Argyll and Bute Council Development & Infrastructure Services
Committee Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle
Reference No: 17/00642/PP Planning Hierarchy: Major Applicant: Marine Harvest Scotland Proposal: Erection of buildings to form fish hatchery including formation of access, car parking and associated landscape bunding Site Address: Marine Environmental Research Laboratory, Lossit Point, Machrihanish, Campbeltown
DECISION ROUTE
Local Government Scotland Act 1973
(A) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission
Erection of water intake building (14.6m x 32m with 3m eaves/4.95m ridge); Erection of broodstock building (18.25m x 76m with 3m eaves/5.5m ridge); Erection of pre-ongrowing building (21.4m x 107.4m with 3m eaves/ 5.87m ridge); Erection of two nursery buildings (21.4m x 114m each with 3m eaves/ 5.87m ridge); Erection of raised link section measuring 5m to eaves and 7.87m to ridge Extension of existing private access; Formation of service access and car parking area; Landscape mounding.
(ii) Other specified operations
Use of existing seawater abstraction and discharge; Permanent diversion of public path (subject to separate statutory procedure); Connection to public sewer; Connection to public water supply.
(B) RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that planning permission is Granted subject to:
1) A discretionary Pre-determination Hearing being held in response to the extent of third party representation received;
2) Acceptance of the conclusions of the Area Capacity Evaluation contained in Appendix C to this report;
3) A Public Path Diversion Order being promoted by the Council at the developer’s expense in respect of the Core Path crossing the site, under Section 208 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended);
4) The conditions and reasons listed in this report.
(C) CONSULTATIONS:
Marine Scotland Science (3rd July 2017) – do not object to the proposal but have requested further details from the applicants. These additional information requirements relate to operational matters which will be subject to separate authorisation by Marine Scotland, rather than to the land use merits of the principal of development. For information, additional detail has been requested as follows: Exact details on the level of water treatment for the supernatant water returned to the sea; Proposed stocking densities at each stage of production; Details of any other considerations that have been made to the environment for the welfare of the stock should also be provided, e.g. habitat optimisation through lighting, behavioural traits etc.; The method and frequency of removing mortalities on site and further information on the end point for disposal of ensiled waste; Clarification on ability to remove individual tanks from recirculation system for the administration of chemotheraputant treatments; Consideration should also be given to how containment is ensure in the case of flooding (both from an internal blockage or external to the facility); and Information should be provided on equipment and strategies in place to minimise predator interactions at the site in question e.g. secure buildings, rodent/bird proofing etc.
SEPA (23rd June 2017) – no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds provided that, should the Planning Authority be minded to approve this application, the following planning conditions are imposed: that the re-directed burn be designed in order to convey the 1 in 200 year design flows plus surface water emanating from the site; and Finished Floor Levels (FFL) be set no lower than the 1 in 200 year extreme tide level plus an allowance for climate change/wave action (at least 600mm), or as agreed with the Flood Prevention Authority (FPA).
Scottish Natural Heritage – No response. Commented on the acceptability of the proposal relative to the Geological Consultation Area within which the site is situated at pre-application stage.
Council’s Flood Risk Assessor (9th June 2017) – no objection subject to planning conditions to the effect of the following be attached to any consent granted for this application: Flood protection level to be at least 5mAOD or as otherwise agreed by a site specific calculation which includes the 1 in 200 year coastal still water level, and allowances for wave action, climate change and 0.6m freeboard. Details of the channel realignment to be submitted including plan and cross sectional information; and Surface water drainage to be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and Sewers for Scotland 3rd Edition. Council’s Roads Engineer (28th June 2017 and 8th November 2017) Initial request for additional information to be able to better understand current and proposed traffic generation and likely traffic associated with construction. Subsequent position of no objection subject to conditions, including a requirement for improvement to the single track section of public road leading to the site.
Council’s Environmental Health Officer – consulted 28.06.2017 & 16.10.2017 - no response at time of writing
Council’s Access Officer – no objection subject to a condition to secure the submission and approval of an Access Management Plan (to provide details of the location of the diverted path, its proposed width and a cross section showing the construction details) prior to the commencement of development and the requirement for a section 208 Path Diversion Order to allow the Core Path to be diverted.
Council’s Marine and Coastal Development Manager (24th July 2017) - no objection to the proposal. Comments on fit with national and regional priorities, economic impact, effect on nature conservation interests, flood risk; effluent discharge and landscape and visual Impacts.
Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer (26th June, 3rd July 2017 & 12th October 2017) – no objection subject to conditions to secure an ornithological survey for ground nesting bird species with advice on mitigation; a protocol for checking the presence of bird species (Late February-September) prior to work commencing; approval of the naturalistic landscaping plan with a note of species and rock features; an otter survey; and plant species survey. All survey reports should include mitigation and should be carried out by a suitably qualified person. The Local Biodiversity Officer has now had sight of the reports on ornithological interest, plant species and otters and is satisfied that the appropriate mitigation is in place for nesting birds and Otter. If the planning application is approved the LBO would like the following included: a condition included for a ‘Naturalistic Landscaping’ Planting Plan with a note of species and rock features to be submitted for approval; that all ground works take place outwith the bird ground nesting season- October to the middle of February; that a protocol for daily site checks for Otter is completed and that all pipe-ends are covered and any open foundations have a temporary ramp so that animals can exit safely.
Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (21st June 2017) – the proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance and therefore HES do not object. However, HES’s decision not to object should not be taken as their support for the proposals. This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy on development affecting the historic environment, together with related policy guidance.
West of Scotland Archaeology Service (16th June 2017) – advise that the application, as it is currently constituted, should be refused, in order to preserve the surviving elements of the former wireless station. Should the Council feel that other considerations outweigh the need to preserve the remains of the former wireless station, and intend to grant planning permission for the development as currently constituted, then there would be a need for a condition to secure a programme of archaeological mitigation work. WoSAS stress this is the less-favoured option, as it would result in the removal of the physical structures.
