense of the local community;

• The proposal will have an impact on the existing users of the loch such as sailing, kayaking, walking, photography, nature conservation, tourism and other recreational use of Etive and most importantly fishing. Tourism makes a huge contribution to the economy of Argyll & Bute. A large fish farm will certainly detract from the 'wilderness' look of the loch;

• This development will ruin one of the nicest anchorages on the Loch, by making it very difficult to access, as well as by destroying the visual amenity once one is there. The Scottish Government is trying to promote boating, as is Argyll and Isles Tourism;

• One of the reasons to visit Scotland, and for some live here is its natural beauty and peace and tranquillity. If visitors stop travelling to the area because of developments like these, it will be many more who suffer from a lack of trade - holiday homes, pubs, cafes, castles & gardens, transport companies etc, just to name a few;

• Tourists will be deterred from the area with a very negative impact on all those businesses that are already having a tough time with the recession and the price of fuel. Oban is already looking ‘tired’ it does not need any industrialisation on one of its most attractive and wild places;

• Such a proposal will permanently reduce or impede access for the leisure activities and the scale is such that passage of traffic on the Loch will be much reduced. Etive is one of the most beautiful lochs in the country used for sailing, sea fishing, canoeing and site seeing;

• The proximity of the proposed farm (in an already heavily farmed area) to the Airds Bay beaches gives cause for concern. These beaches are used regularly by many members of the public, including those partaking in water sports such as kayaking;

• The local area is a magnet to fishers from the whole country; they come here for the good fishing and fantastic views and tranquillity. Loch Etive is renowned for its angling, and fishermen travel here for hundreds, indeed thousands, of miles, many from abroad, not just to catch prize specimens but also because they can do this surrounded by magnificent scenery and peace and quiet. Catering for this is actually a sizeable industry itself and should not be compromised;

• Loch Etive is one of the Scottish west coasts most important and popular lochs for visiting by sea kayakers, certainly amongst the top five in the country. Sea kayaking has expanded enormously over the past few years, drawing visitors from all over the U.K., Europe, and further afield, to Scotland. These visitors spend money, on accommodation and food etc., even if camping whilst actually paddling. Loch Etive appears highly commended in several canoeing and kayaking guide books, due to its scenery, and high mountain tops at the head of the glen;

• Paddling on lochs requires safety considerations, and these structures, usually, require an exclusion zone, many pushing kayakers away from the shore. The main safety feature for kayakers on the coast or in sea lochs is to be able to hug the shore, so that a quick landing may be made in the event of poor weather. A feature of the west coast is very changeable weather, and making quick decisions in such situations

is imperative;

• This fish farm would ruin scuba diving on the loch;

• Loch Etive is at the centre of the leisure boating map for the west of Scotland. This sector has been booming for 50 years. It is environmentally friendly and a mainstay of the tourism industry. This farm will impede sailing and boating in Loch Etive;

• Tours in the SS Ossian paddle steamer and its successors ran from Achnacloich to the head of the loch from Victorian times through to the 1960s. This proposal could prejudice potential future tourism initiatives.

Comment: The scenic qualities and associated tourism value and recreational potential of Loch Etive are evident and accepted. The implications of fish farming for these interests are difficult to quantify reliably. Aquaculture co-exists with recreation and tourism interests elsewhere in Argyll and Bute, including sites located in National Scenic Areas. Developments with significant adverse landscape implications can be expected to have undesirable consequences for recreation and tourism, so there is a need to secure development in the aquaculture sector which is not of an inappropriate scale, which is not located insensitively and which does not produce unacceptable cumulative impacts; in the interests of ensuring that landscape character is not undermined and the interests of tourism are respected. Support for this proposal by officers is founded upon the committed removal of existing fish farm equipment from two other locations in order that unacceptable cumulative impact does not arise.

Objections in respect of navigation interests

• Fish farms cause navigation hazards in the form of discarded unsecured mooring debris as well as obsolete secured mooring lines often unbouyed and invisible to water traffic. This proposal will interfere with the navigation rights of all users of the loch.

• The surface equipment area is vastly greater than that of the original mussel site and would exclude creelers, recreational anglers, yachts and kayaks and would impede legitimate navigable access by water to Sailean Ruadh;

• The proposal would prejudice use of an anchorage used over many decades; in certain conditions, the anchorage provides an important refuge. The application drawings give the impression that the facility will block navigation access to Sailean Ruadh. Continued and unimpeded access to the anchorage should be maintained.

Comment: The revised application has been amended following discussion with yachting

interests to ensure that access is maintained to the anchorage at Sailean Ruadh. Navigation considerations will be addressed by way of a subsequent Marine Licence application to Marine Scotland in the event that planning permission is granted, to which public representations may be made..

Objection in relation to impact on wild fish and their habitats

• Loch Etive is a loch under pressure, the native sea trout and salmon populations have been decimated, the edible mussel population is no longer viable, the mussels are as good as extinct, many of the bays which were accessible to sport fisherman and sailors have been blocked off.

• Loch Etive and its feeder rivers are famous for the quality of their salmon and sea trout Fish farms of this nature must pose a real risk to native salmonids living in and around the Loch. There are 10 rivers in the Etive catchment that support salmon populations. The conservation of the wild salmon is of the utmost importance from an ecological, environmental and tourism economy standpoints.

• Loch Etive is virtually an inland sea and a vital part of the migration route of wild salmonids to the Awe and Orchy rivers/lochs - the largest runs on the west of Scotland. It is a disease and genetic risk to have rainbow trout farmed in this location.

• The magnificent River Awe has already suffered severely from the proliferation of mussel and salmon farms near its mouth on Loch Etive and any further development of these activities which have also greatly degraded the environment in Loch Etive itself, will in turn reduce catches and should be strongly resisted.

• The Awe river ecosystem has already been seriously damaged by escaped rainbow trout from aquaculture (including Dawnfresh), and as such there should be no finfish farms in the catchment. Escapees pose a threat to wild trout and salmon, out competing juveniles for food and territory, direct predation of juveniles and eggs and the risk of disease transmission. The rivers running into the loch are prime breeding grounds for wild salmon, all of which must travel past the fish farms situated on the loch when entering or leaving. This puts them at risk of picking up infections and sea lice from the captive fish and predation by escaped fish. Dawnfresh have an exceptionally poor record for containing their fish, and escapees from existing fish farms have already been found invading salmon rivers and eating the wild parr.

• Rainbow trout are not native to Scotland and escapes have had a damaging effect on our native fish populations. The history of containment at sites operated by Dawnfresh is poor and this large new farm greatly increases the risk of rainbow trout getting into the wild and predating or competing with our native fauna. There will be damaging impacts on the benthic communities around the cages, and the risks of disease transfer from caged to wild fish are poorly understood.

• There are serious concerns about the number of escapee rainbow trout that continue to be present in the river system. These fish have a serious impact on wild trout and salmon, out competing juveniles for food and territory, direct predation of juveniles and eggs and the risk of disease transmission. It is alarming that the problem of escapee fish has not been resolved with current fish farming levels before considering increasing them.

• Escapees compete for food and predate juveniles and become a management problem impacting on angling amenity and fishery value. Evidence of escapes is overwhelming – eight events in Loch Etive since 2007 with in excess of 11,000 recorded escapees, and one event with unrecorded numbers, plus other escape incidents from the applicant’s farms in Loch Awe. Interaction with wild fish is a planning consideration and is not addressed by SEPA;

• Large concentrations of farmed salmon as proposed by this plan are well known to interfere with the migration of wild Atlantic salmon, and the native salmon population entering the rivers emptying into loch Etive will be seriously negatively affected by this plan.

• Taking into account that salmon are a native species to Scotland and the proposed site is to introduce a non-native species this could wreak havoc on the eco systems, salmon/ sea trout and brown trout numbers may fall with the rainbows eating the younger fish if any rainbow trout escaped not to mention the other types of wildlife that thrive in the local eco system.

• Damage is not only done to migratory fish - most of the damage is done to juvenile fish present in the loch in vast numbers to which Loch Etive is their nursery. There are at least 4 burns/rivers within 1km of the proposed site that have finnock/slob/sea trout populations.

• The facts are these farms create havens for fish parasites that then infect free fish. The growth in algae and marine plants will be affected unnaturally by feeds pumped into the farms and ultimately the sea bed will be altered by effluent and faeces from the farm. This will have knock on effects for the bio-diversity of the area. Loch Etive already has small areas of environmental impact from marine farming.

• Until there is better information about interactions between farm fish and the environment consideration should not be given to consenting large farms in inshore areas where their impact will be greatest.

• Loch Etive has already been involved in an ecological disaster & has not recovered from the alien species of mussel that was introduced to the Loch. What happens if the boats associated with the transportation/keeping of the fish introduce other dangerous or alien species to the loch?

• The fin fish farms in Loch Etive between the mouth of the river Awe and the sea damage the whole water system of the river Awe, Loch Awe, the river Orchy and all rivers flowing into Loch Awe also the river Nant and the Loch Nant water system.

• The slow rate of change of the water in Loch Etive with its unusual brackish water and restricted tidal inflow means that the relatively high number of existing fish farms have already adversely affected the biodiversity of the loch. Mussels and other bivalves as well as limpets, formerly common, are now scarce. Blooms appear on the water which they did not formerly and affect the amenity use of the loch.

• Infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) an infectious viral disease of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). ISA virus can replicate in rainbow trout (oncorhynchus mykiss) and sea trout (Salmo trutta). The overwhelming majority of cases of ISA occur in farmed fish in sea water. Species susceptible to infectious salmon anaemia that exist in the natural environment in Scotland include: Clupea harengus (Atlantic herring); Gadus morhua (Atlantic cod); Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon); Salmo trutta (sea / brown trout); Salvelinus alpinus (Arctic char) The native populations of these fish are already in serious decline, adding another threat is environmentally irresponsible.

• The loch is home to a unique sub species of Spurdog, these being very dark in colour compared to open sea specimens; the waste would surely have ill effect upon them.

• This location has provided an important habitat for starfish, which are identified for protection under the Strategy for Scottish Invertebrate Conservation. These invertebrates appear to be already in decline, possibly as a result of existing marine farming activity in the vicinity.

• Steelhead Salmon, the anadromous variety of Rainbow trout is one of the Pacific salmon and not native to Scottish waters. However, escapees can live in both fresh and salt water and will colonise the rivers entering loch Etive as well as remain in the loch itself.

Comments: Rainbow trout farming is a long-established activity in Loch Etive notwithstanding its relationship with wild salmonid interests associated with the River Awe catchment. The most significant potential for interaction in this case is as a consequence of inadvertent escape events, which could pose a threat to the integrity and the reputational value of this important salmon fishery. Whilst equipment and operating practices to industry standards are to be employed at this new site in order to minimise risk of escapes, inevitably the holding of fish in greater numbers in the loch poses an increased threat to wild fish interests. The removal of existing fish cages, including those at Etive 1 closest to the mouth of the River Awe, constitutes credible mitigation for this. There is no evidence that fin fish farming has adversely affected shellfish interests in the loch.

Objection in relation to existing fish farm infrastructure

• Loch Etive already has a considerable development of mixed aquaculture sites condensed into a relatively small area and the proposal to place another, very large, fish farm in the lower part of the loch would be similar to allowing a built up industrial development in an area of outstanding natural beauty;.

• Dawnfresh already have five farms situated on the loch and do not need a sixth - this is over industrialisation of an area of outstanding natural beauty and can only have a negative impact on tourism and the local economy. A balance has to be struck between the industrialisation of the loch and leaving some areas untouched. This project should not be approved as it will upset this equilibrium;

• The applicant has a poor record of escapes and failure to satisfy SEPA requirements. An alleged breach of planning control over the operation of the applicant’s site at Etive 4 has already been drawn to the Council’s attention;

• At least two of the fish farms in the loch only got permission because of change of use from mussel farms as they tried to do with this proposed farm. There are a large number of unused mussel farms on the loch which can be turned into fish farms which is what Dawnfresh will do;

• The aftermath of the mussel industry in loch Etive has already had a devastating effect on the loch and its shores. At this moment there are cages and other discarded waste from the mussel farms lying all over the area;

• The consequences of other businesses that were allowed to exploit the resources of the Loch are evident - they have not been decommissioned and are a dreadful eyesore and obstacle to navigation for existing and future generations.

Comment: The applicants cannot be held responsible for the actions or inactions of the shellfish sector. The track record of the applicants and any breaches of control relative to their existing sites are matters for the various regulators, including the Council as Planning Authority, but ought not to influence the acceptability of the current proposal. The application should be determined on its own merits irrespective of any subsequent proposals which may or may not emerge, prompting the requirement for further application and separate consideration.

Objections in relation to the siting of the proposal

• There are many other locations which could host this farm in sheltered coastal locations; the vast length of Argyll is hardly used up. Siting it on Loch Etive is not necessary, nor is it a sensible use of the tourism resource which the loch represents.

• The applicants have failed to consider alternatives satisfactorily in the light of the effect of the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations. Their contention that a site within Loch Etive is essential disregards the fact that the company also produces trout in river-side systems and at Loch Slapin on the Isle of Skye;

• Fish farms can be positioned in areas that are not easily accessible to the general public; however, this may be at additional cost to the developer. It is considered that the positioning of this farm is the cheapest option with little or no thought for any other aspect, be it community or tourism.

• These fish farms should be further out at sea. To disperse pollutants and guard local rivers from being colonised by escapees. Escapees eat the fry of the wild stock of fish which so many government bodies are trying to protect

• This type of fish farm is antiquated and unnecessary, modern fish farming can be done on land without the need to further pollute our waters, with the risk of escapees, faecal matter, and/or spread of lice.

Comment: Consideration should be confined to the application at hand. The applicants have explained why the proposal requires to be located in Loch Etive in order to address operational shortcomings of the existing suite of sites, the need to function alongside those existing sites, to have regard to the location of the existing shorebase, and the desirability of building upon the established Loch Etive trout brand.

Suggested matters to be addressed by conditions in the event permission is granted

• In the event of any such development being permitted, there should be binding obligations as to clearance and re-instatement of the loch once the company ceases trading. The boating anchorage at Sailean Ruadh is already affected by concrete blocks and buoys abandoned by previous mussel farming and other business start- ups.

Comment: It is a standard requirement imposed upon aquaculture planning permissions that redundant equipment is removed once sites are no longer in production. However, mussel farming was consented by the Crown Estate prior to the extension of planning control to marine fish farms in 2007 and it is the Crown Estate’s responsibility as lessor to ensure that its tenants remove abandoned or stranded equipment. In the event of a new lease being granted by the Crown Estate for finfish farming on the application site the existing shellfish lease would be terminated.

Comments received from the applicant in relation to third party reresentations

In letters dated 23 rd July and 2 nd August 2013 in response to objections, the applicants

comment that:

• The website established by the Friends of Loch Etive has been responsible for misinformation which may have misled contributors to the planning process. The content of the site is in part inaccurate, misleading or highly subjective and also relates to matters which are not material to this application;

• It is understood that the Friends of Loch Etive has circulated a leaflet to the local community with a less than representative montage of the fish farm on a photograph of the loch with Ben Cruachan in the background. The photograph, which appears to have been taken from the loch in proximity to the site, represents a location which would not be routinely viewed by residents or visitors. It does not reflect the location, orientation, scale or layout of what has been applied for and will have misled third parties who may have based their objection upon its content.

NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should note that the consultation responses and letters of representation referred to in this report, have been summarised and that the full consultation response or letter of representations are available on request.

Members particular attention is drawn to a 70 page representation against the proposal submitted by the Friends of Loch Etive (dated 15.08.13). Whilst the main grounds of objection are summarised above, the limitations of the committee reporting process do not enable the totality of the detailed matters to be listed in full. This document along with the application drawings, application form, consultation responses, other correspondence and all letters of representations are available for viewing on the Council web site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: Yes

(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations Yes, this forms Appendix C to 1994: this report.

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

(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed Yes: development e.g. Retail impact, transport Planning Statement June 2013 impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage Company Environmental Policy impact etc: Statement; Escape Contingency Plan; Predator Control Plan; Veterinary Health Plan; Otter Surveys;

Assessment of Impact upon Birds; Hydrographic and Site Survey Report; Biomass & Treatment Modelling Reports; Baseline Benthic Survey; Visual Seabed Surveys; Wave Height Calculations; Equipment Attestations; Landscape Assessment.

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

Is a Section 75 agreement Yes – A legal agreement is required to secure the required: deferred removal of fish farming equipment from the site at Etive 5 (Ardchattan Bay) in part mitigation for the proposal.

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

(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application

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

‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002

STRAT DC 5 – Development in Sensitive Countryside

STRAT DC 7 – Nature Conservation and Development Control

STRAT DC 8 – Landscape and Development Control

STRAT DC 9 – Historic Environment and Development Control

‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2009

LP ENV 1 – Impact on the General Environment

LP ENV 2 – Impact on Biodiversity

LP ENV 3 – Development Impact upon European and Ramsar Sites

LP ENV 6 – Impact on Habitats and Species

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

LP ENV 11 – Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes

LP ENV 12 – Water Quality and Environment

LP ENV 19 – Development setting, layout and design

LP CST 2 – Coastal Development on the Undeveloped Coast

LP AQUA 1 – Shell Fish and Fin Fish Farming

Expresses general support for fish farming subject to there being no significant adverse effect on a range of specified considerations; those relevant in this instance being:

1. Communities, settlements and their settings; 2. Landscape character, scenic quality and visual amenity; 4. National Scenic Areas and Areas of Panoramic Quality; 5. Statutorily protected nature conservation sites, habitats or species, including priority species and important seabird colonies along with wild fish populations; 6. Navigational interests 8. Sites of historic or archaeological interest and their settings 9. Recreational interests 11. Existing aquaculture sites 12. Water quality

This support is further conditional on the proposals being consistent with any coastal framework plan in place, the other policies of the Development Plan and Scottish Executive Strategic Framework Guidelines.

Appendix A – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles

‘Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan – Loch Etive’ (Argyll & Bute Council March 2011)

LE GEN 1 – Development and Activity

LE AQ1 – Aquaculture Development and management

Pollicy Zone D – Policy Guidance

(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.

‘Scottish Planning Policy’ (2010)

Circular 6/1995 ‘European Protected Species, Development Sites and the Planning System’ and revised Scottish Government Guidance June 2000

Circular 1/2007 ‘Planning Controls for Marine Fish Farming’

Planning Advice Note 1/2013 ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’.

Scottish Executive – ‘Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish Farms in Scottish Waters’ (2003 and updated June 2009 and December 2012)

‘A Fresh Start – the Renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture’ (Scottish Government 2009)

‘Guidance on Landscape/Seascape Capacity for Aquaculture’ (SNH 2008)

‘Landscape/Seascape Capacity Study for Loch Etive’ (SNH 2010)

‘Siting & Design of Marine Aquaculture Developments in the Landscape’ (SNH 2011)

‘Argyll & Firth Of Clyde Landscape Character Assessment’ (SNH 1996)

‘Argyll & Bute Local Biodiversity Action Plan’ (Argyll & Bute Council)

(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No – Requirement for EIA determined by Screening and Scoping Opinion issued in July 2012 (12/00748SCRSCO)

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

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

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

(O) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): Yes - it is recommended that a discretionary pre-determination hearing be convened in response to the number of representations received from third parties and the complexity of the issues raised.

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

The proposal seeks permission for the installation of a marine finfish development of 10 No. 80m circumference (25.5m diameter) cages and a feed/service barge to be utilised for

the production of farmed rainbow trout, in association with a suite of existing sites of varying sizes which are farmed elsewhere on the loch by the applicants for this purpose.

The application site lies off the south coast of the central section of Loch Etive to the west of Airds Point, which lies to the west of Taynuilt some 7km to the east of the Connel Bridge. Although the equipment which the applicants have acquired from previous operators in administration has been upgraded, and management arrangements improved, the operation as a whole still suffer s from the shortcomings associated with range of inherited sites of different scales, which do not lend themselves to the applicant’s desire to secure a systematic programme of rotation/fallowing between sites, in order to be able to secure year round production to meet customer demands. The applicants therefore have an aspiration to improve operational efficiencies by ultimately consolidating their production into three similar sized sites and to increase overall production to meet growing demand. The loch is the subject of a large number of shellfish farm consents in addition to trout farms, although most of these are currently fallowed in a bid to eradicate an invasive non- commercial mussel species. One of these shellfish leases is located within the application site and this would be superseded in the event that this finfish application was to be granted.

Current government economic and sectoral policy is to seek to expand the finfish sector substantially to meet internal and export demands and to help sustain direct and indirect employment in rural areas, with a stated aspiration to increase production from 162,000 tonnes in 2011 to 210,000 tonnes in 2020. Government planning policy is to support the expansion of marine fish farming where it can take place in environmental sustainable locations, where it does not exceed the carrying capacity of the water body within which it is to be located, and where it does not give rise to significant adverse effects upon nature conservation, wild fish, historic environment or other commercial or recreational water users.

Planning Authorities are cautioned not to duplicate controls exercised by SEPA and Marine Scotland in their assessment of proposals. A SEPA CAR licence has already been consented for biomass in excess of that to be held at this site, and in terms of the carrying capacity of the water body as a whole Marine Scotland has confirmed that the proposal will not degrade the current favourable Locational Guideline status of the loch in terms of its ability to absorb further aquaculture development satisfactorily.

Loch Etive benefits from an up to date Integrated Coastal Management Plan approved in 2011 which constitutes supplementary guidance to the adopted development plan, and which assumes significant weight as a material consideration in the determination of this application as a result. This reviews the competing development and other pressures on the various section of the loch and formulates a policy response, having regard amongst other things to the preceding Scottish Natural Heritage landscape/seascape capacity study for aquaculture in the loch and extensive consultation with stakeholders as part of the plan- making process. It seeks to sustain both mussel and trout farming in the loch, but recognises that the multiplicity of sites presents cumulative landscape constraints which require future expansion of the aquaculture sector to be considered with care, in order to avoid sites in inappropriate numbers, or unsuitably located or scaled sites, which could

undermine landscape character and the acknowledged scenic qualities of Loch Etive. Within the central zone of the loch where the application site is situated, the ICZM plan establishes a presumption against the establishment of new sites, and identifies the consolidation and rationalisation of sites across the sector as the most appropriate means of increasing production.

This application has been submitted without proposals for the removal of any of the existing trout farm sites, and only entails the loss of the existing mussel lease. The applicant’s position is that they are in part fettered by the effect of leasing arrangements they have with the original Crown Estate head leaseholders which require them to continue operating them and to maintain them as on-gong assets, and that they are not inclined to surrender existing assets acquired relatively recently at significant cost to the company.

Consultees are content with the proposal with the exception of Scottish Natural Heritage, the District Salmon Fishery Board, North Connel and Ardchattan Community Councils. Taynuilt Community Council actively supports the proposal. SNH has not objected to the proposal as there are no significantly adverse European or national interests which pertain, but they have raised concerns in terms of adverse landscape impacts. The DSFB is concerned as the prospect of inadvertent escapes presenting a reputational risk to the important River Awe salmon fishery , as a result of potential incursion by farmed fish presenting a threat to the direct and indirect economic value of the fishery. Objections to the proposal have been received from 587 third parties and 215 expressions of support have been received, between them prompting the requirement for a discretionary pre- determination hearing.