Scottish Water (22nd June 2017) – Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application. However, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced and would advise the following: There is currently insufficient capacity in the Campbeltown 1996 Water Treatment Works. Please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to Scottish Water. There is currently sufficient capacity in the Campbeltown 2000 Waste Water Treatment works. Please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted.
Highlands & Islands Airports Limited (28th June 2017) – calculations show that at the given position and height, this development would not infringe the safeguarding surfaces for Campbeltown Airport. Confirmation is required that fish hatcheries are undercover and the waste disposal/waste water outfall will not become a bird attractant. Provided these conditions are met HIAL do not object to the proposal.
(D) HISTORY:
16/00298/SCREEN - Screening opinion for proposed hatchery, Marine Environmental Research Laboratory University of Stirling, Machrihanish - Opinion Issued
16/00207/PAN - Proposal of application notice for a proposed hatchery, Marine Environmental Research Laboratory University of Stirling, Machrihanish – Closed
14/02785/PREAPP - New indoor tank based recirculation facility, 200M South Of Marine Environmental Research Laboratory University of Stirling, Machrihanish – Closed
13/00468/PP - Removal of existing polytunnel and erection of research building, Marine Environmental Research Laboratory University of Stirling, Machrihanish - Application Approved
01/00192/DET - Erection of polytunnel and agricultural type building to form extension to existing Marine Research Laboratory, Marine Environmental Research Laboratory, University of Stirling, Machrihanish - Application Approved
98/00023/DET - Erection of a frame extension to enclose existing tanks, Marine Environmental Research Laboratory, University of Stirling, Machrihanish - Prior Notification - no objection
95/00129/DET - Extension to marine research facility, Marine Environmental Research Laboratory, University of Stirling, Machrihanish - Application Approved
(E) PUBLICITY:
Regulation 20 Newspaper Advert Major Application – Date of Expiry 7th July 2017
(F) REPRESENTATIONS:
A total of 162 representations have been received which include: 1 general representation; 99 letters of support; and 62 letters of objection. These are detailed at Appendix B of this report.
The comments received may be summarised as follows:
MSP and Councillor Representations
Councillor D. Kelly The development will create high quality employment. It will put Kintyre on the map as a major player in the fight against sea lice. I wish to exercise my right to speak on this application when it goes to a Hearing.
Councillor D. Philand Supports the application. It will create much needed high quality employment prospects for the local community of in Kintyre and will contribute to the fight against sea lice infestation.
Councillor A. Horn Objects to the proposal as it appears to contravene the Local Development Plan.
John Finnie MSP Questions the appropriateness of an industrial development in sensitive countryside; An Environmental Impact Assessment should have been undertaken.
Comment: The application was screened for EIA purposes and it was determined that Environmental Assessment would not be required.
Objection / Representation
Policy
The site is designated as countryside in the Local Development Plan and the proposal would contravene this are there are no exceptional circumstances.
Comment: See assessment below.
The Mull of Kintyre is designated as an Area of Panoramic Quality and this section of coast is designated as Isolated Coast, indicating its significance in terms of landscape and seascape.
Comment: Whilst the Mull of Kintyre does lie within an APQ, the application site and it surroundings does not, the northernmost extent of the designation lying well to the south. The coast adjacent to the south is categorised as being ‘Undeveloped Coast’ by reason of its association with the ‘countryside’ development management zone. The more sensitive ‘Isolated Coast’ relates to the ‘very sensitive countryside’ zone and is not therefore applicable in this case.
Access
The development would result in a large increase in traffic.
There would be conflict with pedestrians using the same road space.
The development would result in disturbance within Machrihanish due to HGVs going through the site. Concern about disruption caused by traffic through the construction phase and thereafter due to ongoing deliveries.
Comment: The Council’s roads engineer has not objected to the development either in terms of construction or operational traffic. He has expressed some reservations as to the adequacy of the single track section leading to the termination of the public road and has therefore identified the need for some off-site improvement works to address this.
Recreation and Tourism
The development would be harmful to the surrounding natural environment and would destroy an area of sensitive countryside.
Adverse impacts on tourism.
The proposal would have an adverse impact on a popular scenic area known as the Gauldrons.
The development would obliterate views when walking to and returning from the Gauldrons.
The proposal would be detrimental to the views from the Kintyre Way and from the sea.
The Save the Gauldrons group has a Facebook page which now has 895 followers and apart from 50 or so Marine Harvest employees and supporter, the remainder are dismayed at the proposed plans.
Comment: The proposal would not (subject to localised diversion of the existing footpath via the relevant statutory procedure) inhibit recreational access to the coast. The additional buildings would increase the presence of marine related development arising from the expansion of the existing cluster and they would indeed be experienced at close quarters by users of the footpath route. However, by being set back inland of the path and against the escarpment, although visible, they would not intrude in the most compelling views out to sea or down the coast towards the Gauldrons. The use of as low lying structures as practicable, finished in recessive materials and with mounding and landscaping, will help assimilate the buildings in their setting.
Cultural Heritage
The development would destroy the site of the Fessenden radio station which is of national importance.
There is a WW2 observation post located nearby.
Comment: See assessment below.
Amenity
A large industrial building would not be appropriate in this scenic area. The proposal would cause noise pollution.
The viewpoints selected by Marine Harvest have been chosen to minimise the visual impact to the planning authority.
The area is important as it has been depicted in many of William McTaggart’s paintings.
A large amount of rubbish and discarded waste has been dumped on the seaward side of the existing facility.
Comment: The site is remote from buildings occupied by sensitive receptors and would be unlikely to pose seriously adverse amenity consequences. The intention is to develop an enclosed facility which will not share the shortcomings of the existing rather cramped site, which has developed over many years with large amounts of external equipment and storage. In the event of a hearing being held, Members will have the benefit of being able to visit the area to satisfy themselves as to likely amenity impacts on the surroundings of the site.
Natural Heritage
The development would have an adverse effect on the rare rocky mosaic landscape.
The proposal would have an adverse impact on plant and animal species.
The proposal will harm the development of the nearby Bird Observatory.
Comment: No nature conservation interests of particular importance have been identified on the site. Appropriate mitigation measures during construction have been identified by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and these can be secured by means of condition.
Water Environment
There may be issues for species relating the diversion of the burn.
The proposal would have an adverse impact on the water environment and the supporting information on this is insufficient.
Comment: SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Engineer are satisfied with the proposals subject to recommended conditions.
Biosecurity
Marine Harvest’s assertion that biosecurity issues arising from proximity issues to other seawater based fish farms is an exceptional circumstance which would justify development on the Gauldrons lacks any credibility as a reason to destroy the Gauldrons.
Biosecurity is unlikely to be an issues as the diseases which affect salmon are unlikely to affect wrasse.
Marine Harvest have a poor environmental record. Comment: The proposal would not destroy the Gauldrons which lie beyond the application site. The applicants are best placed to assess the degree of importance biosecurity has to the activity they proposed to undertake. They have indicated that a location remote from existing and likely future aquaculture is a pre-requisite for this development. The track record of Marine Harvest as an aquaculture producer is not a material planning consideration.
Consideration of Alternatives
Other sites should be investigated for this development.
The proposal should be located on the MACC site. Appropriate consideration has not been given to this site.
Comment: See assessment below and ACE appendix which address this issue.
Local economy
The creation of 10 jobs does not justify the destruction of the countryside.
Comment: The weighing of direct and indirect economic benefits, including employment opportunities, in the balance of considerations, against identified impacts upon the local environment, is a significant issue in the determination of this application; and it is for individual decision-makers to accord what weight they see fit to relevant considerations.
Procedural
No Environmental Impact Assessment has been submitted.
Comment: The application was screened for EIA purposes and it was determined that Environmental Assessment would not be required.
Marine Harvest has made no reference to the first public consultation in April 2016. The second consultation made no mention of environmental and historic disbenefits.
Comment: Officers are satisfied that statutory pre-application consultation (PAC) applicable to a Major Application has been carried out in accordance with the Development Management Procedure Regulations.
Other
Does the wrasse project have an anticipated end date? If so what will happen to the building after this date?
Comment: This is not intended to be a temporary or short-life project. It is proposed to supply cleaner fish on an ongoing basis to support future aquaculture production in Scotland. Use of the hatchery for other species or other aquaculture purposes would be likely if wrasse production were to cease.
Support
The development of this technology is a local success story which has received national recognition for its potential to improve animal welfare and reduce medicine use across the salmon farming industry.
The development would provide employment opportunities.
Scottish salmon production is a thriving and growing industry and a wrasse hatchery will help sustain wild wrasse.
The site is a grazing field which is perfect for the development. The development would not detract from the Gauldrons as it is out of sight from the Gauldrons.
The proposal would improve access to the Gauldrons.
It is not considered that the Fessenden radio site is worthy of protection.
The displays proposed by Marine Harvest about the Fessenden mast would be a welcome asset for visitors who have nothing to tell them about the site’s history.
Note: The foregoing comments represent a summary of the representations. Full details of all representations can be viewed on the Council’s Public Access System www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Has the application been the subject of:
(i) Environmental Statement: No
(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No
(iii) A design or design/access statement: Yes
(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Yes
The following documents have been submitted in support of the application:
Planning Policy Statement, Fair Planning and Design dated 5/9/16; Sustainability Checklist Machrihanish Hatchery Proposal 2017: Application Statement Machrihanish Hatchery Proposal 2017: Annex Documents. Including: Charts and Plans Visualisations and Photos Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Design Assessment Design Statement Pre Application Consultation Reports and Exhibition Materials Water Discharge Study Traffic Levels Forecast Otter Survey (18 surveys from 18/7/17 to 24/8/17) by Eddie Maguire, Environmental Surveyor
(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
Is a Section 75 agreement required: No
(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No
(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 Local Development Plan’
LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 4 – Supporting the Sustainable Development of our Coastal Zone LDP 5 –Supporting the Sustainable Growth of our Economy LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of our Communities LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 10 – Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure
Local Development Plan Schedules
‘Supplementary Guidance to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2015’
SG LDP ENV 1 – Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment SG LDP ENV 10 – Geodiversity SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape SG LDP ACE 1 – Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE) SG LDP ENV 20 – Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance SG LDP BUS 2 – Business & Industry Proposals in the Countryside Zones SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / SuDS SG LDP SERV 3 – Drainage Impact Assessment SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage & Collection Facilities within New Development SG LDP SERV 7 – Flooding and Land Erosion – Risk Framework SG LDP TRAN 1 – Access to the Outdoors SG LDP TRAN 4 – New & Existing, Public Roads & Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 5 – Off-site Highway Improvements SG LDP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision SG LDP TRAN 7 – Safeguarding of Airports SG LDP CST 1 – Coastal Development SG LDP AQUA 1 – Aquaculture Development
(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 3/2013.
Scottish Planning Policy National Marine Plan
(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: Yes a screening opinion has been issued advising that an EIA was not required.
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): Yes
(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: Yes
(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No
(O) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): Yes.
In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing, Members should consider:
How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development, and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process.
The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance.
At the time of writing 162 representations have been received broken down as 62 objectors, 99 supporters and 1 neutral. Given the considerable interest in this application, much of which emanates from the local area and the nature of the determining issues, it is considered that a pre-determination hearing which would add value to the decision-making process in this case.
(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations
This is a major application under the government’s planning hierarchy which has been preceded by statutory Pre-Application Consultation. It is for a proposed commercial scale fish hatchery on a site adjoining the Lossit Point Marine Environmental Research Facility (MERL) at Machrihanish. The facility would operate on closed containment recirculation principles with access to seawater. It would comprise a tight knit rectangular grouping of closely related buildings with a gross footprint of approximately 9,000m2, the purpose of which would be to produce one million ballen wrasse per year for deployment in marine fish farms as a biological control for sea lice. The prevalence of sea lice presents a serious risk to the welfare of both farmed and wild fish and lack of adequate control would inhibit the expansion of the aquaculture sector. The development would capitalise upon expertise at the current facility where developmental work has taken place and would enable shared use of existing seawater abstraction and marine discharge facilities.