The presence of otter as a qualifying interest of the nearby Loch Etive Woods European Special Area of Conservation affords the prospect of significant effects on this species which has prompted the requirement for a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’. This forms Appendix B to this report which concludes that the construction and operation of the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC in the light of its conservation objectives..

The addition of a new finfish farm on the scale proposed will contribute to the cumulative impact of aquaculture in the loch and will impinge on landscape character and visual amenity. The presence of additional cages, despite the best endeavours of the applicants to equip and operate the site to industry code of good practice guidance, also presents an increased risk of an inadvertent mass escape incident due to predation, equipment failure, operator error, severe weather or foul play. Consequently, landscape and visual impacts and wild fish interactions are the primary areas of concern in the adjudication of this application.

In the absence of measures to consolidate and rationalise existing sites in order to assist in the mitigation of, and to release capacity for, new development, the proposal as submitted fails to satisfy ICZM or adopted development plan policy. However, the applicants case for the expansion of capacity in a manner which improves operational efficiencies, enables the year round demands of customers to be met, and enhances fish welfare and containment, whilst also satisfying SEPA’s statutory fallowing requirements, is one which is accepted.

Accordingly, whilst the proposal as submitted is not consistent with either planning policy or the loch specific response to future development pressures set out in the ICZM plan, were it possible to surrender existing smaller sites in exchange for the applicant’s aspiration to move towards three larger sites of similar capacity, then this would represent credible mitigation, both in terms of the presence of the additional equipment in the landscape and terms of risk to the wild salmon fishery associated with the holding of additional biomass.

For that reason, the response in this case is to pursue the approach commended by the Loch Etive ICZM Plan, which is to seek to release development capacity by way of the consideration and rationalisation of existing sites. It is therefore recommended that any approval of this application should only be on the basis of the applicant’s agreement to the programmed removal of equipment from Ardchattan Bay and Inverawe West. These sites are both of small capacity at 350 tonnes and 250 tonnes peak biomass respectively when compared with application proposal at 1,500 tonnes. Given that Inverawe West is used primarily for temporary holding rather than production, it is suggested that this should be removed once the application equipment is first stocked. Ardchattan Bay is subject to a contractual agreement with the head leaseholder that it should continue to be actively farmed until the expiry of the applicant’s lease in 2017. The mussel lease on the application site will also be superseded if the Crown Estate concludes a subsequent lease for the application proposal. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Ardchattan Bay equipment be permanently removed on the cessation of that lease. This programmed removal of equipment elsewhere in the loch outwith the application site could be secured by way of Secton 75 legal agreement. In the event that the applicant is unwilling or unable to enter into such an agreement then in view of conflict with development plan policy and associated supplementary guidance then the application should be refused for the reasons recommended in Section U below.

It should be noted that the suggested sites for removal pre-date planning control over aquaculture. They have recently been through the Scottish Government’s Audit & Review process which is revisiting those sites authorised in the past solely by way of Crown Estate lease, with a view to Marine Scotland giving permanent development consents where appropriate. Unlike planning permissions, or lease consents which may be sub-let, Audit and Review consents are personal to the operators and to the equipment they had in the water on the due date in 2007. Accordingly, the consents given to the trout farms in Loch Etive remain in effect until such time as Dawnfresh cease to farm the sites and remove their equipment. Beyond that, the original Crown Estate leases do not constitute development consents, so the original head lease holder, or any subsequent party wishing to resume farming on the site, would require planning permission from the Council. Therefore once the applicants remove their consented equipment there is no prospect of it being reinstalled by a third party without the Council’s agreement.

(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: In the event that the applicants are able to conclude a section 75 legal agreement to secure the programmed removal of other fish farm equipment elsewhere in the loch by way of mitigation for the application proposal, then the proposal would satisfy the requirements of Policy LP AQUA 1, other relevant plan policies, and secure conformity with the associated the Loch Etive ICZM Plan, which constitutes supplementary guidance to the adopted local plan and a material

consideration of significant weight. In the event that this proposal is not accompanied by measures providing for the rationalisation/consolidation of existing aquaculture operations in the loch, then the development would neither accord with the ICZM plan, nor in turn, the provisions of the adopted development plan.

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

The proposal would increase the number of finfish sites, the quantity and extent of equipment required, and would enable greater biomass to be held in Loch Etive. It would also however, contribute to the efficiency and on-going viability of trout farming activities in the loch, which at present suffer from the shortcomings associated with range of inherited sites of different scales, which do not lend themselves to the applicant’s desire to secure a systematic programme of continuous harvesting across sites, in order to be able to secure year round production to meet customer demands. This is important in securing the future of trout farming in Loch Etive, which is not only of economic and employment importance to the local area, but which has indirect benefits for the wider economy through supplies, services and processing. The development presents an increased reputational risk to the River Awe catchment salmon fishery as a consequence of further cages posing additional risk of inadvertent loss of containment despite the applicant’s intention to equip and manage the site to recognised industry standards, as a result of the prospect of escaped fish interacting with wild salmonids,. It also contributes to increased landscape visual and cumulative impact as a result of the scale of the equipment required relative to the existing shellfish consent, and the contribution the site would make to the overall presence of multiple aquaculture sites with the loch. However, these concerns can be adequately mitigated by the applicant’s willingness to engage in the programmed removal of equipment from two existing finfish farm sites within the loch, to the benefit of wild fish and landscape interests. With this mitigation secured by means of legal agreement and subject to the conditions attached, the proposal satisfies the requirements of the relevant approved local plan and ICZM policies, and notwithstanding the issues raised by third parties, there are no other material consideration which would warrant anything other than the application being determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan and associated supplementary guidance.

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

Not applicable

(T) Heads of Terms for Section 75 legal agreement

The proposal introduces additional equipment and biomass with consequences for landscape character and introduces risk of conflict with the interests of the Awe salmon fishery. These effects can be mitigated by the programmed removal of existing fish farm equipment from sites operated by the applicants at Etive 5 (Ardchattan Bay) and Etive 1 (Inverawe West) respectively.

The agreement should provide for:

i) the permanent removal of the applicant’s existing fish farm equipment from the site at Etive 1 (Inverawe West) upon the first stocking of the site being approved at Etive 6;

ii) the removal of existing fish farm equipment from the site at Etive 5 (Ardchattan Bay) on or before the 31 st December 2017 following the expiry of the applicant’s existing site leasing obligations.

(U) Grounds for refusal in the event that the legal agreement is not concluded

1. The proposal entails the establishment of an additional finfish farm within Policy Zone D of the ‘Loch Etive Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan’ (2011) which constitutes supplementary planning guidance to the adopted development plan and accordingly a significant material consideration in the determination of this application. This plan has been informed by prior landscape/seascape analysis of the consequences of aquaculture development in the loch by Scottish Natural Heritage, and has been devised and approved following extensive consultation with local stakeholders. It therefore represents the settled view as to how the development and other needs of competing interests should be accommodated on and around the loch, and sets out a appropriate policy response to future development. Despite the fact that an existing shellfish lease would be relinquished to enable this development to proceed on the same site, and notwithstanding the mitigation afforded by its consideration as part of the baseline position relative to current consented aquaculture development in Loch Etive, the proposal would increase the extent and scale of the presence of aquaculture in the landscape, and its consequent cumulative impact, by virtue of the additional surface area occupied by equipment, the additional height of this equipment above the waterline relative to consented shellfish equipment, the introduction and presence of a permanently moored feed barge, and the effect of site lighting requirements. The ICZM plan does not identify capacity for additional aquaculture development in this zone other than in the event of it being accompanied by the consolidation or rationalisation of existing aquaculture sites. The applicants have been afforded the opportunity to surrender the operation of an existing site which is inter-visible with the application site within Policy Zone D, but have declined to do so. As a result, and notwithstanding the cessation of shellfish farming on the site as a consequence of the proposal, the development would add an additional finfish site of a scale greater than those currently consented in the loch system and would increase the landscape impact of aquaculture development within Policy Zone D, with consequent adverse landscape, visual and cumulative impacts. In the absence of mitigation by way of the removal of equipment from elsewhere within Policy Zone D, the proposal conflicts with the provisions of the Loch Etive ICZM Plan, and in turn with Policies STRAT DC 8 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Structure Plan’ (2002) and Policy LP AQUA 1 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

2. The proposal would involve the establishment of an additional finfish farm of a scale greater than those currently consented in the loch system, with a consequent significant increase in the aggregate biomass held. Notwithstanding the applicants stated intention

to equip and operate this site to current recognised industry code of good practice guidelines, there remains a residual risk that inadvertent loss of containment could lead to the release of farmed trout into the marine environment in large numbers in the event of predation, equipment failure, operator error, severe weather or foul play. The mouth of the River Awe discharges into Loch Etive above the location of the application site. The Argyll Salmon Fishery Board is of the opinion that River Awe catchment is one of the premier and most prestigious salmon angling destinations on the west coast of Scotland. The risk of the penetration of the river system by escaped farmed fish poses a reputational risk to this recreational fishery, which is of importance to the local economy, both in terms of direct employment associated with salmon fishing and the indirect benefit derived by the local tourism economy. The applicants have been afforded the opportunity to surrender the operation of an existing site which is lies close to the mouth of the River Awe as a contribution towards mitigation for the holding of increased biomass in Loch Etive, but have but have declined to do so. In the absence of this, the proposal would present additional risk of escapes by virtue of the increased number of cages present in the loch system, which would increase the prospect of interaction between farmed trout and wild salmonids, presenting as a consequence reputational risk contrary to the local economic interests of the prime recreational salmon fishery which it supports. In the absence of consolidation or rationalisation of existing sites the proposal presents increased risk of wild fish interactions without appropriate mitigation contrary to the requirements of Policy LP AQUA 1 of the ‘Argyll & Bute Local Plan’ (2009).

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

Author of Report: Richard Kerr Date: 6th November 2013

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 13/01379//MFF

1. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than wholly in accordance with the following plans and details unless the prior written approval of the Planning Authority is obtained for a non-material amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997:

• Application Form dated 14.06.13; • Plan 1 of 9 – application site boundary 1:25,000; • Plan 2 of 9 – location plan 1:25,000; • Plan 3 of 9 – Admiralty chart indicating mooring containment area; • Plan 4 of 9 – site layout plan 1:5,000; • Plan 5 of 9 – mooring plan; • Plan 6 of 9 – flotation ring, handrailing and top net support; • Plan 7 of 9 – cage construction; • Plan 8 of 9 – cage detail; • Plan 9 of 9 – feed barge specification.

The development shall also be implemented and subsequently operated wholly in accordance with those mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Statement dated 12 th June 2013, unless otherwise agreed in writing in advance by the Planning Authority.

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

2. Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 and Class 21F of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Fish Farming) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2012, the stocking of the farm hereby approved shall be limited to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) only and the site shall not be used for the stocking of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar).

Reason: The Environmental Statement accompanying the application has only assessed the environmental impacts of the site on the basis of it being used exclusively for the farming of rainbow trout. In the absence of the assessment of the site in the light of stocking for the on- growing of Atlantic salmon, the environmental consequence of the use of the site for this alternative species would be uncertain, and appropriate mitigation has not been identified, to the detriment of nature conservation interests.

3. In the event that the development or any associated equipment approved by this permission ceases to be in operational use for a period exceeding three years, the equipment shall be wholly removed from the site thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that redundant development does not sterilise capacity for future development within the same water body.

4. In the event of equipment falling into disrepair or becoming damaged, adrift, stranded, abandoned or sunk in such a manner as to cause an obstruction or danger to navigation, the developer shall carry out or make suitable arrangements for the carrying out of all measures necessary for lighting, buoying, raising, repairing, moving or destroying, as appropriate, the whole or any part of the equipment.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

5. All lighting above the water surface and not required for safe navigation purposes should be directed downwards by shielding and be extinguished when not required for the purpose for which it is installed on the site.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity .

6. With the exception of the feed barge, the finished surfaces of all equipment above the water surface including surface floats and buoys associated with the development hereby permitted (excluding those required to comply with navigational requirements) shall be non-reflective and finished in a dark recessive colour in accordance with colour schemes to be agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority (by way of BS numbers or manufacturer’s specifications), unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority. The colour(s) to be employed on the feed barge externally above the waterline shall be agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority and the barge shall be installed in accordance with the duly approved colour scheme, which shall be maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

7. No deployment of Acoustic Deterrent Devices shall be permitted at the site unless the model intended for use and the means of its use have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Thereafter deployment shall only take place in accordance with the duly approved details unless any subsequent variation thereof is agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.

8. No deployment of equipment pursuant to this consent shall take place and no dismantling or replacement of the equipment shall take place during the months of April to June inclusive in any year. (See also note below)

Reason: in order to safeguard breeding bird colonies from disturbance in the interests of nature conservation.

9. No development shall be commenced until a Bird Protection Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. This shall include mitigation measures to safeguard the protected

species using Eilean Faoileag, and shall provide in particular, that the island shall not be used for storage, mooring or any other purpose related to the construction or operational phases of the fish farm hereby approved, and that all persons accessing the site are made aware of, and adhere to, the requirements of the duly approved plan.

Reason: in order to safeguard breeding bird colonies from disturbance in the interests of nature conservation.

NOTES TO APPLICANT

• This permission shall only last for a period of three years from the date of this decision notice unless the development is started within that period.

• In order to comply with Sections 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, prior to works commencing on site it is the responsibility of the developer to complete and submit the attached ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date on which the development will start. Failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a breach of planning control under Section 123(1) of the Act.

• In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion’ to the Planning Authority.

• In terms of condition 1 above, the council can approve minor variations to the approved plans in terms of Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 although no variations should be undertaken without obtaining the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. If you wish to seek any minor variation of the application, an application for a non material amendment (NMA) should be made in writing to Planning Services, Whitegates Office, Whitegates Road Lochgilphead, PA31 8SY which should list all the proposed changes, enclosing a copy of a plan(s) detailing these changes together with a copy of the original approved plans. Any amendments deemed by the Council to be material, would require the submission of a further application for planning permission.

• The applicant should have regard to the navigational marking requirements of the Northern Lighthouse Board and shall notify them and the UK Hydrographic office once the site has been equipped.

• The developer should be aware that bird breeding may take place outwith the time period prescribed in condition 8 above. Both common and Arctic tern are species listed in Annex 1 of the European Birds Directive 2009/147/EC and are protected by law. The developer and site operator should therefore be aware of their responsibilities in this regard and should make sure that no breeding attempts are taking place before carrying out any works or activities likely to cause disturbance.

• The application site lies within an area frequented by otters subject to the effect of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). The developer and site operator should therefore be aware that it is an offence to deliberately or recklessly:

* capture, injure or kill an otter; * harass an otter or group of otters; * disturb an otter in a holt or any other structure or place it uses for shelter or protection; * disturb an otter while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its young; * obstruct access to a holt or other structure or place otters use for shelter or protection or to otherwise deny the animal use of that place; * disturb an otter in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of the species; * disturb an otter in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or otherwise care for its young.

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 13/01379/MFF

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

The applicant in this case is Dawnfresh Farming Ltd who currently operate a suite of trout farming sites in Loch Etive which they purchased in 2008 from the previous operator Scot Trout in administration. The current sites are as flows:

Etive 1 (Inverawe West) 250 tonnes – south shore east of the River Awe Etive 2 (Inverawe East) 250 tonnes rotated with Etive 1 – south shore east of the River Awe Etive 3 (Port na Mine) 455 tonnes – south shore east of the River Awe Etive 4 (Airds Bay East) 966 tonnes – opposite side of Airds Point to the current application site. Etive 5 (Ardchattan Bay) 350 tonnes – north shore west of the current application site.

All of these sites are operated from a main shore base located at Inverawe with some secondary access being taken from Ardchattan Pier.

These inherited sites had suffered from inadequate management leading to problems such as mass escape incidents, along with under-investment which posed a threat to their continued commercial viability. The current applicants have secured the future of the trout farming operation in Loch Etive and have improved equipment and operating practices, but they are still left with the legacy of relatively small scale multiple sites and the constraints of the leasing arrangements associated with those sites. This limits productive capacity, which in turn poses operational risks associated with the need to move fish between sites. This prejudices the welfare of stock and presents unnecessary risk to the host environment and the lack of capacity hampers the applicant’s ability to satisfy the year round supply requirements of their customers.

Demand for rainbow trout is increasing and the company’s decision to grow fish to a larger size (up to 7kg) to supply fish steaks as well as whole fish) has had consequences for production schedules. The stated aspiration of the company in the longer term is not only to increase production, but to concentrate this into three sites. The purpose of this is to be able to produce trout to >5 kg average harvest weight based on farm stocking at the final stocking density, in order to avoid the need to move fish between sites during the production cycle. This approach would facilitate year round supply, would bring operational efficiencies, would pose less risk of escape events and improve fish welfare. The proposal to establish this additional site (to be known as Etive 6) is the first step in the applicant’s bid to redress the shortcomings of the acquired suite of sites.

Loch Etive is a relatively narrow sea loch some 30km in length stretching from Ardmuckish Bay to the loch head at Glen Etive. It has been over-deepened by glacial

scouring and the shallow cill at its entrance and the deoxygenated water of the deep upper section of the loch, along with the high input of fresh water from the Rivers Awe and Etive, conspire to produce low salinity brackish water which is unsuited to Atlantic salmon farming, but which has proved suitable for trout farming since the first small scale operations were established during the 1970’s.

The application site lies off the south shore of the central section of the loch, to the west of Taynuilt some 7km to the east of the Connel Bridge. At this point there is a tapering triangular inlet known as Salean Ruadh, which lies immediately west of the promontory known as Airds Point. This location has been latterly used for mussel farming with a Crown Estate lease having been given in 2002 for three 220m longlines straddling part of the mouth of the bay. In addition to trout farming, historically, Loch Etive has been widely used for mussel production , with 14 individual sites across both the lower and upper sections of the loch under the control of five operators. Mussel farming has latterly succumbed to a non-edible invasive species mytilus trossulus , first identified in 2008, which has led to the loch being fallowed for mussel production under a Marine Scotland programme with all equipment having been removed from the water. The shellfish lease site which lies within this planning application boundary is therefore not- equipped at present, although it could be re-occupied without further authorisation being required, in the event that mussel production recommences in the loch in future. By virtue of its overlap with the current proposal, in the event that a permission were to be granted and implemented for the fin-fish farm equipment proposed, it would not be possible to re-equip the site for mussel farming pursuant to the current Crown Estate lease, so for the purposes of this application, the consented shellfish and proposed fin- fish operations are to be regarded as being mutually exclusive.

The applicants lodged a previous planning application in 2012 for the formation of a rainbow trout farm at the current location in question, comprising 14 No. 100m circumference cages plus the installation of feed barge. That application attracted concerns expressed by consultees and substantial objection from third parties and was withdrawn by the applicants in June 2013 in favour of the current proposal for 10 No. 80m circumference cages, which produces a reduced surface equipment area as a result of both the reduction by four cages , and the intended use of smaller cages. It should be noted that a 100m circumference cage has a surface area of approx. 800m 2, whereas with an 80m circumference cage this reduces to approx. 500m 2. At the time of the previous application, the applicants sought and obtained from SEPA a CAR licence consent for 2,500 tonnes of biomass to be held at the site at peak production. The current application envisages a reduced peak biomass of 1,500 tonnes, for which a subsequent CAR licence variation will be required.

The application relates to a 15.6 hectare site located 127m from the Mean Low Water Springs contour, which encompasses the full extent of the required 36,000m 2 seabed mooring area. It is proposed to equip the site with 10 No. 80m circumference cages grouped together in a 5 x 2 rectangular mooring grid with 60m x 60m cells, producing an aggregate surface area of 5,093m 2. Each cage would measure 25.5m in diameter with an internal horizontal ‘hamster wheel’ 9.7m in diameter to support the 30mm mesh top nets required to exclude pisciverous birds. The cages comprise circular polyethelyene flotation rings and associated walkways approx.1.2m high above the waterline, from

which 17.5m deep nets would be suspended, in water depth varying from approx. 40 to 50 metres. Mooring lines and rock anchors will be used to secure the position of the grid relative to the seabed, with moorings set out in a manner so that they are almost vertical for the first 7 metres, in order to limit the area excluded from navigation, and to provide for continued access to the established anchorage in the bay to the rear of the site at Salean Ruadh.

Unlike the existing Etive sites, where feeding takes place by feed cannon or manually, it is intended to install a permanent feed barge at this site. This is to be located centrally on the eastern (inshore) side of the cage group, where it will comprise a 240 tonne capacity boat style barge measuring 24m by 10m, which would require feed deliveries either once or twice a week by boat from Barcaldine. Feed will be automatically dispensed during daylight hours using a pneumatic feed pipe arrangement. The extent of the surface equipment and the position of the feed barge would be marked by navigation lighting to satisfy Northern Lighthouse Board requirements. Other lighting on the site would be restricted to essential requirements so as to avoid unnecessary illumination. No underwater maturation lighting is proposed for use at this site.

The proposed production cycle is 22.5 months with a minimum 6 week fallow period prior to restocking (in practice the applicants have, to date, operated 8 week fallowing of their sites in Loch Etive, in excess of SEPA requirements). Stocking will take place via a well boat over a five month period at a rate of 2 cages per month. The maximum stocking density will be 16.8kg/m3 at peak biomass. Harvesting of fish will take place at 5kg+ commencing after 12 months and will be completed in the following 10 months. This will produce an overall productive capacity for the site of 2,000 tonnes across the 22.5 month cycle. The applicant’s intention is that this site should ultimately form one of three farms which they consider necessary to cover the 24 month production cycle having regard to the 12 - 14 months required to produce a 5kg fish, and the need to allow for the statutory 6 week SEPA fallow period between production cycles. The inability of the current suite of sites to satisfy continuous year round demand is a key driver behind the current proposal.

The site lies within Category 3 waters for the purpose of Marine Scotland’s ‘Locational Guidelines for Fish Farms in Marine Waters’, where there are better prospects of additional fish farms being accommodated having regard to the carrying capacity of the water body and the cumulative impact of existing fish farm operations. A SEPA CAR licence has already been issued for a tonnage in excess of the biomass intended to be held at this site, which confirms SEPA’s satisfaction with the carrying capacity of the site in question. The site lies within Management Area 15b and within the area of the Linnhe/Lorn/Etive/South Mull/Sunart Area Management Agreement. The applicant proposes to operate the site in consultation with other operators within this AMA and in accordance with the ‘Code of Good Practice Guidelines for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture’. This sets out more than 300 main specific compliance points which cover all aspects of finfish good practice including:

• Fish Health – good husbandry and harvesting operations; • Protecting the environment – including sea lice management and containment standards;

• Welfare and husbandry – breeding and stocking density; • Detailed annexes giving further technical guidance on good practice, including the National Lice Treatment Strategy, Integrated Sea Lice Management, Containment, and a Veterinary Health Plan.