In terms of LDP policy, the proposal constitutes ‘large scale’ development within the ‘countryside’ development management zone, in an area which in turn constitutes ‘undeveloped coast’. Large scale developments are not routinely accepted in the ‘countryside’ zone, the presumption being that they should be directed to land within settlement boundaries or land which has been allocated for development in the plan. Exceptionally, development on this scale may be accepted if it benefits from a justifiable locational/operational need, which would render it unsuited to what would otherwise be preferential locations elsewhere. Where need for a development is accepted, in order to satisfy policy requirements the proposal must then be subjected to an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE) to demonstrate that the scale of development proposed can be accommodated at the intended location without seriously undermining landscape character.
In this case, the absence of suitable sites on the developed coast and the benefits of association with the existing facility, both in terms of expertise and infrastructure, amount to a locational justification for an exception being made to the normally accepted scale of development in a ‘countryside’ zone. An ACE assessment has been completed which concludes that the landscape has the capacity to absorb the scale and type of development proposed without giving rise to any significant adverse effects on its character, and without giving rise to a significant adverse impact upon visual amenity or the recreational value of the wider area.
The proposal raises issues relating to visual amenity, impact on landscape character and the recreational value of the coast, the suitability of access, and impact on cultural heritage assets. It presents benefits to the local economy and supports the government’s drive to expand sustainable production within the aquaculture sector.
Despite formal pre-application consultation with the local community, the proposal has attracted significant public representation, comprising 62 objections and 99 expressions of support. This level of interest warrants the holding of a Pre- determination Hearing, which will also afford Members opportunity to visit the site and its surroundings prior to reaching a decision in the matter.
(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes
(R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted:
The proposal represents an innovative initiative to farm cleaner fish on a commercial scale which will contribute to the operation and growth of sustainable aquaculture production at marine fish farms in Scotland, and which aligns with sectoral aspirations and government policy. The location proposed benefits from association with an existing facility both in terms of established infrastructure and staff expertise, and in the absence of a suitable preferential site in development plan policy terms, this large scale development may be regarded as an exceptional case in terms of the policies applicable to the defined countryside development management zone. In accordance with policy requirements, an Area Capacity Evaluation has been completed which indicates acceptability of the location and scale of development relative to its landscape setting. The proposal is appropriate in terms of access, servicing and its implications for nature conservation, the historic environment and recreational use of the coast, and satisfies development plan policy in these regards. There are no other material considerations, including matters raised by third parties, which would warrant other than the application being determined in accordance with the provisions of the adopted development plan.
(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan: This proposal does not constitute a departure.
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No
Author of Report: Sandra Davies Date: 07.11.2017
Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 09.11.2017
Angus Gilmour Head of Planning, Housing & Regulatory Services CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO:17/00642/PP
1. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 6/2/17 and the approved drawing reference numbers:
AL (0) 006 B AL (0) 007B AL (0) 005 E AL (0) 10 A AL (0) 20 B AL (0) 40 C
unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details.
2. The development shall be constructed with finished floor levels which satisfy a Flood Protection Level of at least 5m AOD, or as may be otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority following the submission of any site specific calculation which includes the 1 in 200 year coastal still water level and allowances for wave action, climate change and a 0.6 m freeboard.
Reason: In order to safeguard the development from flood risk.
3. Prior to development being commenced, proposed alignment and cross-section information relating to the proposed channel providing realignment of the existing burn crossing the site shall be submitted to and shall be approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The re-directed burn shall be designed in order to convey the 1 in 200 year design flows plus surface water emanating from the development site. The development shall be completed in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: In order to safeguard the development from flood risk.
4. Surface water drainage serving the development herby permitted shall be to be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and Sewers for Scotland 3rd Edition.
Reason: In order to safeguard the development from flood risk.
5. No development shall be commenced until the developer has submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Roads Engineers, a scheme for the improvement of the public road approach to the site between the termination of the two lane carriageway and the termination of the public road at the access point to the site, and this has been agreed in writing. This shall address the need to improve the running surface of the carriageway and to improve passing place provision along this single track section. It shall identify the timing of works to be carried out which shall be phased to address the needs of construction traffic and to provide for the final condition of this section of road once construction operations have been completed. The development shall not be first occupied until the duly approved works have been completed in full.
Reason: in order to secure road access to the site commensurate with the scale of development in the interests of road safety.
. No development shall be commenced until an Access Management Plan (AMP) has 6 been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This AMP shall provide details of the location of the diverted Core Path including details and timings of any temporary diversions required during the construction period as well as the width of the proposed path(s) and a cross section showing the proposed construction details. Thereafter the development shall be completed in accordance with these details following the confirmation of a Path Diversion Order under section 208 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The final path shall be completed prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved.
Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed path has an acceptable design and location and in order to avoid conflict between construction and public access. . The development shall not be first occupied until the car parking and servicing areas 7 shown on the approved plans have been constructed, surfaced and made available for use. These areas shall remain free of obstruction thereafter for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.
Reason: in order to ensure adequate car parking and loading/unloading provision within the confines of the site in the interests of road safety. . Prior to site clearance or construction works being commenced, a protocol for 8 checking for the presence of bird species and any mitigation required, and for daily checks for otter for the duration of the construction period, shall be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer. . No ground disturbance works shall be carried out during the bird nesting season (end of February to beginning of October) unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of nature conservation
Prior to the first occupation of the development the landscaped mounding indicated 9 on the approved plans shall be formed to the height and extent as shown and this shall be landscaped during the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Details of the ‘naturalistic landscaping’ relating the mounding and realignment of the path referred to in the Planning Policy Statement accompanying the application shall be shall be agreed in writing in advance by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer. These details shall include proposed species and rock features intended to be employed. Any landscaping which fails to become established shall be replaced in . the following planting season with equivalent planting to that originally required to be planted.
Reason: In order to secure an appropriate appearance in the interests of visual amenity.
Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit for the 10 Council’s approval an archaeological mitigation strategy. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the approved strategy is fully implemented and that all recording . and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service Reason: In order to protect archaeological resources.
No external storage of goods, materials or waste products shall be permitted on land 11 outside the buildings other than in locations and subject to containment which has been agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority. Prior to the development being commenced a Site Waste Management Plan addressing both the construction and operational phases of the development shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented and occupied . thereafter in accordance with the duly approved details or such revisions as may be agreed subsequently by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to avoid bird attractants in the vicinity of an operational aerodrome.
Prior to development being commenced, samples and/or full details of the proposed 12 external walling and roofing materials to be employed on the buildings hereby approved shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. Notwithstanding the effect of condition 1 and the details provided in the application submission, the outermost seaward facing (north-west) elevations of the buildings and the outermost return elevations (south-west and north-east) shall be clad in untreated vertical timber boarding, left to weather naturally unless any alternative finish is agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to secure an appearance appropriate to the landscape setting of the development in the interests of visual amenity. . Prior to the installation of any external lighting at the site details of the location, number 13 and luminance of the intended lighting units, the manner in which they will be aligned or shielded to avoid glare outwith the site boundary, and the means by which they will . be controlled so as to restrict times of operation shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented and occupied thereafter in accordance with the duly approved details or such revisions as may be agreed subsequently by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the lighting of the site is controlled so as to avoid unnecessary illumination in an area largely free of artificial light sources, in the interests of amenity.
Prior to the development being first occupied, the visitor interpretation facilities 14 detailed in the application submission shall be equipped and made available for use by the public. These shall address the historic use of the site for radio transmission purposes and details of the intended signage and displays for that purpose shall be agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the interpretation facilities shall remain available for access by the public during hours which shall also be agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of maintaining awareness of the cultural heritage value of the former use of the site preceding development taking place.
15 No development shall commence on site until authorisation has been given by Scottish Water for connection to the public water supply. Confirmation of authorisation to connect shall be provided in writing to the Planning Authority before commencement of development. Reason: To ensure the development is adequately served by a public water supply. NOTE TO APPLICANT
The length of the permission: This planning permission will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period [See section 58(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).]
In order to comply with Section 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.
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 specifying the date upon which the development was completed.
The developer is advised to liaise with the Council’s Access Officer (Jolyon Gritten 01546 604314) regarding temporary/permanent path diversions. An Order under Section 208 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 will require to be obtained at the developer’s expense for diversion of the Core Path crossing part of the development site and no obstruction of the existing route may take place until permission for diversion has been given and the approved alternative route has been constructed, signposted and made available for use to the Access Officer’s satisfaction.
The developer is advised to contact the Council’s Roads Engineer (James Ross 01546 604655) to discuss the works required to the public road to satisfy the requirement of the condition above.
Regard should be had to the contents of consultation response from SEPA which provides advice to the applicant. A number of the activities on site are regulated by SEPA under the CAR licensing process SEPA strongly recommends that early contact should be made with regulatory services team to discuss regulatory requirements prior to the operations commencing at the site.
Marine Scotland Science has identified a number of outstanding information requirements associated with their separate authorisation as follows;
- Exact details on the level of water treatment for the supernatant water returned to the sea; - Proposed stocking densities at each stage of production - Details of any other considerations that have been made to the environment for the welfare of the stock should also be provided e.g.habitat optimisation through lighting, behavioural traits etc. - The method and frequency of removing mortalities on site and further information on the end point for disposal of ensiled waste. - Clarification on ability to remove individual tanks from recirculation system for the administration of chemotheraputant treatments. - Consideration should also be given to how containment is ensured in the case of flooding (both from an internal blockage or external to the facility) - information should be provided on equipment and strategies in place to minimise predator interactions at the site in question e.g. secure buildings, rodent/ bird proofing etc. APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 17/00642/PP
PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. Settlement Strategy
This application site, as well as the existing hatchery and marine research laboratory to which the proposal is related, are located within the ‘countryside’ development management zone as defined by the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 (LDP). Although the LDP does not generally anticipate ‘large scale’ developments in the ‘countryside’ zone, Policy LDP DM1 does make provision for such a scale of development to be supported in exceptional cases, provided it benefits from an economic or locational justification and accords with the outcome of an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). It is worth noting that the vast majority of the coastline in Argyll is designated ‘countryside’ zone and there are few opportunities to accommodate development on this scale within areas of ‘developed coast’. Nonetheless, Policy SG LDP CST 1 is clear that the preferred location for development requiring a coastal location is the ‘developed coast’ which consists of coastal areas within the ‘settlement’ development management zone.
The development drivers in this case are firstly, association with the nearby hatchery, including the ability to utilise existing seawater abstraction and discharge arrangements, and to benefit from workforce expertise gained during the experimental phase preceding full production; and secondly, the need to locate in circumstances free of existing and likely future aquaculture development, having regard to the importance of biosecurity to this project, which would require fish to be distributed to a wide range of locations up and down the west coast of Scotland.
Consideration of Alternative Site - MACC Base
At the pre-application stage, given the scale of the proposal, the prospect of it being located with the ‘countryside’ zone and the effect of Policy SG LDP CST 1, the applicants were asked to consider alternative sites within developed locations more readily aligned with the settlement strategy established by the LDP. The only potentially suitable developed location identified local to the existing hatchery was the former air base at Machrihanish, now community owned and accommodating a range of business related uses. This location would be capable of accommodating ‘large scale’ development in conformity with development plan policy.
Following investigation by the applicants this potential alternative was discounted for two reasons. Firstly, it would prompt the need for lengthy seawater abstractions and discharges given the lack of any such facility at the MACC base. The route of pipelines would need not only to traverse third party land, but would also have to cross duneland protected as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The sandy nature of the coast would not lend itself to a seawater intake which would be prone to blockages and would need to extend out into deep water to avoid prospect of regular siltation. Secondly, the MACC base already accommodates an onshore aquaculture business (Niri) in circumstances where one of the applicant’s site search constraints has been to avoid any association with other aquaculture facilities, in order to minimise biosecurity risk.