The applicants have provided details of their Company Environmental Policy, Escape Contingency Plan, Predator Control Plan and Veterinary Health Plan. They have also supplied a Hydrographic and Site Survey Report, Biomass & Treatment Modelling Reports, a Baseline Benthic Survey, Visual Seabed Surveys, Wave Height Calculations and manufacturers’ Equipment Attestations.

The site will be serviced on a day to day basis from the company’s existing main shore base at Inverawe. It will be staffed from the company’s 13 full-time employees based a Loch Etive. It is intended that 6 of these staff who are currently on temporary contracts will be made permanent as a result of the development. It is also suggested that the proposal will enable the applicants to create 4 apprenticeships in Argyll, of which two positions would be based at Loch Etive.

The proposal is part of the applicant’s stated intention to invest £15million in aquaculture development in Loch Etive over four years. The construction of the proposal would require the applicant to place £1.5 million of contracts with Argyll suppliers and a further £4.5 million with other Scottish businesses. It is pointed out that the current operations generate in excess of £750,000 indirect income in the local economy annually through the servicing and supply chain.

B. Site Selection

The EIA Regulations provide that applicants should give consideration to alternatives and outline those considered as part of the site selection process. The requirement for a site in Loch Etive has been prompted by the operational shortcomings of the existing suite of sites, the need to function alongside the existing sites, the location of the existing shorebase and the desirability of building upon the established Loch Etive trout brand. The loch is subject to a range of constraints including the existing but currently mostly fallowed shellfish farm leases, areas of unsuitable deoxygenated water in the upper loch, low salinity water associated with large volume discharge of freshwater from rivers, and landscape and amenity considerations pertaining to the more populated areas of the lower loch. Expansion of one or more of the existing suite of five sites is not an option, due to capacity constraints at existing sites and given the imperative to operate sites in multiples of three in order to be able to produce adult weight fish efficiently on a year round basis in order to satisfy customer demands.

One potential site which has been previously considered by the applicants and subsequently advanced as a prospective alternative by some third party objectors, is the site of a consented but not previously equipped mussel lease at Airds Bay to the east of the application site, on the opposite side of Airds Point, close to the existing site at Etive 4. This is not in the applicant’s control and an initial approach to the leaseholder was unsuccessful given his unwillingness to sell other than as part of a package of defunct shellfish sites. Additionally the site is considered by the applicants to be inferior to the

application site in view of its water characteristics, and its location close to the current site at Etive 4 would present otherwise avoidable biosecurity risks. The landscape implications of this location are considered by the applicant to be similar to those of the application site, albeit that unlike the application site, a location at Airds Bay would exert influence toward a more populated area at Taynuilt.

C. Key Policy Considerations

As with all planning applications, there is a statutory presumption that determination should be made in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The assessment of aquaculture development applications benefits from a specific local plan policy LP AQUA 1 , which expresses general support for finfish farming subject to the consideration of specified criteria in the determination of applications. Proposals are also required to be consistent with any coastal framework plan in place, the other policies of the Development Plan and Scottish Executive Strategic Framework Guidelines.

Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1

In this particular case those relevant matters requiring consideration in the light of policy LP AQUA 1 are as follows:

- Communities, settlements and their settings: The site is removed from the nearest local settlement of Taynuilt, lying to the west of the intervening Airds Point. The private house known as Muckairn Castle is the only property in the vicinity of the site on the south shore, although this is orientated away from the site and benefits from intervening woodland. There is scattered roadside development on the opposite north shore along the road between North Connel and Bonawe with around a dozen properties having direct visibility of the site. See sections E and H below.

- Landscape character, scenic quality and visual amenity: This is a key consideration in the assessment of this proposal having regard to SNH landscape/seascape guidance and the policy position established by the Loch Etive ICZM Plan. See section E below.

- Areas of Panoramic Quality: Elevated hinterland above the northern shore of the loch lies within an APQ. See section E below.

- Statutorily protected nature conservation sites, habitats or spec ies, including priority species and important seabird colonies along with wild fish populations: Otter, seabird colonies and wild salmonids are the main nature conservation interests affected. See section D below.

- Navigational interests: See section G below. This issue is primarily the responsibility of Marine Scotland’s licencing process.

- Sites of historic or archaeological interest and their settings: See section F below.

- Recreational interests: See Section G below.

- Existing aquaculture sites: The applicants operate a suite of 5 sites of varying sizes in the central section of the loch. These are of inadequate capacity to satisfy year round demand, and the imbalance between site sizes poses operational difficulties in rotation/fallowing in order to maintain year round supply to meet customer requirements. The current proposal is the first stage in seeking to rationalise the overall operation into 3 similar sized sites. The loch has been widely used for shellfish production in the past but the majority of sites within the ‘Loch Etive Coastal Strip’ Shellfish Growing Water are currently fallowed as part of a programme to eradicate Mytilus trossulus which has brought a halt to mussel production in the loch for the time being. Nonetheless, these sites remain capable of re-occupation without further authorisation, so they must be considered in terms of any cumulative impact considerations.

- Water quality: See section D below. This is primarily, but not exclusively, a SEPA licencing consideration.

- Scottish Government Locational Guidelines: Loch Etive is classed as Category 3 waters for the purpose of these guidelines , which indicates that in terms of water body carrying capacity there are better prospects of further aquaculture developments being accommodated. Marine Scotland have confirmed that the proposal, if permitted, would not lead to the categorisation of the water body being reduced to a lesser status.

- The Loch Eive ICZM Plan: See detail below.

Loch Etive Integrated Coastal Management Plan

The site is located within waters which are the subject of the Loch Etive ICZM Plan which constitutes supplementary guidance to the adopted local plan, and which is to be accorded significant material weight as a consequence. ICZM Plans have only been prepared for locations exhibiting complexities associated with competing and sometimes conflicting demands associated with the use of the marine environment and associated coastal areas. They have been devised and approved following extensive local consultation with stakeholders and represent the settled view as to how planning policy should guide future development on and around the loch, having regard to the requirements of existing users and the capacity of the loch system to absorb future development successfully.

The site falls within ICZM Plan Policy Zone D (Achnacloich to Bonawe Quarry). The plan notes that there are a range of activities within this zone including trout farming, mussel farming, commercial creeling, recreational angling, sailing, kayaking, diving, coastal shipping and coastal quarrying. There is also recreational access to much of the shore on foot and access to the water from various jetties and slipways.

In terms of future use and development, the ICZM Plan expresses support for the maintenance of coastal water quality in order to support continued shellfish growing. It

identifies opportunity to maximise aquaculture production in this part of the loch through the consolidation or rationalisation of existing sites. In terms of landscape capacity, it identifies the following constraints:

- Developing the majority of bays along the shoreline could lead to an impact on sequential experience when travelling either along the public road or on the water;

- The expanse of the open water can be quickly narrowed by development encroaching from each shore;

- The setting of Ardchattan Priory is sensitive to poorly located development.

The relevant policy considerations stemming from the plan are

- Policy LE GEN 1: sets out general considerations relevant to development proposals;

- Policy LE AQUA 1: expresses general support for aquaculture subject to proposals being consistent with the relevant Local Plan policies and relevant ICZM policy zone guidance, Scottish Government Locational Guidelines, and SNH aquaculture siting and design guidance. There is support for consolidation or reorganisation of sites, having regard to spatial guidance and potential benefits associated with improved site management and economic viability, and in terms of benefits relative to landscape, nature conservation, communities, commercial and recreational interests.

- Policy Guidance for Zone D: supports proposals to consolidate or rationalise existing aquaculture sites, which are regarded as offering the greatest opportunity for maximising the production of trout and mussels in Loch Etive. Due to the number of existing sites (occupied and unoccupied), and given that these generally occupy the most appropriate locations and avoid landscape sensitivities, there is a stated presumption against the establishment of new aquaculture sites in addition to existing sites.

Both trout and mussel farming have been long-standing features of Loch Etive and of value to the local economy. The historic roots of nascent aquaculture in the loch has led to a multiplicity of relatively small sites, so although the scale of developments has been relatively small, aquaculture developments have been present in numbers and over the years have become a key characteristic of the loch. Whilst carrying capacity has not proved a problem in terms of water quality (even with the current proposal the Loch would retain its favourable Category 3 status), the distribution of multiple sites has led to the need for consideration being given to cumulative impact and future development opportunities in terms of the capacity of the landscape to accommodate additional development, via Scottish Natural Heritage’s ‘Landscape/Seascape Capacity Study for Loch Etive’ (2010). This in turn helped to inform the conclusions of, and the policy position established by, the subsequent ICZM plan in 2011.

Multiple aquaculture sites exert an influence on the landscape in three ways. The aggregate length of developed coastline, the number of developed bays relative to the

proportion remaining undeveloped, and the scale of the individual developments. The conclusion of the landscape study and the ICZM plan is that within Zone D there is an appropriate balance between developed and undeveloped areas at present, and that the introduction of aquaculture development in hitherto undeveloped locations could upset this balance to the detriment of landscape character. For that reason, a presumption against new aquaculture sites has been established, in recognition that there still remains potential to expand the productive capacity of the loch via the rationalisation and consolidation of both shellfish and finfish existing sites.

The current application site is not a new aquaculture location insofar as it has been farmed for shellfish and consent remains in place for a three longline mussel farm which overlaps with the development proposed. Thus the location may be regarded as a developed bay for the purposes of aquaculture policy, albeit that the equipment is not currently in situ. That said, the equipment proposed for the purposes of finfish farming is larger in extent than the surface equipment associated with the mussel lease and it is of a greater scale, with the flotation rings, top nets and feed barge sitting further out of the water and exerting more of an influence over their surroundings than the buoys required to support the longlines. Although the existing mussel lease can be taken into account as a contributory factor in mitigation for the development proposal, the overall effect is that whilst the proposal does not lead to the development of a hitherto undeveloped bay, it does contribute to additional landscape and visual impact relative existing situation, given the increased scale of the equipment required for finfish farming purposes. The replacement of the mussel farm by the proposed trout farm would therefore represent a net deterioration in the baseline position in landscape terms within Zone D, which would be contrary to ICZM Plan policy and in turn to Local Plan Policy AQUA 1.

Accordingly, and in the knowledge that the applicant’s stated longer-term aspiration is to seek to rationalise their operations to three sites so that production cycle, fallowing and customer demands can be aligned, the applicant has been asked to consider opportunities for relinquishing one or more existing sites so that a commitment to the removal of existing equipment can be taken into account as further contributory mitigation for the proposed new farm, in line with the policy position established by the ICZM plan. Their response has been that whilst there is a longer term vision to consolidate production in Loch Etive to three principal sites, existing leases and licences operated by the applicant do not currently allow consolidation to take place ahead of the application proposal being in place. Once this is established it would be possible to discuss the future vision for Loch Etive in more detail with the Planning Authority.

The applicants do however recognise that cumulative impact of multiple aquaculture sites in Loch Etive is a material consideration in the acceptability of the proposed development, and that rationalisation of existing sites is desirable, particularly to release landscape capacity, and to address the policy position adopted in relation to future aquaculture developments by the Loch Etive ICZM Plan. With that in mind, they have been asked to give consideration to the de-equipping of the site at Etive 1 (Inverawe West) in part mitigation for the development proposal. That would be in addition to the shellfish lease on the application site being by superseded by the finfish farm.

Whilst this approach would produce cumulative benefits for the loch as a whole, as a consequence of the loss of both longlines and fish cages, it would not secure sufficient

mitigation within Policy Zone D of the Plan (the longlines lie within that zone, but the Etive 1 site lies just beyond the boundary of that Zone in Policy Zone E). Whilst the boundaries separating zones are to an extent arbitrary, the location of Etive 1 is well removed from the application site and visually separate from it, in an area of the loch with an identified separate landscape character. Removal of equipment from this site whilst welcome (particularly in terms of its relationship with the mouth of the river Awe and its wild fish interests), and beneficial to the interests of the loch as a whole, would not result in any net benefit to Policy Zone D in terms of the landscape implications and cumulative impact of development.

Accordingly, it is the view of officers that the requirements of Policy LP AQUA 1 stemming from the effect of Policy Zone D of the Loch Etive ICZM Plan could only be satisfied by the removal of aquaculture development from within Zone D itself. That could be secured by the removal of equipment from the site at Etive 5 (Ardchattan Bay) which:

a) has a location inter-visible with the application proposal; b) is the closest site to the greatest number of potential receptors and in the vicinity of a tourist destination; c) has implications for the setting and the surroundings of historic assets at Ardchattan.

For these reasons, removal of equipment from that site would provide significant mitigation in respect of the application proposal. Whilst the applicants have indicated that contractual obligations require them to continue farming this site until the expiry of the current lease in 2017, and that they are unable to offer up this site at the present time, there would still be opportunity to secure a deferred removal of equipment from this site upon expiry of the existing lease by way of legal agreement, and that approach is commended to Members. Although this would not secure immediate mitigation, and there would be the prospect of both sites being equipped for up to four years, in the longer-term an obligation to de-equip this site would be very advantageous in terms of the presence and impact of fish farming in the loch.

In the contractual circumstances which pertain, the prospect of the programmed removal of equipment from Etive 1 (ICZM Policy Zone E) and Etive 5 (ICZM Policy Zone D) over four years plus the loss of the shellfish lease on the application site (ICZM Policy Zone D), would amount to as appropriate landscape and visual mitigation for the application proposal and in accordance with the overall policy position established by the Loch Etive ICZM Plan.

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

The provisions of Policies STRAT DC 7, LP ENV 2, LP ENV 3 and LP ENV 6 all seek to resist development which is considered likely to result in a significant adverse impact upon internationally, nationally or locally important habitats and/or species.

The application site is not located within any European or national nature conservation designations. It does, however, adjoin the Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its western acidic oak woodland, mixed woodland

on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes, alder woodland on flood plains and otter; of which, only the first and last cited qualifying interests are relevant to this case.

Whilst this marine development would not have any anticipated consequences for the adjacent acidic oak woodland there is potential for disturbance to otter which Scottish Natural Heritage considers could lead to a ‘significant effect’ upon a European interest. For that reason a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ has been carried out in respect of the qualifying interests of the SAC and this can be found as Appendix C to this report. The loch is also frequented by species of nature conservation interest including seals, wild salmonids, and various species of seabird for which development of the type proposed could have consequences in terms of displacement or deterrence. Wild Salmon and Sea Trout are vulnerable to interaction with farmed fish and both a UK BAP and the A&B LBAP species and included in the Argyll & Bute Local Biodiversity Action Plan.

Seabed (Benthic) Impacts:

The development will affect seabed conditions as a consequence of the deposition of organic matter in the form of faeces. Furthermore, although the industry has made advances in the reduction of waste food as a result of more sophisticated feeding regimes, waste food also contributes to seabed deposition. This can take the form of localised smothering of the seabed as well as more distant deposition arising from the propagation of waste matter from the site. The quantity and the extent of deposition are influenced by the tonnage of fish held, hydrographic and bathymetric conditions. Seabed impacts are regulated separately by SEPA via the CAR licence process, which determines maximum biomass with regard to the carrying capacity of the particular site.

The applicants have provided a benthic survey, visual assessments and in-feed and bath treatment modelling assessments in support of their proposals, (the latter having been revised in respect of the current lesser scaled proposal) all of which were considered by SEPA as part of a CAR licence application, and which have helped inform SEPA’s conclusions in granting a consent for 2,500 tonnes biomass to be held at this site.

The site is typical of a sea loch location with little enrichment pressure evident. The seabed below the proposed site comprises fine sand/soft mud with UK Biodiversity Action Plan ‘burrowed mud’ habitat present (evidence of megafaunal burrows/seapens). However, there are no specifically designated habitats below or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Modelling has been used to predict a site specific Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE) in order to demonstrate compliance with SEPA’s requirements. The modelling concludes that the addition of the proposed biomass will not alter the Category 3 status of the loch under Marine Scotland’s Locational Guidelines. The modelling indicates that there will be localised enrichment and SEPA has accepted this conclusion along with the fact that there will be low cumulative impact relative to existing consented sites in the loch. The CAR licence which has already been issued addresses the discharge consequences of the development in terms of smothering as well as chemical treatments and cumulative nutrient enrichment. It brings the total consented maximum standing biomass for the loch to 4,772 tonnes. A CAR licence variation and consequent

reduction will be required in respect of this proposal which is of smaller scale than that envisaged at the time of the application for the current CAR licence. Marine Scotland modelling indicates that the peak biomass which the loch can support without a reduction in its current categorisation status is over 7,000 tonnes.

SNH and SEPA are both content with the benthic surveys undertaken by the applicant and neither have objections to the proposal on the grounds of unacceptable benthic impacts.

Water Quality Impacts:

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

Estimated nutrient enrichment is well below the threshold of 50% above the OSPAR and UTAG reference levels, and consented sea lice treatments have been set in the CAR licence for the site at a level which will not breach SEPA’s Environmental Quality Standards. Whilst localised impacts are anticipated from particulate and dissolved wastes, modelling results indicate that these, when considered cumulatively with other consented sites, will not result in a significant deterioration in the quality of the receiving water body; a position accepted by SEPA in the issuing of a CAR licence for the original 2,500 tonne peak biomass sought by the applicants.

Neither Marine Scotland Science nor SEPA have raised objection to the proposal in respect of the predicted impact of the development upon water quality.

Interaction with Predators:

Fish farm predators are generally piscivorous birds and seals, with the latter tending to be the most frequently encountered predators on marine farms in Scotland. The presence of sea cages may attract higher concentrations of predators to the locality of the site, although good husbandry and hygiene procedures will help to reduce the attraction of predators. Tensioned netting on fish cages prevents and deters both seals and diving bird attacks, although regular removal of mortalities from the bottom of the nets and regular maintenance of the nets to maintain their integrity is necessary to avoid attempts at predation.

The applicants have prepared a Predator Control Plan to meet recognised industry standards in the knowledge that birds, seals, cetaceans and otter may interact with this site. Top nets are proposed to prevent predation by birds, with species including eider duck, terns, gulls, heron, cormorant, shag, guillemot and osprey having been recorded in the locality. The applicant’s experience with the operation of existing farms is that bird predation is not common on Loch Etive sites. 30mm top nets are to be installed on the proposed cages to avoid predation by birds from above the waterline. Bird nets require to be maintained to a high standard and properly tensioned eliminate the opportunity for birds to become entangled or to be able to enter the cage.

The fish cages themselves are to be manufactured to current industry standards, with a net specification, tensioning arrangements and an installation, inspection and maintenance regime to meet industry ‘Code of Good Practice’ requirements. It is clearly in the operator’s interest to ensure that equipment is specified and maintained in a manner to ensure containment of the farmed fish. Site specific equipment attestations have been supplied to confirm that, in the respective manufacturer’s opinions, the equipment intended for use on this site is suitable and sufficiently durable to be deployed having regard to the characteristics of in the particular marine environment proposed. Notwithstanding that , there remains a residual risk of inadvertent escapes which could see farmed fish in large numbers being released into the marine environment to the detriment of wild salmonid interests and the River Awe salmon fishery which they support. The consequences of wild fish interactions are discussed in the following section of this report.

Common seals frequent the loch, with the main haul out being well away from the application site at the Aird Eilein Skerries in the upper loch. The exclusion of seals is intended via tensioned nets in accordance with normal industry practice. It would be proposed to install triggered Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADD’s) in the event of tensioned nets failing to prevent seal predation. Only as a last resort would the licenced shooting of seals take place in accordance with a Scottish Government licence already held by the company. Accordingly, lethal controls are not a planning consideration, and only the disturbance aspects associated with the location of the proposed farm require consideration as part of the determination of this application.

Scottish Natural Heritage has not raised objection to the proposal on the grounds of unacceptable consequences for potential predators or impacts on non-target wildlife.

Interaction with Wild Salmonids:

Farming of fish in the marine environment can give rise to well-known consequences for wild fish as a result of disease transmission, sea lice propagation and escapes, which can lead to competition and inter-breeding, with consequences for the genetic dilution of native wild stocks. However, the risks are less with farmed rainbow trout than with farmed Atlantic salmon, as rainbow trout cannot breed in Scottish Waters. The potential for escapes (as with predator control) can be reduced by having an equipment specification determined by site specific wave and climate analysis so as to ensure that it is fit for purpose. An associated inspection and maintenance regime is then required to ensure on-going containment integrity. Predator control plans, and escapes contingency plans, as submitted by the applicant, are also important elements in risk management.

Although containment risks can be managed, they cannot however be eradicated and there remains a residual risk that an unforeseen event can propagate escaped farmed fish in large numbers into the uncontrolled marine environment. Escapes of farmed stock are generally low, but can occur through equipment failure, predation, operator error, severe weather or foul play. There has been a history of escapes associated with the farming of fish in Loch Etive, although this has reduced following the upgrading of equipment by the applicants since their acquisition of the sites, and it is their intention

that the new site proposed would be equipped to current industry standards. By adherence to the ‘Code of Good Practice Guidelines’ the applicant seeks to minimise this residual risk as far as is practicable.

Likewise, via good husbandry practices, regular inspection and the administration of medicines in accordance with veterinary health plans, outbreaks of disease which could have consequences for wild fish can be managed. The applicants propose single year class stocking, an ‘all in/all out’ policy, a two month fallow period at the end of the production cycle along with appropriate husbandry standards, in order to minimise risk of disease outbreaks.

Normally, the most intractable issue influencing the interaction between farmed fish and wild fish species is that of sea lice transmission. Farmed fish are routinely hosts to parasitic sea lice, the numbers of which require to be controlled in order to assure the health of farmed fish and to avoid lice propagation into surrounding waters. Wild salmon can be exposed to sea lice from fish farms close to salmon rivers during their migration periods, whilst sea trout tend to remain in coastal waters throughout the year, so are potentially at greater risk. A number of watercourses hosting wild salmon populations discharge into Loch Etive, including the Rivers Awe, Etive and Kinglass. However, the experience of the applicants is that sea lice have not been found to be prevalent in the low salinity brackish waters of Loch Etive and certainly not on the scale that might be expected to be encountered in open waters. Thus far they have not required to deploy sea lice treatments on their existing Etive farms. However, as a precaution licenced sea lice treatment has been sought from SEPA in order that this can be deployed should it prove necessary in future.

The applicant proposes to control sea lice in accordance with current industry practice, via the use of in-feed treatments and by way of periodic bath treatments using net shallowing methods, whilst adopting good management practices such as single year stocking and synchronous stocking, fallowing and lice treatment along with liaison with other operators within the Area Management Agreement. The CAR licence already issued by SEPA for greater tonnage than that now proposed gives confidence that sufficient chemical treatment is available for the control of lice at this site in accordance with recognised CoGP standards, should it prove necessary.

In addition to sea lice propagation, failure of containment can lead to farmed fish escapes which can pose a threat to wild fish due to competition or through breeding. The applicants consider that their tensioned net systems are appropriately specified so as to be fit for purpose at the site and that they are accompanied by appropriate management measures and predator control arrangements to minimise the prospect of escape events. The applicants have indicated their intention to normally stock triploid (sterile) fish and have indicated that unlike escaped farmed salmon, rainbow trout are unable to breed in Scottish waters due to unsuitable temperature profiles. The conclusion of the applicant’s supporting information is that the development will not prejudice wild fish interests. It is pointed out that there have not been any escape incidents from the applicant’s Loch Etive sites in the past two years.

The Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board has objected to the application. They have pointed out that the River Awe catchment is one of the most important salmon fisheries on the west coast and that its reputation is such that it is not only able to sustain local employment directly associated with salmon fishing, but also that the visits it attracts indirectly supports the wider local economy. The DSFB has expressed concern at the applicant’s track record in managing escapes and draws attention to the fact that the prestigious status of the River Awe could be seriously compromised by the presence of escaped rainbow trout, which if prevalent, could diminish its attractiveness as a salmon fishing destination, to the detriment of local employment and the tourism economy.

The DSFB points out that in pre-application consultation the applicants indicated their intention to surrender a site at the mouth of the River Awe, but this has not been carried forward into the application. In the absence of any rationalisation of sites the Board considers the proposal contrary to the provision of the Loch Etive ICZM Plan.

Neither Marine Scotland nor SNH have objected to the proposal on the grounds of the threat posed to wild salmonids, although the former has indicated that its comments are restricted to advice based on available science and it will be for the Council as planning Authority to weigh this in the balance with other factors such as the value the Council affords to local wild salmonid populations, the level of precaution the Council may wish to express, and the economic benefits to both wild fisheries and to the fish farming sector.

Although there have been past escapes of fish in Loch Etive and the applicants have had escape events elsewhere, the track record of the applicants is not a material consideration. The site is to be equipped and operated to current industry standards and there must be an expectation that it will be operated as envisaged in accordance with CoGP guidelines. It is clearly in the applicant’s commercial interest not to be negligent and to ensure on-going containment of its product. That said, there remains an residual risk that fish could escape and the given the scale of the development a single incident could release fish in large numbers into the marine environment. An element of risk in terms of interaction with wild salmonids is inevitable when fish are farmed in cages in the marine environment, and this has already been accepted with the consenting and operation of the five existing trout farms in Loch Etive.

As the DSFB points out, the Awe fishery is prestigious and would be exposed to reputational risk in the event of devaluation as a result of farmed fish being caught in numbers. There would therefore be clear benefit in the existing site closest to the mouth of the River Awe (Etive 1) being removed in association with the additional development proposed, as this would go some way towards reducing the risk to the Awe fishery. Although Etive 1 is smaller in tonnage terms than the site proposed, its location close to the mouth or the river increases the prospect of farmed fish entering the river system should there be an escape event at this location.

With the above in mind and having regard to the stance adopted by the District Salmon Fishery Board it is recommended that any consent for this site be conditioned to secure the removal of the existing site close to the mouth of the River Awe (Etive 1), as in

response to the development proposal this would afford a credible element of mitigation in relation to the interests of wild salmonids and the important local fishery they support.

Impact upon Species and Habitats of Nature Conservation Importance:

No species or habitats of nature conservation importance were identified by the applicant’s submitted seabed survey within the predicted depositional footprint of the proposed farm. The site lies over an area of ‘burrowed mud’ which is a UK BAP habitat and a recommended Priority Marine Feature (PMF) for Scottish waters. This will be exposed to the depositional footprint of the fish farm and the smothering effect of food waste and faeces, the extent of which has been modelled for CAR licencing purposes. Although this will be of consequence within SEPA’s identified Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE), it will be localised and given the widespread distribution of this type of benthic habitat within the soft sediments of loch as a whole, it is not considered that this PMF will be unacceptably affected by the presence and operation of the development.

There are no marine nature conservation designated sites in the vicinity of the proposed farm, although it does lie within a Marine Consultation Area defined by Scottish Natural Heritage in view of Loch Etive’s physical, biological and conservation interests. The site does lie adjacent to land within Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its western acidic oak woodland, mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes, alder woodland on flood plains and otter; of which, only the first and last cited qualifying interests are relevant to this case.

Where a development has the potential to give rise to significant effects upon the qualifying interests of a European Natura designation such as an Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the ‘competent authority’ considering the merits of any development proposal within, or within influencing distance of, the designated area is required to undertake ‘appropriate assessment’, if it considers that it presents the possibility of significant environmental effects upon that designation. Where a ‘likely significant effect’ is anticipated, development may only proceed if the ‘appropriate assessment’ concludes beyond ‘reasonable scientific doubt’ that the integrity of the SAC will not be compromised. In all other circumstances, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Habitats Directive, permission must be refused (other than in the specifically excepted cases where no alternatives exist, or there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for development to proceed).

This marine development would not have any anticipated consequences for the adjacent SAC acidic oak woodland, but its presence and operation could have consequences for the nearby otter population. Otters are not a predation concern, but the presence and operation of the site poses a disturbance risk to this protected species. The distance between the equipment and the shore and water depth will make the site unattractive to otter, who tend to feed on bottom dwelling species in relatively shallow water. As an SAC qualifying interest Scottish Natural Heritage has taken the view that consideration of the effect of the development on otter should take place by means of a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’, but have gone on to state that in their opinion the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the site as a result of disturbance to otter. SNH has, however, required that the applicant’s original

otter survey be augmented by a follow up survey in order to more reliably inform this process. This has been carried out and it reinforces the conclusions of the original survey. SHN does not consider that a licence to disturb otter will be required in this case, regardless of whether the identified resting site is in use or not.

The Planning Authority’s ‘appropriate assessment’ (see Appendix B to this report) has considered the likely environmental effects upon habitats and species associated with the SAC and has concluded that the proposal both in isolation, and in combination with other consented sites, will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site, in the light of its conservation objectives.

In addition to the SAC, otter are also classed as European Protected Species (EPS) and are in this respect also fully protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). This lists a number of offences in relation to otters and the places in which they live. The proposed fish farm is located approximately 198m from the potential resting area identified in the survey (the closest mooring is located approximately 60m from the potential resting site identified). Scottish Natural Heritage’s opinion is that at this distance it is not expected that the construction or operation of the fish farm would lead to a situation amounting to an offence under this legislation, regardless of whether the resting site was in use or not. Therefore SNH do not envisage that a licence to disturb otters would not be required in this case.

The potential operation of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADD’s), particularly in enclosed waters, presents a deterrence risk to cetaceans. However, in the circumstances of this narrow sea loch constrained by its entrance at the Falls of Lora, it is not anticipated that there would be any significant incursion of cetaceans and hence the risk of effects upon these species may be regarded as being low.

The site lies close to a small islet known as Elean Faoileag which is of value for bird breeding (common and Arctic terns, both protected species listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive) and therefore the applicants have indicated their intention to devise and implement a Bird Protection Plan to avoid unnecessary disturbance. This shall requires that equipment be deployed outwith the April – June nesting season and include operational measures such as the timing of activities and the routing of boat traffic. SNH has recommended appropriate mitigation measures to be imposed to address the potential disturbance to birds which should be addressed by way of condition in the event that planning permission is granted.

Scottish Natural Heritage has not raised objection to the planning application on the grounds of unacceptable consequences for marine mammals, otters, priority marine features or any other SAC qualifying interest.

Conclusion

The proposal is considered consistent with Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 (5 and 12) and other relevant development plan policies insofar as it would not significantly prejudice water quality and associated biodiversity interests, provided that the existing Inverawe West (Etive 1) site were to be de-equipped as an element of mitigation in respect of this proposal.

E. Landscape/Seascape Character

The application site lies astride the mouth of a triangular tapering bay known as Sailean Ruadh to the west of Airds Point, which is a distinctive promontory in the central section of the loch. It lies 140m from the shore at Airds Point and 750m from the north shore of the loch. This section of the loch trends east - west and is generally of the order of 1km in width, with a series of sheltered but expansive bays along its margins, some of which are already occupied for the purposes of aquaculture.

The North Connel - Bonawe road and associated roadside habitation is hemmed in against the northern shoreline by unpopulated and rugged terrain to the north, some of which is designated as an Area of Panoramic Quality by the local plan, in view of its scenic qualities of regional importance. The fish farm would only be intermittently visible from this coast road due to intervening shoreside vegetation and it would be back- dropped in views across the loch by the extensive woodland along the southern shore. However, elevated views would be available from the Gleann Salach road from Barcaldine as it drops towards the loch, where the equipment would appear more significant in its landscape setting. Open views across the loch are also available from the vicinity of Ardchattan jetty where visitors to the nearby priory can be expected to appreciate views across the loch.

The southern shore is little populated with the A85 running inland and the coastline heavily influenced by dense shore woodland, particularly around Muckairn and Airds Point. Vehicular access to the shore is limited in this location and views from the railway line are transient and mainly obscured by vegetation. However, recreational use of the coastline along with boat traffic associated with recreational sailors, anglers and kayakers will potentially bring visitors into relatively close contact with the site.

There are existing trout farm sites at Airds Bay (Etive 4) on the opposite side of Airds Point to the current proposal, and at Ardchattan Bay (Etive 5) off the north shore, to the west of the current application site. There are eight consented shellfish sites within 2.5km of the application site, the nearest of which, other than that which lies within the application site, is at Muckairn 700m to the west. Due to the mytilus trosullus problem most of these sites are not currently equipped, so the extent of influence of aquaculture on the loch for the time being appears less that it might otherwise be.

As part of their Environmental Statement (ES) the applicants have undertaken a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of the proposal to in accordance with Landscape Institute guidelines and Scottish Natural Heritage’s published guidance, which addresses a 5km radius study area.

There are no landscape designations affecting the site, although the upland hinterland north of Bonawe falls within a local plan identified Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ). Both sides of the loch and most of the potential viewpoints from which the site might be experienced lie within the Scottish Natural Heritage defined ‘Rocky Mosaic’ Landscape Character Type (LCT) which forms a narrow coastal margin along the irregular loch edge. These loch shore areas with their associated small scale land use and development pattern form a sensitive transition between the sea loch and the more expansive upland areas which backcloth them.

The applicants ES accords the ‘Rocky Mosaic’ LCT as having ‘medium’ sensitivity to development having regard to the fact that whilst it does not benefit from any landscape designation it does contribute to an attractive landscape/seascape. It concludes that despite the relative absence of built development there is an influence from consented aquaculture which is a recognisable if not a defining component of this LCT. Whilst visibility of the site from the road network will be limited to those location which are not shielded by topography or shoreline trees, it will be visible from the Airds Bay coastline, from the Muckairn Estate, from out on the loch itself and from some properties on the north shore. In particular, elevated views of the site would be obtained from the Gleann Sallach road on the approach to the north shore of the loch from Barcaldine. The ES anticipates that the magnitude of change will be ‘low/medium’ up to 1km and ‘low’ beyond that, and that the significance of the effect will be ‘moderate’ on landscape character within 1km which is not assessed to be significant in terms of the effect of the EIA Regulations.

In terms of visual amenity, the applicants have assessed the impact of the development from three representative viewpoints as follows:

• B845 Gleann Sallach road from Barcaldine (2.4km) – this is an elevated location within an APQ on the descent to the loch. It is suggested that the site will be less conspicuous than the existing Etive 4 site to the east of Airds Point and it is pointed out that the consented but currently removed mussel lines would be visible from this location and that the proposed farm would only be partly visible. This is to be regarded as a ‘high’ sensitivity location with ‘negligible/low’ magnitude of change giving an effect of ‘slight’ significance. ‘Low/medium’ magnitude of cumulative effect is assessed in relation to the existing site at Etive 4.

• North Connel -Bonawe road along north shore of loch at Inveresragan (1.1km) – selected as a worst case location as much of this road is partly screened by roadside vegetation. All of the proposed site would be visible from this location. Sensitivity is assessed as being ‘medium/high’ given that it is also representative of outlook from roadside properties further along. Magnitude of change assessed to be ‘low’ giving an effect of ‘moderate’ significance and a cumulative effect with Etive 4 of ‘medium’ magnitude.

• Ardchattan jetty (1.2km) – a more open view than that obtainable from the house, priory or the remainder of the designed landscape. All of the site would

be visible with Etive 5 in the immediate foreground. Sensitivity of location ‘high’ , magnitude of change assessed as being ‘low’ , producing an effect of ‘moderate’ significance. The cumulative effect with Etive 5 is considered to be ‘low’ magnitude give the separation distance between the sites.

In addition to the landscape and visual assessment included in the ES, the applicants have been asked to also undertake a sequential assessment from the perspective of a loch user, given that this site will be appreciated from the water as well as from locations on land, and given the recreational use of the loch for sailing kayaking, boat angling and so on. This has considered the additional impacts when considered with other existing fish farms on the loch in order to identify cumulative effects. These would arise in relation to the inter-visible existing cages at Ardchattan Bay (Etive 5) and in respect of some mussel farming on the southern shore. Beyond Airds Point the site would not be viewed in combination with any other existing sites, although it would be experienced sequentially with further sites during a transit along the loch. Beyond the finfish site at Airds Bay East (Etive 4) the influence of aquaculture diminishes until the final group of fin fish sites and further mussel sites are reached east of the mouth of the River Awe. Overall the sequential assessment has concluded that the proposal would have a low/medium magnitude of cumulative effect which would not amount to a significant effect in EIA terms.

The applicants conclude that the proposal will have ‘ moderate’ impact from close range without giving rise to a defining effect on local landscape character and without being a dominant feature in the context if the wider landscape/seascape. ZTV mapping associated with this indicates visibility of the proposed site extending along the loch to the west as far as Achnacree and about 1km to the east of the site just past Airds Point. Water based receptors have been assessed on a worst case basis as being of high sensitivity. No significant landscape or visual effects are identified by their ES in terms of the EIA Regulations.

Scottish Natural Heritage have not objected to the proposal as it does not conflict with any European or National designations. They have however commented that the proposal does not fully accord with their good practice guidance which expresses a preference for development to be located close to and parallel to the shore to benefit from immediate back-dropping. As a result of the development straddling the entrance to an inlet, and particularly in the elevated views available from the minor road from Barcaldine, the development would appear to occupy more of the loch than it would in practice, by virtue of having the area of water in the inlet of Sailean Ruadh behind it, and also due to the foreground of the loch being obscured by intervening topography. SNH has therefore expressed concerns in landscape terms and has asked that the Council has regard to these in reaching a decision.

The conclusion of officers, having regard to the conclusions of the applicant’s LVIA, the submitted photomontages and the views expressed by Scottish Natural Heritage is as follows.

The lochside road on the north shore between Ardchattan and Bonawe is the location from which most receptors would experience the site. The existing trout farm around

Airds Point at Airds Bay East (Etive 4) is visible from the eastern section of this route and a series of shellfish lease sites are visible across the loch from the western section and the approach from North Connel. Visibility of the site is intermittent along this route particularly east of Inveresragan where roadside trees limit visibility of the site. Visibility is greatest just west of Inveresragan where the road is aligned north-south for a short section and those travelling in the direction of North Connel will head briefly directly towards and in full view of the site. Further east, the site can be seen at greater distance from the vicinity of Ardchattan Jetty, which is a visitor destination given its relationship with the nearby priory. However, at this location the existing fish farm at Etive 5 is in the immediate foreground in views of the application site more than a kilometre away, which would be back-dropped by trees and rising land beyond.

The position SNH have adopted relative to the elevated views available from the Gleann Sallach road is accepted. As with all fish farms, their presence becomes more imposing when viewed from elevated locations, as their low lying nature and generally recessive appearance generally benefits them most when they are appreciated from vantage points close to sea level. In the case of the particular stretch of road on the descent to the loch, the proposed site will be an imposing element as component of the immediate landscape, and as SNH points out, given that the development would not align with the coastline, the effect of perspective is such that it would appear to be further out in the loch than it would be in practice. However, this road is not well used, with most traffic using the coast road to/from Connel and Oban rather than the route to Barcaldine. Secondly, traffic travelling north would have no view of the site so the effect would be in one direction only. Thirdly, on the descent the views are only available for a relatively short distance, although it has to be said that the impact of the development would be quite imposing insofar as it could be seen. Fourthly, although removed at present, the consented mussel longlines within the application site, with their associated system of floats, could be readily appreciated from this elevated location so there is already precedent for intrusion in views of Sailean Ruadh from this location. Finally, there are exisiting views of the Airds Bay East (Etive 4) trout farm, and Beinn Ghlas windfarm on the skyline, from the locations on the descent where the proposed fish farm could be seen, so this is not a pristine view, having been already impacted by the presence of relatively large scale development.

From the loch itself most receptors could be expected to be in yachts, angling boats, kayaks or other small craft where they would be experiencing the fish farm equipment from low level and potentially at quite close quarters. The south shore in this part of the loch is relatively unpopulated and affords scenic views across the loch towards Ben Cruachan and other high ground, so it constitutes a relatively tranquil and high amenity location for small boat related activities. This will be impacted upon by the physical presence of the fish farm equipment and noise and activity associated with its operation, which would be more readily perceived over water at close quarters. In comparison with the consented mussel farm, the proposal by virtue of its greater scale and the presence of a feed barge would exert much more influence over its immediate surroundings, and would impact to a greater degree upon the amenity of other water users as a consequence. However, this is not a unique destination either in terms of angling, sailing or kayaking and some diminution in amenity can therefore be accepted on the basis that there remain sufficient alternative locations for these activities, should recreational

interests be dissuaded from visiting this location due to the presence of the fish farm. There are, of course, other locations around the Argyll coastline where recreational interests persist, despite the introduction of aquaculture development.

The southern shore has much less in the way of receptors with the A85 and the railway not being influenced to any degree by the proposal, with there not being any other road access, and Muckairn Castle being the only residential property in the vicinity of the site. Access to the shore in the vicinity of Sailean Ruadh appears limited so the site would be more likely to be experienced by those using the recognised anchorage than by those on foot. Accordingly, the number of receptors experiencing the site at closer quarters from the south would be much fewer in number than those at a kilometre or so from the northern shore.

Conclusion

In the event of the existing site at Ardchattan Bay (Etive 5) being de-equipped at the expiry of its remaining lease as an element of mitigation for the development, the proposal would, as part of a committed consolidation, comply with Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 (2 and 4) the Loch Etive ICZM Plan and other relevant development plan policies, insofar as it would not in the longer term present unacceptable cumulative impacts and would not significantly prejudice landscape character, visual amenity or designated areas of scenic quality.

F. Historic Environment

There are Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDL’s) at Achnacloich 2.4km to the west of the application site, and at Ardchattan Priory 1.2km to the north-west, on the opposite shore of the loch. The latter is the only of the two locations likely to be influenced, with ready visibility of the proposed site from the shoreline and jetty at Ardchattan. Achnacloich benefits from a wooded setting and an oblique relationship at a distance and is unlikely to be affected in any significant way by the proposal.

Ardchattan Priory is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and Ardchattan House is a listed building. This location is already affected by the presence of the existing Etive 5 fish farm close inshore adjacent to the Ardchattan Jetty. This location has been included as a representative viewpoint in the applicant’s ES and has been discussed in the preceding section. Ardchattan is of importance as a visitor destination and although the house, priory and much of the designed landscape are screened from the site by trees and a tall boundary wall, visitors can be expected to appreciate the loch from the shoreline and the vicinity of the jetty, and to that extent an additional site will exert some influence over the setting of this historic environment asset. There is over a kilometre separation between the proposed site and the existing Etive 5 site with the latter assuming the most importance in terms of the influence of aquaculture on this location given the location of the cages close to the shore. A ‘moderate’ impact is envisaged on this location as a consequence of the proposed additional site.

Conclusion

There are no scheduled monuments, listed buildings or sites of archaeological importance which would have their settings significantly affected by the proposal and Historic Scotland have not raised any objection to the application. However, the removal of equipment from the site at Ardchattan Bay, which is close to the historic assets in question, would represent significant benefit in relation to the effects of aquaculture in the loch upon the setting of the historic site at Ardchattan.

G. Other Marine Users

The navigational implications of the prosed fish farm will be considered separately by Marine Scotland under the marine licencing procedure. It should be borne in mind that although shellfish equipment is not currently in place there remains the prospect of the site being re-equipped in the future. Additionally, whilst the seabed foot print of the proposed mooring area is extensive relative to the footprint of the consented shellfish site, the applicant’s intention is to ensure that the first 7m of mooring lines are laid out so as to be near vertical in order to limit the consequences of the presence of the equipment on other marine uses. Therefore, navigation relatively close to the cage group will be possible, and indeed the installation has to afford sufficient draught for a large well boat to service the farm and for workboats to come alongside the cages.

The proposal does not give rise to adverse navigation issues subject to navigational marking to satisfy Northern Lighthouse Board requirements. The Glen Light Shipping Company, who operate coasters to and from Bonawe, have written to confirm that the fish farm would not conflict with their shipping movements. Likewise, the only regular creel fisherman operating in the area has confirmed that he has no objection to the proposal. The previous withdrawn proposal prompted concerns from the West Highland Anchorages and Moorings Association and the Royal Yacht Club that the extent and location of the development across the mouth of the Sailean Ruadh inlet would restrict access to a recognised anchorage. In modifying its proposals in anticipation of the current application, the applicants have held discussions with yachting interests and have amended the proposed development in a manner in which safeguards access to the anchorage to WHAM’s satisfaction.

The Loch Etive ICZM Plan identifies the value of the area for sea fishing with popular boat launching points at both Airds Bay and Taynuilt. The plan indicates that the area between Rubha Ban and Airds Point is a popular boat angling area. This already contains the consented mussel lease within the application site along with the nearby mussel lease at Muckairn. The ES contends that the additional area lost to recreational fishing as a result of the site being equipped for finfish farming (beyond that already affected by the consented mussel site) would be marginal in the context of the remaining area available for sea angling. The effect of the development would be largely confined to the impact on the amenity of the area and its attractiveness as a sea angling area, rather than any consequences from the loss of potential fishing.

The south coast of the relatively sheltered waters of Loch Etive is popular with sea kayakers particularly when more exposed waters elsewhere are affected by adverse weather conditions. Kayaking brings indirect economic benefits to the area as a whole, in addition to the recreational experience for individuals. The indented, attractive and

relatively unpopulated coastline with its imposing mountain setting to the north makes the vicinity of the application site a relatively safe and interesting destination. The finfish site proposed will occupy a larger area, and the equipment viewed from low level will be more imposing at close quarters, than the consented shellfish site and the proposal will therefore diminish the amenity of the immediate area and intrude in views available along and across the loch. Whilst it will not restrict access to Sailean Ruadh it will be an increased intrusion upon its undeveloped character and its sense of place, relative to the impact of the consented shellfish farm. Although this is regrettable, given the opportunities for sea kayaking elsewhere in the loch and further afield in Argyll, it is not considered that this diminution in the attractiveness of the locality to sea kayakers in itself renders this proposal unacceptable.

Conclusion

The proposal complies with Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 (6 and 11) and other relevant development plan policies insofar as it would not significantly prejudice navigation and the continued exploitation of traditional fishing ground.

H. Noise

Noise associated with the development will arise from the operation of workboats and other vessels associated with the fish farm, plus noise from the generator within the feed barge, plus more intensive periods of short-term activity associated with stocking and harvesting. However, the generator will be enclosed in an acoustic housing with the intention that it should be barely audible when on deck. Unlike other sites in Loch Etive where feed cannons are in use, the pneumatic delivery of feed between the barge and the cages will not generate intrusive levels of noise. Automated feeding will only take place during the working day as trout do not feed outside daylight hours.