One of the main characteristics of the proposed facility which makes it unique, is that the cleaner fish produced at the site would be distributed across a multitude of marine fish farms as a means of biological control of parasitic sea lice. This means that if any disease was to infect the cleanerfish at Machrihanish then there would be prospect of serious cross-contamination implications. It is therefore especially important to keep the fish produced at this particular facility disease free and remote from other aquaculture production.
Whilst the biosecurity concerns are a potential risk rather than an inevitability, and that the installation of an intake pipe to the MACC base is problematic rather than impossible, these concerns are nonetheless considered relevant and contribute towards the applicant’s argument that the MACC base is not a suitable development site overall. Having regard to the constraints of the MACC site and the absence of any other location which could benefit from association with the operation of the existing hatchery, it has been accepted that a countryside location close to the existing facility and capable of benefitting from the industry-leading expertise at Lossit Point, should be entertained as an exceptional case; provided that it could be sited in a location consistent with the outcome of an ACE assessment demonstrating the acceptability of the location and scale of development upon its landscape setting.
Having due regard to the considerations below, it is concluded that given the justifiable exceptional case advanced in support of the project and having regard to the outcome of the Area Capacity Evaluation assessing the impact of the development in its countryside setting, the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the relevant Local Development Plan Policies and Supplementary Guidance.
B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development
Background
Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd wish to expand their developmental wrasse hatchery at the Lossit Point Marine Environmental Research Facility (MERL) Machrihanish, with a production scale hatchery capable of producing 1,000,000 wrasse a year, capable of providing a supply for the majority of Marine Harvest’s seawater fish farms. Marine Harvest currently leases a part of the MERL premises in a joint venture with Scottish Sea Farms to grow a portion of the company’s ballan wrasse supply requirement. The existing operation employs eight Marine Harvest staff and is intended to continue producing cleaner fish at the existing site alongside the proposed additional facility.
The company are a major producer of farmed salmon in Scotland with marine fish farms in locations in Argyll and in other parts of the country. The company employs over 600 people in Scotland and these jobs are mainly located on the West Coast mainland, Isle of Skye and Inner and Outer Hebrides. The company is carrying out an ongoing plan to grow the business and this involves expanding seawater, freshwater, processing and support operations. This accords with the Scottish Government ambitious targets for increasing aquaculture production. The government recognises aquaculture as a significant employer providing knock on economic benefits in remoter rural areas, as well as a major contributor to the national export economy.
Farmed fish are prone to parasitic sea lice which pose a threat to the heath of both farmed fish and wild salmonids. To date, sea lice on fish farms have been primarily controlled by chemical means, but increasing resistance to treatments has led operators to develop a more diverse range of treatment methods, including biological controls. This has led to the experimental use of ‘cleaner fish’ (mainly wrasse and lumpsucker) which are deployed in quantity at operational sites to help control lice numbers. The environmental benefits of this method are clear and it could have a profound influence on the continued success of the salmon farming industry in Scotland. The availability of ballan wrasse caught in the wild is insufficient to meet the demands presented by widespread use of cleaner fish across farms in Scotland and elsewhere. Accordingly, some fish farm operators have been conducting experimental trials with the onshore production of wrasse in closed containment production facilities, with a view to scaling up production to enable deployment of wrasse across a suite of marine farms.
Marine Harvest’s developmental work has taken place at the existing hatchery and research facility at Lossit Point, Machrihanish. The company are anxious to build upon the expertise gained to date at this facility and to move from smaller scale developmental work to a full scale commercial hatchery capable of meeting the current needs of the industry. In the absence of a preferable alternative site, the applicants are promoting development of a site close to their existing facility at Machrihanish which will be able to take advantage of existing infrastructure, a shared workforce and other benefits of close association. The existing facility has developed incrementally over many years to a point where it cannot accommodate any further development, so consideration of a separate but nearby site is prompted. The applicants have indicates that they have been unable to identify an available and suitable site for this facility elsewhere on the coast in Argyll, and if this proposal were not to be received favourably, the likelihood would be that they would be forced to prospect for a new site elsewhere in Scotland.
The application site
Marine Harvest’s existing hatchery and the associated research facility is located west of Machrihanish village beyond the point where the public road terminates. A private access from the end of the road serves a cluster of marine related developments, including a Marine Environmental Research Laboratory and University of Stirling Building, the Machrihanish Seabird and Wildlife Observatory, and the Old Coastguard Station and slipway.
The existing hatchery comprises a collection of buildings, tanks, polytunnels and so on and presents a somewhat unattractive appearance to those, mainly on foot, accessing the shore beyond. The application site lies to the south of the existing facility separated by some localised intervening elevated land which inhibits visual association between the two. It comprises very gently sloping rough grazing ground, set above the shore on a former raised beach, below an escarpment which encloses the site to the rear. The site is a sizeable flat area of field currently used for grazing sheep. It contains the remains of concrete foundations which were associated with an early experiment to establish a transatlantic radio communication link. A pedestrian track which is designated as Core Path runs along the seaward side of the field and this is frequented by walkers accessing the coast to the south, which includes a wild area of coast and a popular recreational destination known as the Gauldrons.
New works involve extension of the existing private track to provide a means of vehicular access to the development site, localised realignment of the public path providing access along the coast towards the Gauldrons, the erection of five single storey buildings forming a hatchery complex, and associated landscaping works. The fresh and salt water supplies, electricity supply and drainage discharge pipework serving the existing Machrihanish hatchery would be extended to serve the new hatchery buildings, and the ability to share existing infrastructure and staff expertise is an important locational association between the existing and proposed facilities.
The development comprises a tight knit rectangular grouping of closely related buildings with a gross footprint of approximately 9,000m2, namely: - A water intake building (14.6m x 32.0m with 3.0m eaves/4.9m ridge); - A broodstock building (18.25m x 76.0m with 3.0m eaves/ 5.0 m ridge); - Pre-ongrowing building (21.4m x 107.4m with 3m eaves/5.87m ridge); - Two nursery buildings (21.4m x 114m each with 3m eaves/5.87m ridge); and - A raised link section measuring 5.0m to eaves and 7.87m to ridge.
The proposed facility has been designed and positioned so that it would be screened by surrounding landscape from longer distance views. A 3 metre high earth mound would be formed along on the shore side of the building to act as an additional screen as the site frontage would be open to view by those accessing the coast on foot. The buildings are proposed to be finished externally in olive green powder coated profiled steel sheeting with a grey roof. This would result in a rather utilitarian appearance, particularly given the lack of window opening or other detailing to provide relief to the elevations of the buildings. Whilst some of the buildings will be completely screened by adjacent structures, the outermost elevations facing the sea and the return elevations would benefit from being softened by the application of timber cladding, which would secure a more recessive appearance, and would reflect typical finishing of large agricultural buildings which are commonly clad in Yorkshire boarding. This would only be required for about half the elevations, as the remainder backing on to the escarpment or being internal facing, would not benefit from this treatment as it would serve no purpose. In the event that Members agree that such an approach is justified, a condition to this effect will be required.
Public access to the foreshore and beyond would not be hindered by the proposal subject to a localised diversion of the Core Path which crosses part of the site frontage, although recreational uses accessing the coast beyond the facility would pass by on foot at close quarters. Diversion of the footpath would need to be undertaken at the applicant’s expense via a separate statutory procedure.
There are no occupied buildings close to the site which would constitute sensitive receptors in terms of amenity effects from the operation of the site. Noise and odour have been key considerations of the facility design and applicants stress that these will be minimised to the point where they will be less than or equal to that arising from the existing operation. The operation of the hatchery would involve the pumping of a small volume of seawater into a building housing the fish farming tanks. This water would then be recirculated through a comprehensive cleaning system, with small volumes of water for topping up and the discharge a small volume of seawater back to the Atlantic. Filtration would remove a high proportion of solid matter and other components of the effluent prior to discharge. The existing Lossit Point site benefits from a SEPA consented seawater abstraction and discharge which would also be utilised in connection with the development proposed. A CAR licence variation would be required from SEPA in connection with this proposal and conditions within the licence would ensure that environmental quality standards (EQS) for the discharged seawater are met.
The existing facility would continue operations alongside the new hatchery, and the company hopes that the consenting of the new operation will help to secure the future of the eight existing jobs. The proposed facility will result in the creation of an additional 10 full time jobs. There would be a number of temporary jobs created during the year- long construction phase of the development and a significant downstream effect from the overall increased spend in the area. C. Natural Environment
The application site and its immediate surroundings are not subject to any national or local nature conservation designations.
The site is rough grazing with remains of foundations of the former transmitting station present. The applicants have commissioned a study of plant species which has not identified any localised interest of significance, the conclusion being that many of the plant species found are present on many parts of the surrounding area.
The Local Biodiversity Officer recommends that an ornithological survey for ground nesting bird species with advice on mitigation to be conditioned in the event that planning permission is permitted. Furthermore a protocol for checking the presence of bird species (late February – September) prior to work commencing would be a conditional requirement with all ground works to take place outwith the bird ground nesting season - October to the middle of February. The Biodiversity Officer welcomes the applicant’s intention to realign the existing footpath with ‘naturalistic landscaping provided between the path and building to mitigate impacts over the relevant short section of path’. The Biodiversity Officer would like to have sight of the proposed Naturalistic Landscaping plan with a note of species and rock features and suggests that this is conditioned. A protocol for daily site checks for otter should be implemented which ensures that all pipe-ends are covered and any open foundations have a temporary ramp so that animals can exit safely.
The site lies within a Geological Consultation Area defined by Scottish Natural Heritage – the Machrihanish Coast and South Kintyre GCR site. At pre-application stage SNH’s geomorphologist visited the site to determine whether there would be any impacts of significance upon geological interests, and confirmation was provided that the intended siting of development did not infringe any of the areas identified as being geologically important and therefore complies with Policy SG LDP ENV 10.
D. Marine Environment and Biodiversity.
Marine Scotland Science have reviewed the application and have commented that the application documents submitted contain some of the details identified at pre- application stage, however further information is still needed to allow MSS to make a full assessment on the level of connectivity this site may have with the outside environment and other aquaculture sites. It should be noted that in addition to planning permission, the applicants will require an operator authorisation under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 from Marine Scotland, which will address operational aspects of the process, husbandry, fish health and welfare. A number of matters have been identified at the planning stage which will require further detail to be supplied for Marine Scotland authorisation purposes. None of these have prompted an objection in land use planning terms to the proposal by Marine Scotland.
MSS notes that there are currently 3 aquaculture sites registered with them within 1km of the proposed site. These are all land based sites. The nearest is situated 155m north east of the proposed new site and is an active seawater tank site operated as a quarantine facility by Marine Environmental Research Laboratory (MERL) in association with the nearby Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd. sites. The site is authorised to hold Atlantic salmon and wrasse. The other two sites are situated 170m and 215m north-east of the proposed new site. These are both seawater tank sites (the former also has a freshwater source) operated by the applicant and are authorised to hold wrasse and also lumpsuckers at the former site. In terms of plant operation, incoming seawater will undergo filtration through a drum/sand filter to remove solids, prior to biofiltration, degassing and finally ozonation at redox potential of 1000mV held for one hour. Water in the recirculation system appears to undergo the same treatment process before being redistributed. Information on the level of particulate filtration has not been provided, however MSS assumes it will be at a suitable level to ensure removal of solid waste that will clog the system. The level of water treatment by ozonation is deemed sufficient to eliminate fish pathogens from the intake water. Exact details on the level of water treatment for the supernatant water returned to the sea is not clear from the diagram of water flow provided and will require to be supplied to MSS.
The position of the site falls within Disease Management Area 18c. In order to assess how the site operations may impact other operators in the area further details will be required on water treatment at discharge. Information should be provided detailing the proposed stocking densities at each stage of production. Details of any other considerations that have been made to the environment for the welfare of the stock should also be provided, e.g. habitat optimisation through lighting, behavioural traits etc. Details on disposal of mortalities, biosecurity measures, administration of chemical treatments, and containment in the event of flooding (both from an internal blockage or external to the facility) will be required by MSS.