There is an absence of habitation or other sensitive receptors close by. Muckairn Castle lies 650m away from the site and is orientated away from it, so although the presence of the site would impinge on the setting of the estate and the outlook over the loch, it would not have consequences for residential amenity. The nearest properties on the north shore are over 780m away and likewise operational noise from the site is not anticipated to pose a threat to their residential amenity. The Council’s environmental health officers have not raised any objection to the proposal on grounds of likely nuisance from noise or other disturbance.

Conclusion

The proposal complies with Local Plan Policy LP AQUA 1 (1) and other relevant development plan policies insofar as it would not significantly prejudice the amenity of communities and settlements.

I. Transport

There will be no need for access to the locality of the site by road. Routine servicing will be undertaken by boat from the applicant’s existing shore base at Inverawe and feed will be delivered to the feed barge by boat from Barcaldine. Stocking and harvesting of fish will take place by well boat.

APPENDIX B

HABITAT REGULATIONS APPRORIATE ASSESSMENT LOCH ETIVE WOODS SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION

Date November 2013

Development proposal New trout farm - Sailean Ruadh, Loch Etive

Natura site(s) Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation

A. INTRODUCTION

This document is a record of the full Habitats Regulation Appraisal, undertaken by Argyll and Bute Council in respect of the above development proposal to assess the implications on the Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

B. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

1 Brief description of the project The development proposal is a new trout farm comprising ten 80m circumference cages and feed barge at Sailean Ruadh in Loch Etive. The application site is adjacent to the Loch Etive Woods SAC and partially overlaps with a smaller shellfish farm consent which was in operation prior to a loch wide fallow of mussel farming in 2009. The applicant currently operates five trout farms in Loch Etive (Figure 1), two of which are adjacent to the Loch Etive Woods SAC.

It is proposed to service the new site by boat from an existing shore base located at Inverawe, with some secondary access being taken from Ardchattan Pier. The proposed production cycle is 22.5 months with a minimum 6 week fallow period prior to restocking. Stocking and harvesting will take place via a well boat over a five month period at a rate of 2 cages per month.

Unlike the existing Etive sites, where feeding takes place by feed cannon or manually, it is intended to install a permanent feed barge at this site. This is to be located centrally on the eastern (inshore) side of the cage group, which will require feed deliveries either once or twice a week by boat from Barcaldine. Feed will be automatically dispensed during daylight hours using a pneumatic feed pipe arrangement. The extent of the surface equipment and the position of the feed barge would be marked by navigation lighting to satisfy Northern Lighthouse Board requirements. Other lighting on the site would be restricted to essential requirements so as to avoid unnecessary illumination. No underwater maturation lighting is proposed for use at this site.

The construction of the site involves the formation of a grid framework which is kept in place with permanent mooring ropes. Anchors are first placed on the sea bed and then mooring ropes connect them to the grid. This operation is predicted to take 5-7 days and will require a medium sized boat with no onshore activities. Cages are subsequently attached by ropes within the grid.

Noise associated with the development will arise from the operation of workboats and other vessels associated with the fish farm, plus noise from the generator within the feed barge, plus more intensive periods of short-term activity associated with stocking and

harvesting. However, the generator will be enclosed in an acoustic housing with the intention that it should be barely audible when on deck. Unlike other sites in Loch Etive where feed cannons are in use, the pneumatic delivery of feed between the barge and the cages will not generate intrusive levels of noise.

The applicant has provided a Predator Control Plan which focuses on the use of tensioned netting to prevent predation from seals as a first line of defence. In the event of tensioned netting failing to prevent seal predation, Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADD’s) will be installed on site as a secondary protection measure. The applicant proposes to use triggered ADDs which emit underwater noise only when a seal has made an attack on the fish cages.

SEPA have granted a CAR licence for the proposed site for a maximum biomass of 2500 tonnes. This CAR licence was granted following the completion of an appropriate assessment, which concluded that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on site integrity of the Loch Etive Woods SAC. The applicant is now applying for a variation of this licence to reduce biomass to 1500 tonnes.

2 Relevant natura site(s)

The proposed development is situated adjacent to the Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation.

3 Qualifying interests for the natura site and conservation objectives for each interest

QUALIFYING INTERESTS (see http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0012750 ) designated for its western acidic oak woodland, mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes, alder woodland on flood plains and otter; of which, only the first and last cited qualifying interests are relevant to this case.

The natural heritage interests of the Loch Etive Woods SAC for which the site is designated are:

Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site: • 9180 Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines Some good examples of Tilio-Acerion forest occur in the deeply-incised rocky gorges associated with Glen Nant and in the nearby Coille Leitire . These sites are representative of the habitat type in western Scotland, and comprise stands of ash Fraxinus excelsior woodland with a hazel Corylus avellana understorey and a rich field layer of tall herbs and woodland grasses on base-rich soils characteristic of the habitat.

• 91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles Loch Etive Woods in western Scotland is one of three sites representing old sessile oak woods in the most bryophyte-rich zone in the UK, the south-west Highlands zone. The diversity of soils and physical conditions leads to transitions between oakwood and both wet alder Alnus glutinosa and base-rich ash-elm-hazel Fraxinus excelsior-Ulmus-Corylus avellana stands, giving additional patterns of structural variation and transitions. The woods support important populations of the rare chequered skipper butterfly Carterocephalus palaemon .

Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for the selection of this site:

• Not applicable.

Annex II species that are a primary reason for the selection of this site: • Not applicable.

Annex II species present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection: • 1355 Otter Lutra lutra

CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES

Habitats To avoid deterioration of the qualifying habitats (listed below*) thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features; and

To ensure for the qualifying habitats that the following are maintained in the long term: Extent of the habitat on site Distribution of the habitat within site Structure and function of the habitat Processes supporting the habitat Distribution of typical species of the habitat Viability of typical species as components of the habitat No significant disturbance of typical species of the habitat

*Qualifying habitats: • Alder woodland on floodplain (priority habitat) • Mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes (priority habitat) • Western acidic oak woodland

Species To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species (listed below**) or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features; and

To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: Population of the species as a viable component of the site Distribution of the species within site Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species No significant disturbance of the species

**Qualifying species: • Otter

C. IS AN APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT REQUIRED?

4 Is the proposal directly connected with, or necessary to, conservation management of the site?

No.

5 Is the proposal likely to have a significant effect on the site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects)?

The proposed fish farm lies within 100m of Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its western acidic oak woodland, mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes, alder woodland on floodplains and otter interests. However, only two interests are present in the vicinity of this development, western acidic oak woodland and otter.

The site's status means that the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended, (the “Habitats Regulations”) apply.

The proposed fish farm has no connectivity with the western acidic oak woodland interest of the site and therefore there is no likely significant effect on this feature. The proposed development may however have potential to result in significant effects on ‘otter’ as a qualifying interest of the site. As a consequence Argyll and Bute Council, as competent authority, is required to undertake an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for this qualifying interest.

SNH were consulted on the above development proposal and gave the following advice:

The proposed fish farm has no connectivity with the western acidic oak woodland interest of the site and therefore there is no likely significant effect on this feature. However, in our view, this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interest of the site, otter. As a consequence Argyll and Bute Council, as the competent authority, is required to undertake an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for this qualifying interest. To help you do this we would further advise that, in our view, based on the information provided, the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. The appraisal we carried out considered the impact of the proposals on the following factors:

a. The potential for significant disturbance to otter to occur. The information provided within the ES confirms that no otter holts or resting places are present within 200m of the closest infrastructure. We can therefore be confident that no significant disturbance will occur as a result of this proposal.

D. APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

6 Scope of the Appropriate Assessment

The Appropriate Assessment considers the construction and operation of the proposed farm in light of the conservation objectives for ‘otter’.

The potential for discharges of waste and sea lice chemicals to affect the conservation objectives of the SAC has not been considered in this Appropriate Assessment. SEPA have undertaken an Appropriate Assessment as part of their determination and approval of a CAR consent for a 2500 tonne site. A variation of this licence for a 1500

tonne site is still to be made by the applicant but the depositional footprint of the amended proposal is likely to be smaller.

7 SAC features in the vicinity of the proposal

The proposed development is located adjacent to the Loch Etive Woods SAC boundary. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the proposed farm and existing trout farms in relation to the Loch Etive Woods SAC. The closest corner of the cage group is approximately 110m from the boundary of the SAC and the feed barge is approximately 150m from the SAC boundary.

The applicant undertook an otter survey in 2012 and this was repeated in October 2013. The latter survey concurred with the 2012 survey and identified that otters are present and using the survey area. These surveys identified abundant suitable habitat for otters, including undisturbed shallow waters suitable for foraging; good terrestrial habitat with abundant potential for resting sites; and fresh water streams and a fresh- water reservoir.

The surveys identified a number of otter spraints and three otter resting sites, the closest being around 215m from the cage group and 80m from the nearest mooring line. None of the resting sites found were considered to have potential as natal sites. Figure 2 shows the proposed location of fish farm equipment in relation to the SAC boundary and distribution of identified otter signs. A further survey, undertaken on behalf of Friends of Loch Etive identified a potential rest-up/holt approximately 750m south of the cage group.

Figure 1. Location of Loch Etive Woods SAC, proposed new trout farm and existing trout farm sites

Figure 2. Signs of otter activity in relation to the proposed development

Figure 3. Potential foraging habitat in Loch Etive (mean high water to 10m depth contour)

8 Proposed mitigation in relation to minimising disturbance to otters

The following mitigation will assist in minimising disturbance to otters: • Approval of this development proposal is recommended subject to the cessation of farming and removal of all farm equipment at existing trout farm sites Etive 1 and Etive 5. The removal of these sites would reduce the overall length of coastline where aquaculture development has the potential to disturb otters. • The feed barge generator will be enclosed in an acoustic housing within the feedbarge with the intention that it should be barely audible when on deck. • The applicant will be required to use a triggered ADD device, only if tensioned netting has not been effective in deterring seal predation. Should the development proposal be approved, the following planning condition will ensure an appropriate device is deployed on site and current good practice on operational use is followed.

7. No deployment of Acoustic Deterrent Devices shall be permitted at the site unless the model intended for use and the means of its use have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, following consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Thereafter deployment shall only take place in accordance with the duly approved details unless any subsequent variation thereof is agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.

9 Assessment of proposal against Conservation Objectives The potential for the proposed development on its own and in combination with other aquaculture sites, to affect the Conservation Objectives for ‘otter’ is assessed below.

1. Maintain the population of the species as a viable component of the site in the long

term Otters are present across the entire Loch Etive Woods SAC and beyond utilising the whole of Loch Etive. Given the conclusions of assessment for Conservation Objectives 2 to 5 below, the construction and operation of the proposed development is considered unlikely to affect this conservation objective.

2. Maintain the distribution of the species within site in the long term This conservation objective relates to the distributions of otters within the boundary of the Loch Etive Woods SAC. The farm cages and feed barge are approximately 240m from recorded rest-up/holt locations and harvesting and feed delivery vessels visiting the farm would be moored adjacent to the feed barge which is more than 300m away. At these distances it is considered that construction and operation of the proposed fish farm would not result in significant disturbance to otter and therefore not affect their distribution within the site. In relation to the use of underwater ADDs, the boundary of the SAC extends to Mean High Water Springs and therefore will not affect the distribution of otter on land.

As the proposed development is not considered to affect to the distribution of otter within the SAC, there is no cumulative issue associated with potential disturbance from existing aquaculture sites.

3. Maintain the distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species, in the long term If there is connectivity with the feature of the SAC then this conservation objective can include habitats out with the SAC boundary. In the case of otters at Loch Etive Woods SAC, the SAC boundary does not extend beyond high water but any habitat in the intertidal zone or below low water which could be used by otters as foraging ground would be included in this conservation objective.

The proposed development will not affect the distribution and extent of terrestrial habitats supporting otter. Fish farm moorings sit on the seabed so could potentially interact with marine otter foraging habitat. In this case however, the cage and feedbarge moorings are to be sited in water deeper than 20m and given otters do not usually forage in depths greater than 10m, it can be concluded that the proposed development is not expected to affect this conservation objective.

There are 5 existing trout farms and 14 consented mussel farms in the Loch. The cage and longline moorings for most of these sites are in water de eper than 10m. However, there are some sites which may have a small number of moorings in water shallow enough for otters to forage. The footprint of a single mooring block is extremely small (normally 1m 2) and even if a worst case scenario of four moorings for all 19 consented sites in addition to the proposed site would represent a very small area of seabed that is considered insignificant in comparison to the available marine foraging area available to otters.

The use of ADDs would not have any impact on the distribution and extent of habitats supporting otter and is therefore not considered further.

4. Maintain the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species, in the long term The proposed development does not directly interact with terrestrial habitats which support otter and therefore it is considered that there is no potential to affect the function and supporting processes of terrestrial habitats supporting otter. Fish farm moorings sit on the seabed so could potentially interact with marine otter foraging habitat. In this case however, the cage and feedbarge moorings are to be

sited in water deeper than 20m and given otters do not usually forage in depths greater than 10m, it can be concluded that the proposed development is not expected to affect this conservation objective.

The use of ADDs would not have any impact on the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting otter and is therefore not considered further.

Cumulatively, it is considered that the interaction between the proposed development and supporting marine habitat from the proposed site in addition to existing aquaculture sites is not likely to prevent the maintenance in the long term of the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting otter, as discussed under Conservation Objective 3.

5. Maintain no significant disturbance of the species in the long term

Disturbance to otters on land Significant disturbance relates to the viability of the otter and effects on otters when they are breeding or occupying shelters. The ES and supporting otter surveys confirm that no otter holts or resting places have been identified within 200m of the closest surface infrastructure. The closest corner of the cage group is approximately 215m from an identified resting site. The closest mooring is located closer but is still approximately 80m from the potential resting site.

In addition to the SAC, otter are also classed as European Protected Species (EPS) and are in this respect also fully protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). This lists a number of offences in relation to otters and the places in which they live. Scottish Natural Heritage’s opinion is that at these distances it is not expected that the construction or operation of the fish farm would lead to a situation amounting to an offence under this legislation, regardless of whether the resting site was in use or not. Therefore SNH do not envisage that a licence to disturb otters would not be required in this case.

It is concluded that the operational and construction activity identified in Section 1 of this Habitats Regulations Appraisal is not likely to result in significant disturbance of otter which would affect the long term viability of otters.

Disturbance to otters foraging in shallow coastal waters The use of ADDs will result in underwater noise that may have the potential to disturb otters whilst foraging in adjacent shallow marine waters. ADDs will only be used if tensioned netting fails to prevent seal predation. ADDs will be triggered devices which rather than emitting sound constantly, they emit underwater noise only when the fish cages are targeted by a predator. Any effects are therefore temporary in nature.

The coastline of Loch Etive is approximately 86km in length and Figure 3 identifies the approximate marine foraging area between high water springs and 10m depth, which is available to otters. Removing the steeply shelving areas of coastline that are less likely to be suitable for otters the available coastline is still extensive at approximately 77km.

It is not possible to calculate the exact distance which sound from ADDs might result in disturbance to otters foraging in coastal waters adjacent to the proposed farm, but it can reasonably be concluded as a worst case scenario, that otters may

be excluded from a localised shallow marine area of foraging habitat. Compared to the available shallow foraging marine habitat within Loch Etive which otters can freely use, it is concluded that any temporary disturbance resulting from the use of ADDs is not likely compromise the population of otters in Loch Etive and result in significant disturbance of otters.

The use of ADDs at the proposed site in addition to the five existing trout farms may result in localised disturbance to otters foraging in shallow marine waters. The existing trout farms at Ardchatten (Etive 5), Airds Point (Etive 4) and Inverawe (Etive 1) are located adjacent to suitable foraging habitat, but foraging habitat is limited adjacent to Etive 2 and Etive 3. Compared to the available shallow foraging marine habitat within Loch Etive which otters can freely use, it is concluded that any temporary disturbance resulting from the use of ADDs at both existing and the proposed farm is not likely compromise the population of otters in Loch Etive and result in significant disturbance of otters.

Some short-term and temporary disturbance will occur to foraging or social activity by otter around Sailean Ruadh during the deployment of anchor points and mooring ropes. However the magnitude of such impacts is considered to be low and would affect a very small proportion of the overall foraging area available to otters.

The distance between the equipment and the shore (125m+) and water depth of the cage group (40m+) is considered to make the site unattractive to otter, which tend to feed on bottom dwelling species in relatively shallow water. The cages nets are highly tensioned to prevent damage by seals and the any unused netting will be disposed of on site. The risk of otters interacting with the cages and becoming trapped in cage nets is therefore considered to be low and therefore not expected to affect this conservation objective.

13 Conclusion of Appropriate Assessment

As a competent authority, Argyll and Bute Council has considered the likely environmental effects upon habitats and species associated with the SAC and has concluded that the proposal both in isolation, and in combination with other consented sites, will not adversely affect the integrity of Loch Etive Woods SAC, in light of its conservation objectives. This conclusion concurs with SNH’s advice on the planning application that in their view, based on the information provided, the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.

APPENDIX C

LIST OF PERSONS HAVING MADE REPRESENTATION TO THE APPLICATION

Note: In the event of multiple representations from the same individual, the name and address of that individual has been listed once only.

Supporters

Aimee Plunkett 56 Lochaber Road 22/07/2013 S Fort William PH33 6TU Alastair Salvesen Whitburgh 21/07/2013 S Pathhead EH37 5SR Alexander Gault Moss-side Farm 07/08/2013 S Stonedyke Road Carluke ML8 4QB Alexander Millen 55 Hill House Avenue 15/07/2013 S Bathgate West Lothian EH48 4BB Alexander Young 14 Ben Venue Road 07/08/2013 S Eastfield Cumbernauld G68 9JF

Alison Hutchins 12 Kilmorich 22/07/2013 S Cairndow PA26 8BA Alison Pick Caravan 73 15/08/2013 S Lochawe Holiday Park Taynuilt PA35 1HT Alona Cameron Roroyare 15/08/2013 S Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1HP Amie Young Wilands 31/07/2013 S Lewiston Drumnadrochit IV63 6UW Andrew Forbes An Lachan 17/07/2013 S Smith 39 Castle Street Fochabers IV32 7DW Andrew Sheridan Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Andy Moore 19, Cruachan Cottages 23/07/2013 S Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JG Angus MacIntyre Glenlussa 03/08/2013 S Ford Lochgilphead PA31 8RH Anne McDade Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Anthony Miller 2 Hill Road 14/07/2013 S Harthill, Shotts Ml7 5RY Aqua Solutionz John MacPhee 22/08/2013 S Aquaculture Resource Management Geary Waternish Isle Of Skye IV55 8GQ Arlene Millen 55 Hill House Avenue 15/07/2013 S Bathgate West Lothian EH48 4BB Atholl Cameron 40 Gallowhill 15/07/2013 S Road Kirkintilloch G66 4AJ B Neeson 1 Knapphill 02/08/2013 S Dunfermline KY11 8WG

Barry Chung 40 Avonbridge Drive 23/07/2013 S Hamilton South Lanarkshire Ml3 7EJ Barry Kirk Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Bob Waller 4B Brighton Rd 17/07/2013 S Horsham West Sussex RH13 5BA C Duke 30 Fairgrove Drive 25/07/2013 S Lindsayfield East Kilbride G75 9FH Cameron Argyll Agricultural Engineers 22/07/2013 S MacFarlane Glenshellach Road Oban PA34 4BH Catherine Kirk Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Catrina MacPhee 33 Moraypark Gardens 22/08/2013 S Culloden Inverness IV2 7FY Catriona Kidd 4 Seaview Terrace 21/07/2013 S Edinburgh EH15 2HD Chris Kelly Unit 1 A 12/08/2013 S Clyde Ind Est Glasgow G73 1PP Christina MacPhee 48 Turret Road 06/08/2013 S Knightswood Glasgow G13 2HH Colin Robertson Ardoran 01/08/2013 S Lerags Oban PA34 4SE Craig Elder 42 Ladeside Rd 05/08/2013 S Blackburn EH47 7JT Craig Paterson Flat 7 23/07/2013 S 11 Burnhill Quadrant Rutherglen G73 1ER Craig Smith 66 Haldane Place 07/08/2013 S The Murray East Kilbride G75 0LN

Craig Wright Flat 1 Main Street West 22/07/2013 S Inveraray Argyll PA32 8TU Daniel Maynad 2 Heol Aneurin 13/08/2013 S Tonyrefail CF39 8LN Darren Allan 22/1 Stenhouse Drive 06/08/2013 S Edinburgh EH11 3JD David Bassett BTA, The Rural Centre 05/08/2013 S West Mains Ingliston EH28 8NZ David Butterfield 70 Pettersondale Coxhoe 15/07/2013 S Durham DH6 4HA David Christie 2 Chestnut Court 06/08/2013 S Abronhill Cumbernauld G67 3NX David Danson 4 Fleming Court 29/07/2013 S Lochgilphead PA31 8WF David Davies 5 Banchory Avenue 08/08/2013 S Inchinan Renfrewshire PA4 9PT David Gray 5a, Riverpark 25/07/2013 S Nairn IV12 5SP David Gray Rithven Lodge 02/08/2013 S Ruthvenfield Perth PH1 3JP David Keat Brander Lodge Hotel 21/07/2013 S Bridge of Awe Near Taynuilt PA35 1HT David Morrice 24 Moubray Gardens 02/08/2013 S Cambus FK10 2NQ David Sturrock C/O Muckairn Mussels 13/08/2013 S Achnacloich By Connel Argyll PA37 1PR David Thain Bridgend Cottage 15/08/2013 S Balgavies Forfar DD8 2SE

David Thorburn 36F Shore Street 18/07/2013 S Inverness IV1 1NF David Thorburn Eastmill Cottage 16/07/2013 S Littlemill IV12 5QL David Vallance Flar 21, Broomburn Court 14/08/2013 S 14 Broomburn Drive Glasgow G77 5JG David Wood 4 Rowan Drive 22/07/2013 S Tain IV19 1FE Dean Jordan Nursery Cottage 06/08/2013 S Kinnaird Brechin DD9 6TY Debbie Rusk 8 Carrick Gardens 24/07/2013 S Balntyre Glasgow G72 0NE Derek Carr 86 New Street 22/07/2013 S Erdington Birmingham B23 6TU Derek Smith 47 Morning Field Drive 17/07/2013 S Inverness IV26AY Derek Watson 33 Upper Glenfyne Park 31/07/2013 S Ardrishaig Argyll PA30 8HH Donald Macnicol Ormsary 10/07/2013 S Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8PE Douglas Johnson Bruiach 16/07/2013 S Church Terrace Newtonmore PH20 1DT Douglas Low 114 Dalnabay 06/08/2013 S Aviemore PH22 1TA Duncan Fraser Rose Cottage 17/07/2013 S Struy, Beauly Inverness IV4 7JU Duncan Weir 29 Rosegreen Cresent 25/07/2013 S Bellshill ML4 1NT

Duncan Wood 6 Barraid Thorasdail 03/08/2013 S Gairloch IV21 2DU Edwin Payne Alutec Marine Ltd 21/08/2013 S Marine Resource Centre Unit 10 Barcaldine Oban Argyll PA37 1SH Edwin Payne The Old School House 16/08/2013 S Kilmore Oban PA34 5QR Eilidh Ross 2 Castle Road 24/07/2013 S Dunbeg Oban PA37 1QH Elaine Thompson Anchorage 15/08/2013 S Kilberry PA31 8ST Elizabeth Divers Tralee Beach House 01/08/2013 S 14 Kiel Crofts Benderloch PA37 1QS Elizabeth Stirling Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Ellen Kirkwood 3 Leckethill Place 06/08/2013 S Westfield Cumbernauld G68 9EQ Emma Keat Dubhtalla 15/08/2013 S Inverawe Taynuilt PA35 1HU Emmanuelle Lydon Merlin 14/07/2013 S Caulfield Road South Inverness IV2 5BH Euan Robertson Lerags 23/07/2013 S Oban PA34 4SE Ewan Cameron 42 Sidey Place 15/07/2013 S Perth PH1 2UF Ewan Murray 14 St Conan Road 22/07/2013 S Lochawe Lochawe PA33 1AL Finlay Oman W&J Knox Ltd 16/07/2013 S Mill Road

Kilbirnie KA25 7GY Fish Express Boreland 02/08/2013 S Muthill Crieff DG14 0SF Francis McDade Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Frank Miley 6 Medow road 23/07/2013 S Dunbeg Oban PA37 1QB Fraser MacLennan 19 Aldersyde 15/08/2013 S Taynuilt PA35 1AG Gareth Bevan 5 Howards Way, Victoria 06/08/2013 S Ebbw Vale NP23 8AX Gareth Butterfield 108 Burghmuir Court 14/07/2013 S Linlithgow EH49 7LL Garret MacFarlane Glencoe 21/08/2013 S Ardconnel Rd Oban PA34 5DW Geraldine McDade 22 Heron View 22/07/2013 S Motherwell ML1 2FN Gerry O Hare 16 Kirkton 22/07/2013 S Appen Appen PA35 1HY Gordon Dickson 15 07/08/2013 S Elliston Place Howwood PA9 1AX Heather Brady Happy Valley Rd 05/08/2013 S Blackburn EH47 7RA Heather Macnicol Ormsary 10/07/2013 S Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8PE Helen Muir 1 Green Acres 06/08/2013 S Muirhouse Steadings Auchenheath ML11 9ZP Hugh MacAskill 2 Castle Road 22/07/2013 S Dunbeg Oban PA37 1QH

Iain Forbes Drumlang 14/08/2013 S 81 Nant Drive Oban PA34 4NL Iain McEwen Parkview 03/10/2013 S Bridgend Beauly IV4 7EJ Ian Campbell 11A Main Road 23/07/2013 S Middlezoy TA7 0PB Ian Carr EWOS 05/08/2013 S Westfield Bathgate EH48 3BP Ian Lawson 16 Trossachs Road 19/07/2013 S Aberfoyle Stirling FK8 3SW

Ian Williams 6 Heol Bryn Teg 06/08/2013 S Ystrad Mynach CF82 7EY Isabel Plunkett 56 Lochaber Road 22/07/2013 S Fort William PH33 6TU Isabel Vitoria 152 Murry Terrace 14/07/2013 S Smithown Inverness IV2 7WZ Jacqueline Flusk Hilton 25/07/2013 S Braemoray Avenue Grantown on Spey PH26 3QD Jakki Diamond 174 Sutherland Way 05/08/2013 S Livingston EH54 8JA James Cameron C/O Dawnfresh Seafoods Ltd 25/07/2013 S Bothwell Park Industrial Estate Uddingston G71 6LS James Hendrie 19 Main Street 14/08/2013 S Brightons Falkirk FK2 0JS James Jack Westmill 02/08/2013 S Holm Mills Road Inverness IV2 4RA James Rundle Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Jane Campbell Meadowbank 23/07/2013 S Main Road Middlezoy TA7 0PB Jane MacRitchie 22 Ross Avenue 02/08/2013 S Inverness IV3 5QJ John Anderson Durran Cottage 06/08/2013 S Durran By Dalmally PA33 1BT John Black Elrig 22/07/2013 S Glen Shira Inveraray PA32 8XH John Black Nethermuir Farm 05/08/2013 S Bathgate EH48 4LF

John Campbell Chapel House 06/08/2013 S Ardchattan Connel By Oban PA37 1RG John Christie 23/16 Maxwell Street 02/08/2013 S Edinburgh EH10 5HT John Henderson 17 Westerlands Gardens 06/08/2013 S Newton Mearns Glasgow G77 6YJ John Lydon Merlin 14/07/2013 S Caulfield Road South Inverness IV2 5BH John MacGregor MacGregor Industrial Supplies 02/08/2013 S 15-17 Henderson Road Longman Ind. Estate, Inverness IV1 1SN John MacPhee 33 Moraypark Gdns 21/07/2013 S Culloden Inverness IV2 7FY John MacPhee Geary 22/08/2013 S Waternish Isle Of Skye IV55 8GQ John McAvoy 11 Cathkin Crescent 23/07/2013 S Carrickstone Cumbernauld G68 0FD

John McDade Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

John Morrison Cuddypoint 25/07/2013 S Scalpay Harris HS4 3YF John Thornberry Wardpark Road 06/08/2013 S Cumbernauld Scotland G67 3EX Jonathan Lydon Merlin 14/07/2013 S Caulfield Road South Inverness IV25BH Jordan Murchison 21 Geary 06/08/2013 S Waternish Isle of Skye IV55 8GQ Jorge Vitoria 152 Murry terrace 14/07/2013 S Smithown Inverness IV27WZ Joseph Triscott 43 And A Half D 05/08/2013 S Cowane Street Stirling FK8 1JW Joshua Liddell 11 Calder Place 02/08/2013 S Hallglen Falkirk FK1 2QZ Karan Payne The Old School House 16/08/2013 S Kilmore Oban PA34 4QR Karen MacLennan 19 Aldersyde 15/08/2013 S Taynuilt PA35 1AG Karen McAvoy 11 Cathkin Crescent 22/07/2013 S Carrickstone Cumbernauld G68 0FD Karen McDade Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Kate Hutchens Gean Trees 31/07/2013 S Benderloch Argyll And Bute PA37 1ST Katie Paterson Flat 7 23/07/2013 S 11 Burnhill Quadrant Rutherglen

G73 1ER

Kay Sheridan Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Kenneth McDade Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Kerry Anne McDade Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Kevin McDade Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Kris Laird 28 Balliemore 21/07/2013 S Kilmichael Glassary Lochgilphead PA31 8QD L McCrae 200 23/07/2013 S Oldtown Road Inverness IV2 4PY Lauren Starrs Forrester Road 15/07/2013 S Armadale Bathgate EH48 3PB Lesley Bridges 10 Jura Gardens 06/08/2013 S Carluke ML8 4HU Lesley-Anne 14 Moorfoot Way 22/07/2013 S Mitchell Bearsden G61 4RL Lewis Campbell 34 Achloanan 23/07/2013 S Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Lewis Payne The Old School House 16/08/2013 S Kilmore Oban PA34 4QR Liam McClure Beinn Carraig 23/07/2013 S Garden Drive Dalmally PA33 1AA Linda Butterfield 70 Petterson Dale 14/07/2013 S Coxhoe DH6 4HA Linda Thorburn Eastmill Cottage 19/07/2013 S Littlemill Nairn IV12 5QL Lindsay Pollock 11 Fernoch Park 02/08/2013 S Lochgilphead PA31 8TG Lynsey Wyse 31 Carvale Avenue 02/08/2013 S Salsburgh ML7 4NF

Magda Cameron 26 Aldersyde 15/08/2013 S Taynuilt PA35 1AG Malachi Leiper 12 03/08/2013 S Eredine By Dalmally PA33 1BS Margaret Angus 3 Mull 21/08/2013 S St. Leonards East Kilbride G74 2DT Marie Forsyth c/o MacGregor Ind Supplies 24/07/2013 S 15-17 Henderson Road Inverness IV1 1SN Mark Davies Torhouse Trout Farm 08/08/2013 S Wigtown Newton Stewart DG8 9DJ Mark Wright Roscrea, Edinburgh Road 02/08/2013 S Bathgate West Lothian EH48 1EP Mark Young 14 Ben Venue Road 07/08/2013 S Eastfield Cumbernauld G68 9JF Martyn Muircroft 05/08/2013 S Cruickshanks Glencruitten Oban PA34 4QB Megan Donald Fairview Airds 05/08/2013 S Taynuilt PA351JW Michael Romine 4640 Admiralty Way, Ste 500 12/08/2013 S Marina Del Rey, CA USA 90292 Michelle Black Nethermuir Farm 05/08/2013 S Bathagate EH48 4LF Michelle Leiper 12 Eredine 03/08/2013 S By Dalmally PA33 1BS Morton Downie 2/4, 60 Southbrae Gardens 22/07/2013 S Jordanhill G13 1UB Neil Burke Faside Lodge 14/07/2013 S Ayr Road Glasgow G77 6RT

Nicki Holmyard Polfearn 04/08/2013 S Taynuilt PA35 1JQ Nickos Thaniotis 4 Edgam Drive 14/08/2013 S Glasgow G522DF Nico Bubberman Dubh Talla 23/07/2013 S Inverawe Taynuilt PA35 1HU Nicola McDade Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Nigel Birse 12 Duncan Avenue 06/08/2013 S Arbroath DD11 2BX Nina Hildre Søviknes 05/08/2013 S Søvik 6280

Norma MacClancy 37 Bellfield Park 02/08/2013 S Inverness IV2 4TA Oliver Routledge Selcoth 26/09/2013 S Moffat DG10 9LG Patricia Campbell 15 Barlinch Close 23/07/2013 S Taunton TA2 7HL Patrick Bonar 77 Blackhill Gardens 07/08/2013 S Glasgow G23 5NE Patrick Sheridan Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Paul Armstrong- Nether Mumbie 15/07/2013 S Wilson Canonbie DG14 0SF Paul Hopper 11 Lady Place 02/08/2013 S Livingston EH54 6TB Paul Houston 5 Craigelvan Close 25/07/2013 S Condorrat Cumbernauld G67 4RU Paul Mawhinney 15 Barlinch Close 23/07/2013 S Taunton TA2 7HL Peter McDade Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Phil McCall 17 Armour Court 24/07/2013 S HIgh Blantyre Glasgow

G72 9TS

Philip Cassidy 6/5 Hutchison Medway 07/08/2013 S Edinburgh EH14 1QL Rachael Payne The Old School House 16/08/2013 S Kilmore Oban PA34 4QR Rhuaraidh Edwards Breachwood Beag 22/07/2013 S North Connel PA37 1RD Richard Hughes 19 Godfrey Road 07/08/2013 S Pontnewydd Cwmbran NP44 1AL Richard May 30 Clerk Street 15/08/2013 S Brechin DD9 6AY Robert Williamson MacGregor Industrial Supplies 02/08/2013 S 15-17 Henderson Road Longman Ind. Estate, Inverness IV1 1SN Robin Mitchell 14 Moorfoot Way 22/07/2013 S Bearsden G61 4RL Robin Read Achnamara 16/08/2013 S Old Shore Road Connell PA371PJ Roger Mitchell Unit 1B 13/08/2013 S Cunninghame Road Rutherglen Glasgow G73 1QS Ronnie Plunkett 56 Lochaber Road 22/07/2013 S Fort William PH33 6TU Russell Bartlett 18 Pencoed Avenue 07/08/2013 S Blackwood NP12 1QB Russell Donaldson 6 Kensington Road 05/08/2013 S Glasgow G12 9LF Ryan McCormick 9 Monkland Road 17/07/2013 S Bathgate EH48 2BG Sandra Young 14 Ben Venue Road 07/08/2013 S Eastfield Cumbernauld G68 9JF

Sarah Sinclair Abernethys 02/08/2013 S Connel Oban PA37 1RN Scott Fraser 11 Blackford Avenue 24/07/2013 S Edinburgh EH9 2PJ Sean Fortune 2 North Road 12/08/2013 S Rossendale BB4 7LH Simon Yarwood Dunnard Cottage 22/07/2013 S Glenlonan Road Taynuilt PA35 1HY Sine MacFarlane Beechglade 02/08/2013 S Lower Soroba Oban PA34 4SB Smaranda Lydon Merlin 14/07/2013 S Caulfield Road South Inverness IV2 5BH Stephen Gilligan 9 Loch Na Leoba Road 02/08/2013 S Newtonmore PH20 1BW Steven Crabbe 2 Sunnybrae Cottage 07/08/2013 S Station Road St.Fillans PH6 2NE Steven Schofield 36F Shore Street 17/07/2013 S Laurel Avenue Inverness IV1 1NF Stewart Graham 136 Anderson Street 22/07/2013 S Inverness IV3 8DH Stewart Munro- Tara 22/07/2013 S White Strathpeffer IV14 9AZ Stuart Black Nethermuir Farm 05/08/2013 S Bathagte EH484LF Stuart Millen 55 Hill House Avenue 15/07/2013 S Bathgate West Lothian EH48 4BB Suzanne Clark 33 New Holygate 16/07/2013 S Broxburn EH52 5RN Suzanne McDade Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Thomas Anthony 20 Forest Drive 25/07/2013 S Myles Mossend Bellshill ML4 2PT Thomas Stirling Full Address Not Provided 06/08/2013 S

Tim McIntyre Birch Cottage 22/08/2013 S Barcaldine Oban PA37 1SG Tom Turner 26 Fitzwillima St 12/08/2013 S Hoyland Barnsley S74 0NJ Tommy Watt 12 Hillside 16/08/2013 S Dunbeg Oban PA37 1QL Tricia Medwell 1 Villa Anniri 05/08/2013 S La Route du Fort St Helier JE2 4PA Vicky Campbell 34 Achloanan 23/07/2013 S Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Vicky Gillies 42 Ladeside Road 05/08/2013 S Blackburn West Lothian EH47 7JT Victoria Weir 20 Forest Drive 25/07/2013 S Mossend Bellshill ML4 2PT Viv Crampton 45 Park Place 15/07/2013 S Stirling FK7 9JR Walter Speirs Allt Na Sith 14/08/2013 S Achnacloich Argyll And Bute PA37 1PR William Plunkett 56 Lochaber Road 22/07/2013 S Fort William PH33 6TU

Objectors

A Gardiner Ardtun 05/08/2013 O Clachan Seil Isle Of Seil

Oban Argyll And Bute PA34 4TL A MacCallum 18 Corran Brae 01/08/2013 O Oban Argyll PA34 5AL A Robertson Norwood 13/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1TQ Abhayadevi Tissington 28 Castlehill Gardens 09/08/2013 O Inverness IV2 5DL Adam Fleming Glenkinglas Lodge 22/08/2013 O By Taynuilt Argyll PA35 3JU Adam McCracken Crannaig-a-Mhinister 09/08/2013 O Ganavan Road OBAN PA34 5TU Alan Barningham 89 Marple Road 23/07/2013 O Chisworth Glossop SK13 5DH Alan Hawkins 32 Barr Mor View 21/08/2013 O Kilmartin Lochgilphead PA31 8UN Alan Macleod Tigh Bhaan 10/08/2013 O Portnacrois Appin PA38 4BL Alan McInnes 2 Kirk Road 24/07/2013 O Dunbeg Oban PA37 1PP Alan Rooney Full Address Not Provided 12/08/2013 O

Alanna Rowan 5 Cruachan Cresent 01/08/2013 O Dunollie, Oban Oban PA34 5AS Alastair Eliott Lockhart Field Cottage 01/08/2013 O Appin PA38 4DD Alec Fitzpatrick 63 Laurel Drive 20/07/2013 O Greenhills East Kilbride G75 9JG

Alex Crooks 24 Ring Fort Road 26/07/2013 O Cambridge CB4 2GW Alexa Tyler-Scott The Hollys 14/08/2013 O Burnthouse Penryn TR10 9AS Alexander Smart Riverdale, Barran 27/08/2013 O Kilmore Oban PA34 4XR Alison Boyce 44 Achlonan 09/08/2013 O Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JJ

Alison Brooks Isle Of Lismore 20/08/2013 O Killean Farm By Oban PA34 5UG Alison Dawson Dunalba 10/08/2013 O Main Street, Connel Oban PA37 1PA Alison Macleod Gardener's Cottage 24/07/2013 O Airds Bay Taynuilt PA35 1JR Alison Ni Dhorchaidhe 3/2 1010 Cathcart Road 18/08/2013 O Mount Florida Glasgow G42 9XL Alison Shepherd Ichrachan Cottage 01/08/2013 O Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1HP Alistair McIntyre Craggan 12/08/2013 O Garelochhead Helensburgh G84 0EJ Alistair Morison Springfields 19/07/2013 O Stoodleigh Tiverton EX16 9PT Alistair Nicol The Pines 07/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1QX Alister Bennett Ardchattan Point 12/08/2013 O Ardchattan

Oban PA37 1RG Amanda Langdale Highwood Farm 18/08/2013 O Swerford Chipping Norton OX7 4BE Amelia Aspden Victoria House 10/09/2013 O London WC2E 9PA Amy Boyce 44 Achlonan 12/08/2013 O Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JJ Andrew Campbell 1 Achaleven Cottage's 31/07/2013 O Connel Oban PA37 1PE Andrew Douglas Miller Easter Tullyneddie Farm 22/07/2013 O Blairgowrie PH10 6SL Andrew Hind Tigh Na Breac 20/08/2013 O Ben Dhurrnish Bay Bonawe PA37 1RL Andrew Laurie Woodview 31/07/2013 O Three Chimneys Lane Ridgewell Nr. Halstead CO9 4PJ Andrew Sutherland Achnabealaidh 24/07/2013 O North Connel By Oban PA37 1QZ Andrew Wallace 26 Moray Place 22/07/2013 O Edinburgh EH3 6DA Angel Cameron-Macgregor Kenmore Cottages 05/08/2013 O Bonawe Oban PA37 1RJ Angela Weatherley 7 Rochester Way 07/08/2013 O Croxley Green Rickmansworth WD3 3NE Angela Wichelow 8 Hilditch Way 07/08/2013 O Nuneaton CV11 4lW Angus MacIntyre 7 Lochandhu 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JL

Ann Dalgaty Carnoch 06/08/2013 O Ichrachan Taynuilt PA35 1HP Ann Durrent 24 Kenmore Cottages 31/07/2013 O Bonawe Oban PA37 1RJ Ann Huntington Old Rectory 07/08/2013 O Sudborough NN14 3BX Ann Wright 25 Achlonan 01/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Anne Campbell 12 Creag an Airm 23/07/2013 O Oban PA34 4BX Anne Hilditch Salloch Cottage 19/08/2013 O Barcaldine PA37 1SF Anne Johnstone 9 Kenmore Cottages 13/08/2013 O Bonawe Oban PA37 1RJ Anne Mainwaring Bwlch-y-Beudy 29/07/2013 O Cerrigydridion Corwen North Wales LL21 9UB Anne Petley Salmon's Leap 05/08/2013 O Eredine Dalmally PA33 1BP Anne Reynolds Ardachy House 05/08/2013 O North Connel PA37 1RF Annette Hardy 7 Sarson Close 19/08/2013 O Amport Andover SP11 8AB Annora Sims 73 Braemar Road 11/08/2013 O Rutherglen G73 5LQ Anthony Dalgaty Rockport 02/08/2013 O Bonawe Argyll PA37 1RL Anthony Huntington The Old Rectory 07/08/2013 O Sudborough NN14 3BX

Antoni Taylor Chalet Beag 29/07/2013 O Dalmally PA33 1AA Archie McIntyre Haselbury House 19/07/2013 O 22 Park Road Tiverton EX16 6BA Avril Laurie 30 Dalton Hill 22/07/2013 O Hamilton ML3 9DQ Barbara Crossan 13 INGLEBY DRIVE 16/08/2013 O GLASGOW G31 2PU Barbara Grant 5b Royal Parade 22/07/2013 O London TW9 3QD

Barbara Terris 3 William Street 31/07/2013 O Oban PA34 5QE Beatrice Pelloni 7 Lochandhu 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JL Ben Laurie Cains Hill 15/08/2013 O Stoke by Clare Sudbury CO10 8HU Betty Paterson 5 Mosspark 07/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1TD Bill Jackson And Fiona Johnson Auchnasaul 05/08/2013 O Clachan Clachan Seil Oban PA34 4RH Bo Ivanovic Staveley House 27/07/2013 O Chiswick London W4 3HU Bob Gibson Berneray 09/08/2013 O Main Street Connel PA37 1PA Brenda Fallon Sulker 30/07/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RA Brian Reed 1 Grantown Court 24/07/2013 O Oban PA34 5BD

Brian Robertson 27 Cairn Grove 20/07/2013 O Crossford Dunfermline KY12 8YD Bruce Jolliffe 21 Blackdales Avenue 30/07/2013 O Largs KA30 8HU Bruce McIntyre 8 Forest Road 19/07/2013 O Belgrave, Vic. Australia 3160 Bryan Watters 12 Queens Road 25/07/2013 O Salisbury SP1 3AJ Bryan Worth 39 Park Street 21/07/2013 O KY4 8NZ

C Baugh 51 Chard Road 24/07/2013 O Exeter EX1 3AY Cameron Underwood Alt Na Fiedh 30/07/2013 O Al Na Fiedh Dalmally PA33 1AS Camilla Brough 55 Vanderbilt Road 09/08/2013 O London SW18 3 BG Camilla Rose Balfour Wester Dawyck 22/07/2013 O Stobo Peebles EH45 9JU Camilla Trant 4 South Park Mews 30/07/2013 O London SW6 3AY Carol Burnside 45 Nant Drive 09/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4NL Carol Olsen Ardchuan 24/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1HY Caroline Boswell Dalnaneun 19/08/2013 O Kilmore PA34 4XU Caroline Johnstone 2F Whiresbridge Avenue 04/08/2013 O Paisley PA3 3BS Cat Newsheller West Dallens 07/08/2013 O Portnacroish Appin PA38 4BL Catherine Gillies Greenbank 08/08/2013 O Glenmore Road

Oban PA34 4NB Catherine MacGregor 1 Breadalbane Mews 09/08/2013 O Oban PA34 5PD Catherine MacMillan Cluan-Beag 13/08/2013 O Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JN Catherine Thomson Adrian's Croft 08/08/2013 O North Connel PA37 1RD Catriona Campbell 53 Longsdale Cresent 05/08/2013 O Oban PA34 5JR Catriona Hoon Achrossan 29/07/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RE Cecelia Clegg 82 Craigmount Ave North 11/08/2013 O Edinburgh EH12 8DL Charles Andrew Hutchison 21 Mill Lane 16/08/2013 O Ickleton Cambridge CB10 1SW Charles Denvir 35 Oaklands 14/08/2013 O Argyle Road London W13 0HG Charles Denvir 35 Oaklands 14/08/2013 O Argyle Road London W13 0HG Charles Denvir 35 Oaklands 14/08/2013 O Argyle Road London W13 0HG Charles Jamieson 41 Lugton Road 18/08/2013 O Dunlop Kilmarnock KA3 4DL Charles Millar 26 Moray Place 22/07/2013 O Edinburgh EH3 6DA Charles Ross-Stewart Rushbanks House 15/08/2013 O Bures Road Nayland Colchester CO6 4NA

Charles Warlow 6 South Gray Street 21/08/2013 O Edinburgh EH9 1TE Charlotte Smith 58 Langham Court 23/07/2013 O Whyke Road London SW20 8RP Cherie Betterison 52 Glen Gardens 15/08/2013 O Callander Perthshire FK17 8ES Cheryl Coote 6 Cruachan Terrace 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JX

Chris Kane 46 Hillmoss 03/08/2013 O Kilmaurs KA3 2RS Christian Grant The Coach House, Lois Weedon 22/07/2013 O Towcester South Northants NN12 8PJ Christian Jaschke Am Fliedergarten R7 24/07/2013 O Kelkheim, Germany 65&&9 Christine Adams Cedar Lodge 05/08/2013 O Connel Oban PA37 1PT Christine Cotton 9 Dalnabeich 31/07/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1QY Christine Groat Cairnmore 07/08/2013 O Barran, Kilmore OBAN PA34 4XR Christine Smith 6B Alma Cresent 01/08/2013 O Oban Argyll PA34 4LT Christopher Bock Clementinen Gasse 26/15 24/07/2013 O Wien A-1150 Christopher Hoon Achrossan 19/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RE Claire Churchill 14 Kelfield Gardens 21/08/2013 O London

W10 6LS

Claire Spencer Churchill 14 Kelfield Gardens 23/07/2013 O London W10 6lS Claire Troughton 54 Park Close 21/08/2013 O London W14 8NH Claire Walker 18 Lennox Street 18/07/2013 O Wishaw M12 8PF Colin Campbell Finlaggan 05/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1QZ Colin Cooper 1 Lonan Drive 08/10/2013 O Oban PA34 4NN Colin Hamilton 14 Hillfoot Crescent 27/08/2013 O Wishaw ML2 8TL Colin Mossman Lagnakeil Lodges 07/08/2013 O Lerags Oban PA34 4SE Colin Paton 4 Abbeyhill 25/07/2013 O Dhailling Road Dunoon PA23 8FG Colin Thorburn Lethendry Lodge 28/07/2013 O 18/1 The Square Grantown-on-Spey PH26 3HG Conor Reichal 77 Holystone Crescent 23/07/2013 O Newcastle upon Tyne NC7 7EX Corrine Allward Acharn Farm 18/08/2013 O Duror Appin PA38 4BS Craig Binnie 17 Strathmore Drive 28/07/2013 O Cornton Stirling FK9 5BB Crawford Adrian An Feoran 05/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RD D MacCallum Brienz 24/07/2013 O Airds Bay Taynuilt

PA35 1JW

Dale Tucker 8 Newstead Road 21/07/2013 O Otley L12 3JB Damon Powell Bonawe House 01/08/2013 O Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1HQ Dan White Mingulay 01/08/2013 O Duror PA38 4BS Daniel Bland 17 Kenmore Cottages 09/08/2013 O Bonawe Oban PA37 1RJ Darren Browne 17 Crosslee Park 16/08/2013 O Renfrewshire PA6 7BN Dave Hoare Loch Awe Holiday Park 23/07/2013 O Crunachy Taynuilt PA35 1HT David Abel Smith Quenington Old Rectory 08/08/2013 O Cirencester GL7 5BN David Bernstein 366 Lincoln Street 24/07/2013 O Franklin, MA USA 02038 David Blackham The Tea Gardens 30/07/2013 O Framilode Passage Gl2 7LF David Briers 4 Heather Row 19/07/2013 O CARLUKE ML8 5EG David Calder 128 Lumley Avenue 22/07/2013 O South Shields NE34 7BN David Clapham Cuan Chalet 16/08/2013 O Arduaine Kilmelford PA34 4XQ David Conlisk 3-1 1264 29/07/2013 O Paisley Road West Glasgow G52 1DP David Craine 111 Rochdale Road 29/07/2013 O Ripponden Sowerby Bridge HX6 4JT

David Glennie Coireseileach 30/07/2013 O Clachan Seil Oban PA34 4QZ David Harris 8 Temple Locks Court 01/08/2013 O Anniesland Glasgow G13 1JS David Leadbetter 4 Brandon Close 24/07/2013 O Swaffham Norfolk DE37 1EF David Miller 11 Ganavan Sands 31/07/2013 O Oban PA34 5TB David Orr Seabank Farm 08/09/2013 O South Shian Benderloch PA37 1SB David Smith 2 Islay Road, 07/08/2013 O Soroba Oban, Argyll PA34 4YG David Smith Old Rectory 12/08/2013 O Sudborough Nr Kettering NN14 £BX David Steele 42 Cranmore 22/07/2013 O Netley Abbey Southampton SO31 5GG David Watson 18 Dalavich 03/08/2013 O By Taynuilt PA35 1HN Dawn Husemann Ardchattan Parsonage 22/08/2013 O Bonawe Oban Argyll And Bute PA37 1RG Dean Clayton 22 St Peters Crescent 11/08/2013 O Bicester OX26 4XA Dean Marshall 2 Park Avenue 15/08/2013 O Kippax Leeds LS25 7BN Dennis Hardley Rosslynn 06/08/2013 O Ceum Dunrigh Benderloch PA37 1ST

Derek Cowan Braes of Ganavan 04/08/2013 O Ganavan Road Oban PA34 5TU Derek Davorn 32 Northumberland Road 22/07/2013 O Tweedmouth Berwick Upon Tweed TD15 2AS Derek Worth 26 Achlonan 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Dermot Kavanagh 10 Crofthead Drive 21/07/2013 O Lennoxtown Glasgow G66 7HP Diane Baum Torlundy Training Centre 07/08/2013 O Fort William PH33 6SW Dinease Crowe 8 Pulpit Drive 06/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4LE Dominic Spencer Churchill Ardchatton Priory 19/07/2013 O Oban PA37 1RQ Don Staniford Dunollie 29/07/2013 O Oban PA34 5AU Donald Chisholm Burnside Cottage 30/07/2013 O Benderloch Oban PA37 1QS Donald Cross 2 Moss Park 20/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1TD Donald Dempster 39 Lochnell Road 29/07/2013 O Dunbeg Oban PA37 1QJ Donald E. Hutchison Kinlochlaich House, 30/07/2013 O Appin, PA38 4BD Donald J Mackay 35 Dell Road 20/07/2013 O Hilton Inverness IV2 4UE Donald MacDonald 7 Dean Crescent 10/07/2013 O Riverside Stirling FK8 1UT

Donald MacLeod 4A Knipoch Place 05/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4ED Donald Morrison 1F Colonsay Terrace 06/08/2013 O Soroba Oban PA34 4YL Donald Rice Dundonnell House 22/07/2013 O By Garve IV23 2QW Donald Sharp Moss Cottage 02/08/2013 O Moss Road North Connel PA37 1TX

Donald Spence Royal Fern 09/08/2013 O Dunollie Road Oban PA345JQ Donald Williamson Scarpness 01/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RA Doreen Soutar 8 Woodburn Bank 12/08/2013 O Dalkeith EH22 2EP Dorothy Swan Crosbie Lodge 14/08/2013 O Southwood Road Troon KA9 1UR Dorte Busch Flemsburge Str 46 24/07/2013 O Kiel, Germany 24106 Doug Carmichael 5 Orchy Gardens 15/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4JR Douglas Weir 16 Ivanhoe Court 29/07/2013 O Carluke ML8 5DQ Dugald Forgrieve 20, Glencruitten Drive 06/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4EQ Duncan Blyth 65 Julius Hill 06/08/2013 O Warfield Bracknell RG42 3UN Duncan Campbell 36 Aldersyde 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1AG Duncan Campbell Flat 3/1, 39 Dalnair Street 11/08/2013 O Yorkhill

Glasgow G3 8SQ Duncan Falconer East Lodge 14/08/2013 O Pluscarden Elgin IV30 8TZ Duncan Macdonald Clachacharra 01/08/2013 O Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JE Duncan Woodward 23 Rhuvaal Rd 08/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4BT

E B Haran Ardtun 13/08/2013 O Clachan Seil Oban PA34 4TL E M MacCallum Sullivan The Sheiling 15/08/2013 O Glenburn Rd Ardrishaig PA30 8EU E McColl Ferndale 10/08/2013 O KILMORE by Oban PA34 4XX Edmund Palmer Hillhead Farmhouse 30/07/2013 O North Mains of Kinnettles Angus DD8 1XF Edward Baxter 1 Mac Callum Court 09/08/2013 O Dunbeg Oban PA37 1SS Edward Joy Marelands 15/08/2013 O Bentley Farnham GU10 5JB Eileen Ferguson Tirlaggan West 15/08/2013 O Isle of Lismore PA34 5UG Eileen Thomson 9 Howgill Brae 31/07/2013 O Annan DG12 6JL Elaine Crooks 24 Ring Fort Road 26/07/2013 O Cambridge CB4 2GW Elaine Watters 12 Queens Road 23/07/2013 O Salisbury SP1 3AJ

Elayne Starkey Ariogan house 07/08/2013 O Upper soroba Oban PA34 4SD Eliza Jenkins Weston Park 09/09/2013 O Weston Hitchin SG4 7BB Elizabeth Brewer 257 West Oaks Circle 07/08/2013 O Sulphur Springs TX 75482 USA Elizabeth Forbes Bridge of Awe Lodge 08/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1HT Elizabeth Henderson Hawthorn Edge 17/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1QX Elizabeth Little The Moorings 30/07/2013 O Ganavan Road Oban PA34 5TU Elizabeth Parkes 4 Dalnabeich 04/08/2013 O North Connel By Oban PA37 1QY Elizabeth Wright 45 Colinmander Gardens 14/08/2013 O Ormskirk L39 4TE Ellen Alexander 19 Carnoustie Crescent 06/08/2013 O Bishopbriggs Glasgow G64 1BD Elsa Bell 5 Mosspark 30/07/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1TD Elwyn Jones New Selma Cottage 02/08/2013 O Benderloch Oban PA37 1QP Emily Venables 51 Saffron Road 07/08/2013 O Histon Cambridge CB24 9LJ Eric Shaw 10 Achlonan 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Ernest McAlpine Armstrong Craiglora 31/07/2013 O Connel

Oban PA37 1PH Ewan Kennedy Kinloch 21/08/2013 O Degnish Road Kilmelford PA34 4XD Ewan McCallam Brienz 23/07/2013 O Airds Bay Taynuilt PA35 1JW F Hutchison Barchasgaig 01/08/2013 O Appin PA38 4BG

Farlane Mackenzie 10 Kenmore Cottages 10/08/2013 O Bonawe By Oban PA37 1RJ Fiona Bergant Craig Lodge 01/08/2013 O Connel Argyll PA37 1PH Fiona Campbell Finlaggan 05/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1QZ Fiona Campbell Taigh a Bhalachain 29/07/2013 O Airds Bay Taynuilt PA35 1JR Fiona Johnson Auchnasaul 05/08/2013 O Clachan Clachan Seil Oban PA34 4RH Fiona MacEwan 8 Castle Road 05/08/2013 O Dunbeg By Oban PA37 1QH Fiona MacRae Achnahannait 06/08/2013 O Glen Lonan Taynuilt PA35 1HY Frank Roberts 10 Ganavan Sands 31/07/2013 O Oban PA34 5TB Fred Bennett 9 Otter Creek 01/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1HP Freddie Huntington 137B 17/08/2013 O Norwood Road

London SE24 9AF Freya MacMillan Muckairn House 10/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JA Friends Of Loch Etive 12 Castle Street 14/10/2013 O per Guy Linley-Adams Hereford HR1 2NL G McVicar 6 Breadie Drive 18/08/2013 O Milngavie G62 6LT G Morbe 6 Cruachan Terrace 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JX G. M. Service Dal na Traigh 23/07/2013 O Airds Bay Taynuilt PA35 1JR Garry Davies Blarcreen 19/08/2013 O Ardchattan Oban PA37 1RG Gary Henshaw 18 Queens Avenue 30/07/2013 O Ilkeston DE7 4DL Gavin Eisler Bun Atha 19/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1HY Geoff Blunsum Tanglewood 02/08/2013 O Otter Creek Taynuilt PA35 1HP Geoff Fitton Moorcroft 31/07/2013 O North Connel By Oban PA37 1QZ George Hannah Finlaggan 07/08/2013 O Seil Oban PA34 4TL George Shearer 8 Dalriach Court 03/08/2013 O Oban PA34 5EH Georgia Grimond 15 Kelly Street 23/07/2013 O London NW1 8PG Gillian Coote 6 Cruachan Terrace 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JX Glen Wade 34 Craighouse Avenue 15/08/2013 O Edinburgh

EH10 5LN

Glynis Devon 2 Underwood 23/07/2013 O Longiston Road Oban PA34 5JW Gordon Summers 10 Napier Road 21/08/2013 O Monton Eccles Manchester M30 8AG Gordon Train 42 Ryecroft Road 15/08/2013 O London SW16 3EQ Graeme Monteath 7 River Gore Road 20/07/2013 O Gorebridge EH23 4GB Graham Britton Scotholm 01/08/2013 O Connel By Oban PA37 1PG Greer Murray 21 Greenfield Ave 25/07/2013 O Ayr KA7 4NP Guy Linley Adams 12 Castle Street 25/10/2013 O per Petard Investments Ltd Hereford HR1 2NL Gynn Brook Fingland Farm Cottage 01/08/2013 O Kirkbride Wigton CA7 5EN Hamish MacEwan 8 Castle Road 01/08/2013 O Dunbeg Oban PA37 1QH Hannah Watters 12 Queens Road 23/07/2013 O Salisbury SP1 3AJ Harry Franks The Old Vicarage 15/08/2013 O Sutton Woodbridge IP12 3DT Hazel Robertson Airlie Cottage 01/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RD Heather Morrison North Connel 03/08/2013 O Oban PA37 1QZ Helen Daniels 12 Lonan Drive 07/08/2013 O Oban

PA34 4nn

Helen Douglas Marldon Chalet 23/07/2013 O Dunuaran Road Oban PA34 4NE Helen Smith 39 Summergate Road 23/07/2013 O Annan DG12 6EX Helen Worth 1/2 1846 Great Western Road 23/07/2013 O Glasgow G13 2TN Helena Petre 43 Highfield Road 18/07/2013 O Stroud GL5 1ES Henrietta Wood 5 Ashchurch Terrace 11/08/2013 O London W12 9SL Huck Grant 15 Bank Street 17/08/2013 O Glasgow G12 8JQ Hugh Campbell Adamson Millden Of Stracathro 22/07/2013 O Brechin Angus Hugh Longbottom The Bothie 21/07/2013 O Airds Bay Taynuilt PA35 1JR Hugh Whittle Full Address Not Given 22/07/2013 O

Iain Hutchison 12 Glen View Place 21/07/2013 O Gorebridge EH23 4LA Iain McDonald 36 Aldersyde 02/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1AG Ian Bowles 12, Benmore View 02/08/2013 O North Connel PA37 1SN Ian Campbell Taigh a bhalachain 07/08/2013 O Airds Bay Taynuilt PA35 1JR Ian Mill 21 George Street 25/07/2013 O Fraserburgh AB43 9QR Ian Thomas 102 Holystone Crescent 23/07/2013 O Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7EY Ian Thomson Clach-ma-Nessaig 02/08/2013 O Airds Bay

Taynuilt PA35 1JR Irene Baxter 1 Mac Callum Court 09/08/2013 O Dunbeg Oban PA37 1SS Isabel Blyth 65 Julius Hill 06/08/2013 O Warfield Bracknell RG42 3UN Isabella Martin 23 Kerrara Terrace 07/08/2013 O Oban Argyll PA34 5AT J D Douglas Warridon House 23/07/2013 O Oban PA34 4HE J Duncan Rowan Road 13/08/2013 O Oban PA4 5TQ J Service Dal na Traigh 23/07/2013 O Airds Bay Taynuilt PA35 1JR Jack Degnan Flat 6 10/08/2013 O 1Albany Street Oban PA34 4AR Jackie Goodwin 9 Home End 15/08/2013 O Fulbourn Cambridge CB21 5BS Jacqueline Mason 30 Achlonan 12/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ James Galbraith Langamull 13/08/2013 O Laurel Road Oban PA34 5EA James Grout Ard-Mhor 01/08/2013 O Connel Oban Argyll PA37 1PH James Heward 5 Benvoullin Gardens 31/07/2013 O Oban PA34 5DL James Newell Dearbhaig 01/08/2013 O Inverawe Taynuilt Argyll And Bute

PA35 1HU

James Ogilvie 23 Kirk View 26/07/2013 O Haddington EH41 4AN James Robertson 3 St Michael's Knowe 14/08/2013 O Garelochhead Helensburgh G84 0DQ James Sinclair 19 Kenmore Cottages 02/08/2013 O Bonawe Oban PA37 1RJ

James Troughton Ropers House 23/07/2013 O Andover SP11 6QE James Wilkin Station House 07/08/2013 O Loch Awe Dalmally PA33 1AQ James Workman Carnoch 31/07/2013 O Croft Road Oban PA345JL Jamie Aitchison 16 Boyd Drive 23/07/2013 O Motherwell ML1 3HX Jamie Troughton Ardchattan Priory 29/07/2013 O Oban PA37 1RQ Jane Chichester Cygnet House 12/08/2013 O Martyr Worthy, Winchester SO21 1DZ Jane Gillies Curacao 22/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1HW Jane Sayer Daluaine 31/07/2013 O Benderloch Oban PA37 1RT Jane Wilding Tullich Farm 07/08/2013 O Kilmelford Oban PA34 4XA Janet Campbell 14 Croft Auchue 24/07/2013 O Oban PA34 5JJ Janet Harbidge 9 Princes Street 12/08/2013 O Stirling FK8 1HQ

Janet Street-Porter The Independent on Sunday 06/09/2013 O 2 Derry Street London W8 5TT Janice Barningham 89 Marple Road 24/07/2013 O Chisworth SK13 5DH Janice Wichelow Millcroft 07/08/2013 O Ardchattan Oban PA37 1RG Jason Russell 34 Claverton Steet 09/08/2013 O London SW1V 3AU Jean B Wylie 6 St Conans Road 29/07/2013 O Lochawe Argyll And Bute PA33 1AL Jean Boynton 1, The Pony Park 04/08/2013 O Letterwalton Benderloch PA37 1SA Jean Sutherland 9 Creran Gardens 22/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4JU Jeanette Macleod Fox Farm 26/07/2013 O Coldblow Lane Maidstone ME14 3LP Jen Fitton Moorcroft 31/07/2013 O North Connel By Oban PA37 1QZ Jenifer Moffat Airdeny Chalets 05/08/2013 O Glen Lonan Taynuilt PA35 1HY Jennifer Brigham 2 Grange Farm Cottages 30/07/2013 O Potash Lane Wyverstone Stowmarket IP14 4SN Jenny MacDonald Beach Wood 05/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RD Jenny Taylor 2 Kirkhill Crescent 23/07/2013 O Prestwick KA9 2DF Jeremy Church Duneil 07/08/2013 O Glen Lonan

Oban PA34 4QE Jeremy Hopkins Woodlands Croft 10/08/2013 O Fowlershill Dyce AB21 7AQ Jessica Pohl Beethovenstrasse 8 15/08/2013 O Ratingen Germany 40878 Jessie Reid 17E Corran Brae 01/08/2013 O Oban PA34 5AJ

Jill Bowis Kintaline Farm 22/08/2013 O Benderloch PA37 1QS Jill Mitchell Pineapple House 12/08/2013 O Argyll PA38 4BP Jill Stewart Dunavon 01/08/2013 O Connel Oban PA37 1PJ Jim Downie 75 Fergushill 08/08/2013 O Kilwinning KA13 7LW Joanne Davenport 23 Kingsmuir Avenue 30/07/2013 O Preston PR2 6AG Joanne Steele 42 Cranmore 22/07/2013 O Netley Abbey Southampton SO31 5GG Jocelyn Markland Valtos 11/08/2013 O Glenmore Road Oban PA34 4NB Joe Holden Tigh an Daraich 01/08/2013 O Bridge of Awe Taynuilt PA35 1HR John Anthony Phillips Tigh na Linne 07/08/2013 O Kilchrenan Taynuilt PA35 1HG John Boyce 44 Achlonan 12/08/2013 O Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JJ John Burton 15b Dalintart Drive 09/08/2013 O Oban

PA34 4EE

John Connolly Camus 04/08/2013 O South Cuil Duror of Appin PA38 4DA John Fairlie 6 Ferryfield Road 01/08/2013 O Connel Argyll PA37 1SR John Gillies Curacao 22/07/2013 O Muckairn Estate Taynuilt PA35 1W John Gore Tigh na Ba 23/07/2013 O Port na Mine Taynuilt PA35 1HU John Gosling Siskin 01/08/2013 O Barcaldine Oban Argyll PA37 1SG John Greenaway Port-na-Mine 19/07/2013 O Inverawe Taynuilt NN12 8PJ John Hay Airds Cottage 03/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JW John Landale Berandhu 06/08/2013 O Appin Argyll PA38 4DD John Lindsay 11B Colonsay Terrace 06/08/2013 O Soroba Oban PA34 4YN John Little Mount Pleasant 10/08/2013 O Connel Argyll John MacFarlane Tighnambarr 22/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JQ John Maclean Aros Ard 10/07/2013 O Croft Road Oban PA34 5JN John Mainwaring Bwlch y Beudy 11/08/2013 O Cerrig y drudion Corwen

LL21 9UB

John McIntyre Tannery Lane 19/07/2013 O Yackandandah, Australia 3749 John Mclaren 3O Hazeldean Crescent 06/08/2013 O Oban PA34 5JT John Ogden Orchy View 23/07/2013 O Glen Orchy Dalmally PA33 1BD John Ross 53 Atheling Grove 08/08/2013 O South Queensferry Edinburgh EH30 9PF John Scott Nantrigg 19/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JQ John Service 6 Rockwell Gardens 15/08/2013 O London SE19 1HW John Sinclair Dunrobian 11/08/2013 O Laurel Road Oban PA34 EA John Stevens An Tearmann 31/07/2013 O 5 Falls Crescent Connel PA37 1NX John Wade Ben Rhu 01/08/2013 O Duror Appin PA38 4BS John Williams 42 Greenwich South Street 20/07/2013 O London SE10 8UN Jonathan McKenzie 2 Brenva Cottages 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JW Jose Manuel Sanchez Grande Seville 24/07/2013 O Spain 41020 Josephine Dempster 39 Lochnell Road 29/07/2013 O Dunbeg Oban PA37 1QJ Joyce Cameron 26 Achlonan 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Judith (Polly) Mulholland c/o 30 Hazeldean Cres. 06/08/2013 O Oban

PA34 5JT

Judyth Sassoon 4a Battery Terrace 15/08/2013 O Ardconnel Rd Oban PA34 5DN Julie Graham 5 Springfield Rd 25/07/2013 O Portishead Bristol BS20 6LH June Campbell 5,Falls View Apartments 07/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1QX

K A Reynolds MBE Ardachy House 30/07/2013 O North Connel Oban Argyll And Bute PA37 1RF K F Eaton Dalfuar 05/08/2013 O Barcaldine Oban Argyll And Bute PA37 1SF Karen Mortland PO Box 4134 24/07/2013 O St Lucia Queensland 4067 Karima Mould 21 Oaklands 15/08/2013 O Argyle Road London W13 0HG Karine Georgian Tigh na Linne 07/08/2013 O Kilchrenan Taynuilt PA35 1HG Kate Horton 18a Dulwich Road 19/08/2013 O London SE24 0PA Katharine Graves 50 Fosbury 19/07/2013 O Marlborough SN8 3NJ Kathleen Longbottom The Bothie 21/07/2013 O AIrds Bay Taynuilt PA35 1JR Kathrin Steininger Clementinen Gasse 26/15 24/07/2013 O Wien A-1150

Kathy Murgatroyd 41 Achlonan 22/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Katryn Mercer 3 Brookside 30/07/2013 O Sutton Ely CB6 2PT Kay Longbottom The Bothie 21/07/2013 O Airds Bay Taynuilt PA35 1JR Keith Carmichael Laich House 30/07/2013 O Appin PA38 4DD

Keith Macmillan Muckairn House 14/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JA Keith Miller Tigh-a-Ghlinne 10/07/2013 O Glenshellach Road Oban PA34 4PP Kenneth Geldard Dargo 01/08/2013 O 10 Iona Drive Oban Argyll PA34 5AR Kevin McKendry 14 Laggan Road 05/08/2013 O Oban PA34 5AW Kirsteen McNab Arizona 16/08/2013 O Toberonochy Isle Of Luing PA34 4UG Kirstie Grant Silverhill 13/08/2013 O Pitcairngreen Perth PH1 3LP Kirsty Macleod 2 Fox Farm Cottages 25/07/2013 O Coldblow Lane Maidstone ME14 3LP Kristina Jones 5 The Greens 05/08/2013 O Glencruitten Road Oban PA34 4DD L Chisholm Glenmore 11/08/2013 O Glenmore Road Oban PA34 4PG

L D MacIndeor Goldenacre 13/08/2013 O Noerth Connel Oban Argyll PA37 1QZ L Muir 13 Achnafearna 29/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JP L Muir Tri Deug 23/07/2013 O Achnafearna Taynuilt PA35 1JP Lara Selina Prichard 15 Burntwood Lane 09/08/2013 O London SW17 0JY Lara Van De Peer Rowanbank 22/07/2013 O Kilchrennan Taynuilt PA35 1HD Laura Deacon Plumpton End Cottage 23/07/2013 O Paulerspury NN12 7NJ Leanne Irwin Ichrachan House 02/08/2013 O Taynuilt Argyll Leo Faccenda Signal House 02/08/2013 O Ganavan PA34 5TU Les Stewart Dunavon 01/08/2013 O Connel Oban PA37 1PJ Lesley Mackay 19 East Rd 30/07/2013 O Kirkwall KW15 1HZ Linda Anderson-Kerr 6 Shuna Terrace 09/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4YE Liz Condie Woodcroft 22/07/2013 O Kilchrenan Taynuilt PA35 1HG Lois Skilleter 36, Skipton Road 07/08/2013 O Ilkley LS29 9EP Lord Torrington Belbins House 11/08/2013 O Whitehill, Mere Warminster BA12 6BL Lorimer Mackenzie Achadh Na Sgiath 10/09/2013 O Duror

PA38 4DA

Lorna Barton 8 Abhainn Cottages 01/08/2013 O Duror Appin PA38 4BT Lorna McMurchy 20 Burnbrae Terrace 24/07/2013 O Westhill Inverness IV2 5HD Lorne Gillies 37 The Glebe 24/07/2013 O Kimelford PA34 4XF Lorne Sim Avenue Cottage 01/08/2013 O Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JE Lorraine McCracken Crannaig-a-Mhinister 09/08/2013 O Ganavan Road OBAN PA34 5TU Lorraine Robertson Dungrianach 24/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1HW Louise Huntington 88B Doverfield Road 15/08/2013 O Brixton London SW2 5NB Lucy Hamilton Quarry Road 22/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4DP Luke Dimsdale Flat 3 19/07/2013 O 40 Bassett road London W10 6JL Lynda Middleton 42 Dalavich 01/08/2013 O Dalavich Village Nr Taynuilt PA35 1HN M Evans 11 McGregor Court 13/08/2013 O Oban Argyll PA34 4DJ M Garabet Collieston 22/07/2013 O Benderloch Oban PA37 1SA M J Eaton Dalfuar 05/08/2013 O Barcaldine Oban Argyll And Bute PA37 1SF

M K Eaton 34 Stanford Road 05/08/2013 O Ashchurch Gardens Northway Tewkesbury GL20 8QU M Macintyre 52 Nant Drive 07/08/2013 O Soroba Oban PA34 4LA M Stewart 17 Croft Avenue 04/08/2013 O Oban PA34 5JJ M Williams 2 Bardsley Gate Avenue 23/07/2013 O Stalybridge SK15 2TB M MacPhail Dearbhaig 01/08/2013 O Inverawe Taynuilt

PA35 1HU Madeleine Grenu La Bagottière 31/07/2013 O Bréel 61100 Maggie Botherston 29 Achlonan 24/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Maggie Service Dal Na Traigh 17/08/2013 O Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JR Mairi Jackson La Cala 29/07/2013 O Ganavan Road Oban PA34 5TU Malaika Byng 16 Sterndale Road 12/08/2013 O London W14 0HS Malcolm Robinson Flat I 26/07/2013 O 15 Shepherds Loan Dundee DD2 1AW Margaret Anne Mainwaring Bwlch y Beudy 11/08/2013 O Cerrig y Drudion Corwen LL21 9UB Margaret Hurst Morar 23/07/2013 O Croft Road Oban PA34 5JL Margaret Shaw 1 Mayfield Drive 31/07/2013 O Howood

Renfrewshire PA9 1BJ Margaret Watkins 44 Fleurs Avenue 04/08/2013 O Dumbreck Glasgow G41 5AS Maria Soep Roineabhal 22/07/2013 O Kilchrenan Taynuilt PA35 1HD Marian Montgomery Dunkinty 14/08/2013 O 7 Brochroy Croft Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JQ Marjory Seaton Burnlea 06/08/2013 O Glenmore Road Oban PA34 4ND Mark Bergant Lochalsh 23/07/2013 O Inverawe Taynuilt PA35 1HU Mark Carter Tigh-na-Mara 22/08/2013 O Eilean Duuirinnis Bonawe Oban PA37 1RL Mark Connelly 3/1 30/07/2013 O 104 Armadale Street Glasgow G31 2QD Mark Everard The Fighting Cocks 22/07/2013 O Lt Sampford Saffron Walden CB10 2QL Mark Rotheram 15 Kingsdale Gardens 22/08/2013 O Kennoway KY8 5LJ Mark Shaw 10 Soroba Road 16/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4HU Marleen McInnes 2 Kirk Road 24/07/2013 O Dunbeg Oban PA37 1PP Marlene Stanners 57 Achlonan 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Martha Mawson The Bothie 11/08/2013 O 13, Ormiscaig

Aultbea IV22 2JJ Martin Guthrie 9 Meikle Aiden Brae 27/07/2013 O Kilcreggan Helensburgh G84 0JD Martin Taylor 2 Kirkhill Crescent 23/07/2013 O Prestwick KA9 2DF Martine Law 3 McCall Terrace 06/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4JE Martyn Murray 40 Green Apron Park 15/08/2013 O North Berwick EH39 4RE Mary Brown Thill House 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1HP Mary Morse 6 Cruachan Terrace 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JX Mary Scott Nantrigg 19/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JQ Mary Sheffield Davaar 22/08/2013 O Old Shore Road Connel PA37 1PT Mattew Hartley 12 Bramfield Place 10/08/2013 O Hemel Hempstead HP2 7NZ Maureen Mair 1 Glencruitten Road 11/08/2013 O OBAN PA34 4DN Maureen Nicol The Pines 07/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1QX Maurice Hardy 7 Sarson Close 13/08/2013 O Amport Andover SP11 8AB Maurice Shnaps Bahnhofstrasse 7 23/07/2013 O Klosters 7250 Melissa Matthias 6 Henley Close 15/08/2013 O Isleworth TW7 5DQ Michael Fallon Sulisker 30/07/2013 O North Connel Oban

PA37 1RA

Michael Jones 5 Plas Hen 28/07/2013 O Llanddaniel Ynys mon LL60 6HW Michael Mullen 2 Achlonan 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Michael Nicolson 39a Combie Street 10/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4HS Michael Rose 24 Westbourne Park Road 27/08/2013 O London W2 5PH Michael Troughton 10 The Bench 06/08/2013 O 22 Kings Bench Street London SE1 0QX Michael Turnbull Aptdo 85 12/09/2013 O 29480 Gaucin, Malaga Spain Michaela Frankova 3B Regent House 05/08/2013 O Wellington Place London NW8 7PG Michelle Vroon Richmond Hotel 01/08/2013 O Strathpeffer IV14 9AW Mo Griffiths Woodend Cottage 22/07/2013 O Kirkton Taynuilt PA35 1HW Moira Carswell Delnabo 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1HY Moire Lennox 6 Quayside 23/07/2013 O Norwich NR3 1RQ Monica Bloor Rhumor 24/07/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1QZ Morag Twort 12 Bayveiw Road 03/08/2013 O Dunollie Oban PA34 5AY Murray Young 15 Jane Road 01/08/2013 O Dunbeg Oban

Argyll PA37 1QE Myra Kinghorn 2 Ely Close 30/07/2013 O Crawley RH10 5JL Nancy Black Torwood 10/08/2013 O Crannaig a` Mhinister Road Oban PA34 4LU Nathalie Service Dal Na Traigh 16/08/2013 O Airds Bay Taynuilt PA35 1JR

Neil Doherty 79 Lomond Road 18/07/2013 O Coatbridge ML5 2NH Neil Kennedy 41 Marlborough Avenue 31/07/2013 O Glasgow G11 7BP Neil Macdonald 1 Grosebay 23/07/2013 O Isle of Harris HS3 3EF Neil McGougan Brackendale 06/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JQ Nic Evans Windywalls Cottage 19/07/2013 O Brake Farm Dunino KY16 8LZ Nicholas Haslam Bramley Grange 24/07/2013 O Bramley Tadley RG26 5DJ Nicholas Huntington Church Cottage 29/08/2013 O Horley Banbury OX15 6BJ Nick Barberton The Cottage 30/07/2013 O Woodgreen Fordingbridge SP6 2AR Nick Dew 49 Brooke road 23/07/2013 O Oakham LE15 6HG Nigel Bloor Rhumor 24/07/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1QZ Nigel John Petley Salmon's Leap 05/08/2013 O Eredine

Dalmally PA33 1BP Nigel Smith 117 Langer Lane 08/08/2013 O Chesterfield S40 2JP Norman Nicholson Whitecroft 15/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RE Oliver Cornish Willow Tree Farm 27/07/2013 O Bury St Ddmunds IP29 4AT

Oliver Langdale Highwood Farm 21/08/2013 O Swerford OX7 4BE Owner Occupier The Cottage 13/08/2013 O Barcaldine Argyll PA37 1SG P Howe Inverlusragan 01/08/2013 O Connel Oban PA37 1PG P Jowett Fearnoch 12/08/2013 O Ardentallen Oban PS34 4SF Pamela Forsyth Glenview 30/07/2013 O Wyndham Road Innellan PA23 7SH Patrick Bate Hawthornbank 19/08/2013 O Oban PA37 1PG Paul Harbour 4 Pentland Villas 20/07/2013 O Edinburgh EH14 5EQ Paul Moorhead Cruachan Lodge 15/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RE Paul Westhead 19 Riding Gate Mews 30/07/2013 O Bolton BL2 4DS Paula Brook Douglas Cottage 26/08/2013 O Cladich Dalmally Oban Peter Allfrey Dolphin Lodge 21/07/2013 O Rowdefield

Devizes SN10 2JD Peter Caroe 15 Lisgar Terrace 08/08/2013 O London W14 8SJ Peter Cleave Lhanbryde 31/07/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RA Peter Husemann Ardchattan Parsonage 22/08/2013 O Bonawe Oban PA37 1RG Peter Reffin Bridge of Awe 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1HT Philip Howard 14 Macgregor Court 06/08/2013 O Argyll Square Oban PA34 4DJ Phillip Wichelow Millcroft 04/08/2013 O Ardchattan ConneL HA6 2AZ Phyllis Robson Lindisfarne Cottage 29/08/2013 O Lochawe PA33 1AW R Baugh 51 Chard Road 24/07/2013 O Exeter EX1 3AY Rachel Allan Brookside 12/08/2013 O Pulpit Drive Oban PA344LE Rachel Young 30 Lora View 01/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RR Ranald Laurie Colemans Farm 22/08/2013 O Finchingfield Braintree CM 74JB Raymond Gatiens 14 Garden Court 20/07/2013 O Townhill Dunfermline KY12 0HU Rebecca McKinlay 153 Victoria Road 19/08/2013 O Falkirk FK2 7AU Rhona Forbes Barranrioch Farm 19/09/2013 O Glencruitten

Oban PA34 4QB Richard Greatrex Mulberry Cottage 15/08/2013 O Wood Eaves HR3 6LZ Richard Sheffield Davaar 22/08/2013 O Connel Oban PA37 1PT Richard Stanton Brissenden 16/07/2013 O Bethersden Ashford, Kent TN26 3BE Richard Turnbull Gual Reidh 08/08/2013 O Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JQ Richard Van De Peer Rowanbank 23/07/2013 O Kilchrennan Taynuilt PA35 1HD Rie Hodgson Lochgoilhead 02/08/2013 O PA24 8AA Rikki Durrent 24 Kenmore Cottages 31/07/2013 O Bonawe Oban PA37 1RJ Ritchie Robb Fernie 22/07/2013 O North Connel PA37 1RE Robert Montgomery Dunkinty 14/08/2013 O 7 Brochroy Croft Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JQ Robert Balfour 10 Murrayfield Avenue 11/08/2013 O Edinburgh EH12 6AX Robert Brookes Muckairn Manse 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1HH Robert CP Troughton Ardchattan Priory 23/07/2013 O North Connel PA37 1RQ Robert De Sadeleer Cnoc Na Sith 08/08/2013 O Cologin Lerags Oban Argyll PA34 4SE Robert Henry 21 St Martins Place 16/08/2013 O Haddington EH41 4NF

Robert J De Sadeleer Cnoc Na Sith 08/08/2013 O Cologin Lerags Oban PA34 4SE Robert Mackenzie Achalic 01/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JQ Robert Reid 17E Corran Brae 29/07/2013 O Oban PA34 5AJ Robert Younger 15 Eildon Street 15/08/2013 O Edinburgh EH3 5JU Robyn Stewart 159 Wilton Street 18/08/2013 O Glasgow G20 6DH Roc Sandford Isle of Gometra 19/07/2013 O Isle of Mull PA73 6NA Roderick Macleod Fox Farm Cottages 19/07/2013 O Coldblow Lane, Thurnham Maidstone ME14 3LP Roger Eaton Dalfuer 30/07/2013 O Barcaldine Oban PA37 1SF Roger Laurie 30 Dalton Hill 22/07/2013 O Hamilton ML3 9DQ Roger Laurie 30 Dalton Hill 15/08/2013 O Hamilton ML3 9DQ Rollo Jenkins 53 George IV Bridge 23/07/2013 O Edinburgh EH1 1EJ Ron Walker 23 Devon Street 22/07/2013 O Grangemouth Stirlingshire FK3 8HG Ronald MacKillop Fioron 08/08/2013 O Pulpit Hill Oban PA34 4LX Ronnie Campbell 14 Kenmore Cottages 15/08/2013 O Bonawe Oban PA37 1RJ Roy Bartle 17, Peterborough Avenue 15/08/2013 O Oakham LE15 6EB

Ruaraidh Petre Tigh An T-Siomain 10/07/2013 O Ardchattan By Oban PA37 1RF Rupert Balfour 17D, Block 27, Baguio Villas 11/08/2013 O 555Victoria Road Pok Fulham, Hong Kong Russell Bloor Overton 28/07/2013 O 2 Whitelands Road Baildon BD17 6NL Russell Howe 13 Farrow Road 15/08/2013 O Whaplode Drove Spalding PE12 0TS Ruth Joss 2 Riverside Cottages 23/07/2013 O Benmore By Dunoon PA23 8QU S Bergant Lochalsh 23/07/2013 O Inverawe Taynuilt PA35 1HU S J McKay 3 Achenreir 02/08/2013 O Barcaldine Oban PA37 1SL S Robertson Norwood 13/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1TQ S W Blair No Address Provided 22/08/2013 O

Sally Turnbull Cabrachan 15/08/2013 O Sir William Hill Road Grindleford Hope Valley, Derbyshire Samantha Jarvis Ryegreen 30/07/2013 O Rye Puriton TA7 8BZ Samuel Pacenovsky Tatranska 2 07/08/2013 O Kosice, Slovak Republic 040 01 Sandra Bergant Lochalsh 22/07/2013 O Inverawe Taynuilt PA35 1HU Sandra McNeeley Kinvara 19/07/2013 O Bonawe

PA37 1RL

Sandy Dunlop Sealladh Eite 04/08/2013 O Achaleven Connel PA37 1PF Sarah Wilkinson Alder Cottage West 27/07/2013 O Ardchattan Oban PA37 1RG Sarah Winter Shellachan 18/08/2013 O Kilchrenan PA35 1HD Scott Harrow 5 Eynesbury Green 09/08/2013 O Eynesbury St Neots PE19 2TU Scott Latimer 31 Williamwood Park West 16/09/2013 O Glasgow G44 3TE Scott Laurie 30 Dalton Hill 22/07/2013 O Hamilton ML3 9DQ Scott Lindsay South Bank 23/07/2013 O 3 Glan Aber Park Chester CH4 8LE Sepha Housen Flensburger St 46 24/07/2013 O Kiel Germany 24106 Serena Spring Bottom Farm House 18/08/2013 O Mapledurham Reading RG4 7TT Sharon Spooner Shuna Cottage 01/08/2013 O Airds Taynuilt PA35 1JW Sheena Crane The Cottage 19/08/2013 O 72 Tay Street Perth PH2 8NN Shian Maclean Tullich Farm 07/08/2013 O Kilmelford Oban PA34 4XA Shirley McLennan 6 Mull Terrace 06/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4YB

Sian Griffiths Blarcreen 14/08/2013 O Ardchattan Oban PA37 1RG Simon Milne 14 Warriston Crescent 05/08/2013 O Edinburgh EH3 5LA Simon Spring Bottom Farm House 18/08/2013 O Mill Lane Mapledurham RG4 7TT Simon Thomas 30 Alfreton Close 17/08/2013 O London SW19 5NS Simon Wood Brockfield Hall 11/08/2013 O Warthill York YO19 5XJ Stephen Brian 16 Firtree Drive 22/07/2013 O Howden Le Wear DL15 8HW Stephen Coote 6 Cruachan Terrace 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JX Stephen Summerhill 7C Maple Drive 11/07/2013 O Johnstone Castle PA5 9ST Steve Hines 174 Iverson Road 10/08/2013 O West Hampstead London NW6 2HL Steven Benjamins 19 Etive Park 03/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1SJ Stevie McFadden 18 Lennox Street 18/07/2013 O Cambusnethan Wishaw ML2 8PF Stuart Carss The Moorings 20/08/2013 O Old Shore Road Connel PA37 1PT Stuart Mackie 4 John Anderson House 06/08/2013 O Oban PA34 4NT Susan Green 2/1 13 Regent Street 19/07/2013 O Paisley PA1 3TG Susan Torrington Belbins House 11/08/2013 O Whitehill

Mere BA12 6BL Suzanne Cale 12 Danehurst Close 20/07/2013 O Egham TW20 9PX T Wright 17 Tollemache Road 23/07/2013 O Mottram Hyde SK14 6LL Terrence Alexander 58 Langham Court 23/07/2013 O London SW20 8RP

Terry Spooner Shuna Cottage 01/08/2013 O Airds Taynuilt PA35 1JW Thomas Coope Fanans Beag 15/08/2013 O Taynuilt Oban PA35 1HR Thomas Greenaway Lois Weedon House 22/07/2013 O Towcester NN12 8PJ Thomas Middleton 42 Dalavich 01/08/2013 O Dalavich Village Nr Taynuilt Oban PA35 1HN Thomas Sharp Schoolhouse 31/07/2013 O Dunbeg By Oban PA37 1QF Tim Haynes Merrick Farmhouse 13/08/2013 O Portpatrick DG9 8JH Toby Smith Dacostastraat 51,3 24/07/2013 O Amsterdam 1053ZD Tom Bonniwell 2dalnabeich 09/08/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1QY Tom McLellan Manish 14/08/2013 O Brochroy Taynuilt PA35 1JQ Tom Raikes Leys Farm 19/08/2013 O Little Barrington OX18 4TL

Toni Bunnell 5 Beech Avenue 30/07/2013 O York YO24 4JJ Tony Hammock Strumhor 15/08/2013 O Connel Oban PA37 1PJ Tony Harvey Rosslyn Villa 05/08/2013 O Oban PA34 5DQ Tracey Henderson 13 Kenmore Cottages 13/08/2013 O Bonawe Oban PA37 1RJ Trevor Lines 1 Achlonan 17/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Ulrich Brossmann Triester Str. 10 30/07/2013 O Graz A-8020 V L Mackay St Colme Crescent 11/08/2013 O Aberdour BURNTISLAND KY3 0ST Valentina Pepe 18A-8/F. Po Shan Mansions 24/07/2013 O 16 Po Shan Road HK 00000 Valerie Goldie Sgurr Dearg 30/07/2013 O North Connel Oban PA37 1RD Vera Shaw 10 Achlonan 22/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Vicky Ireland 1 Shiel Gardens 18/07/2013 O Shotts Lanarkshire ML7 5JR Vivien Johnston Ard Shona 11/08/2013 O Blackmill Bay Toberonochy PA34 4TZ Walter Crummey 117 Queens Drive 15/08/2013 O Wavertree Liverpool L15 6XT Wendy Campbell-Gray Fanamor 01/08/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1HR

William Barnett The Creggans 31/07/2013 O Ledaig By Oban PA37 1QS William Campbell Modheadh 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JA William Ehrman No Address Given 21/08/2013 O

William Honeyman 15 Wisner Court 17/08/2013 O Thornliebank Glasgow G46 8PW

William Johnstone 40/11 Robertson Avenue 17/08/2013 O Edinburgh EH11 1PS William Shaw 1 Mayfield Drive 31/07/2013 O Howood Renfrewshire PA9 1BJ Wilreen Lewis Mo-Dhaichaidh 09/08/2013 O Airds Taynuilt, Argyll PA35 1JW Winifred Mullen 2 Achlonan 23/07/2013 O Taynuilt PA35 1JJ Zabdi Keen Strathwhillan Farm 01/08/2013 O Cottage 2 Strathwhillan Road Brodick Isle Of Arran KA27 8BQ Zhenya Winter 29 20/08/2013 O McNeil Road London SE5 8PL