The proposal is one which will contribute to the sustainable production of aquaculture in Scotland given that it will facilitate the deployment of cleaner fish to help address what has become a growing problem of being able to effectively control sea lice numbers on marine farms. As a closed containment facility it does not present the same level of interaction with the marine environment as that which is associated with marine fish farming. The farming of wrasse is an effective means of providing an assured supply to meet demand from the aquaculture sector and reduces the less sustainable alternative of employing wild caught fish.
Given that farmed cleaner fish from the proposed facility will be transported to marine salmon farms across the west coast, the applicant has identified that it is necessary for the proposed hatchery (with a water intake) to be located as far away from existing marine fish farms as possible, in order to reduce the biosecurity risk of transfer of disease or pathogens. This has limited the possible scope of locations for development with the Kintyre peninsula forming the applicants initial search area for potential sites given its isolation from existing marine farms. The other benefit of locating a hatchery in the south west of the Kintyre peninsula is that there is unlikely to be future marine farm development due to the exposure of this coastline and therefore the risk from future development is lower and the hatchery development itself is unlikely to limit new marine development.
The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant general and sectoral marine planning policies in the National Marine Plan. It will not pose any significant negative implications for the ecological status of coastal waters or for nature conservation interests on the coast, and it is therefore capable of safeguarding special coastal qualities in accordance with the requirements of Policy LDP CST 1.
E. Landscape and Visual Impacts
The proposed development is not located within or adjacent to any national or local landscape designations. The flat nature of the raised beaches around Lossit Point has attracted marine related development in the past, including the applicant’s current operation at the Marine Environmental Research Facility. Despite this node of development, the wider area is nonetheless one of relatively attractive coastal landscape and the site overlooks a small shingle beach in recreational use. The area is also frequented by other recreational uses accessing on foot the more remote and increasingly spectacular coastline to the south of the site. Consequently, it should be regarded as a frequented area of the coast, with receptors experiencing the development at close quarters, albeit for a short duration in terms of the walk along the coastal path and in the context of other nearby marine related development.
Whilst the development is relatively large scale and will pose some significant visual impacts, the following will contribute to mitigating against an unacceptable level of impact:
• The proposed site takes advantage of existing topography with an escarpment to the rear of the site providing effective screening from the north, east and south and preventing long range views of the development;
• The visual influence of the development would be confined to relatively close views from within 1.5km and to the west and south-west of the proposed development;
• The development comprises buildings which have been kept to a relatively low height and landscaping works are proposed to the north and west. Improvement upon the submission proposal could be secured by means of an element of timber cladding to help reduce the utilitarian appearance of the buildings;
• The development will be passed by recreational users of the coastal path to the Gauldrons where visitors would perceive the new buildings in conjunction with the existing laboratory and hatchery buildings, which are also experienced at close quarters. Given its location inland of the coastal footpath the development does not intrude in the more compelling views of the foreshore and the sea.
The effect of LDP Policies DM 1 and SG LDP ACE1 is that development which is being advanced as an exceptional case in terms of the proposed scales of development defined in the plan must be the subject of an Area Capacity Evaluation. The purpose of this is to identify landscape characteristics and to determine the extent to which it has the capacity to assimilate the scale of development proposed without undermining landscape character. The result of the ACE which has been carried out is attached as an Appendix to this report. This addresses in detail the acceptability of the proposed scale of development in its landscape setting.
On the assumption that the conclusions of the ACE are accepted, then the proposal may be regarded as being consistent with the provisions of the development plan in terms of its impact upon visual amenity and landscape character.
F. Impact on Access to Countryside.
The Council’s Access Manager has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. The development would require localised re-routing of the coastal footpath. A Section 208 Path Diversion Order will be required to allow this Core Path to be diverted. This will require to be supported by an Access Management Plan demonstrating how it is intended to address public access. The plan should identified paths in the area prior to the development, proposed Diversions or Path Closures whether permanent or temporary, and final layout of the development and any new path links. Cross sections showing construction proposed paths will be necessary.
The proposal will not inhibit access to the coast and will not present any serious detriment to marine or coastal recreational activity and therefore does not conflict with the safeguarding of special coastal qualities as required to satisfy SG LDP CST 1.
G. Built & Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Matters
There are no scheduled or listed historic environment assets on, or close to, the application site.
Lossit Point was the site of an early attempt to establish a transatlantic radio link between Scotland and the USA in 1905. The remains of the concrete foundations of the structures associated with the short-lived transmitting station remain on the site and some of these would need to be removed to enable development to take place. These remains are neither scheduled nor listed.
When constructed the Machrihanish site had a guyed radio mast about 137m high. Near to the mast was a timber building with a chimney, which housed the station with transmitting and receiving equipment, and a steam generator used to power it. Contemporary photographs show two ancillary buildings, including a small hut adjacent to the mast which housed the operators. Despite success in exchanging Morse code messages, within 12 months the mast had collapsed in a storm and the station was abandoned. There are no upstanding buildings at the site of the station or remains of the mast, but the concrete bases of two buildings survive along with the mast base (now broken into three sections) and 7 concrete anchors for the guys.
Upon request from a third party, Historic Environment Scotland gave consideration to the status of the former radio station in August 2016. At this time there was a Proposal of Application Notice for the development of this fish hatchery on the site (16/00207/PAN), and as a consequence of that, Historic Environment Scotland declined to afford the remains any protection The designation criteria published in the HES policy statement June 2016 stipulate that HES may not designate a site which is subject to a current planning application, or during an appeal period or appeal against refusal of planning permission, and/or while other development proposals are being considered.
Although in view of this position a full assessment against the designation criteria was not carried out, in its commentary at the time HES noted that the site does have some cultural significance as the location of early experimental work in the development of radio. The only other similar site in the United Kingdom in the development of early radio is Marconi's radio station in Cornwall. Similar remains of the twin station remain in Massachusetts and it was between these two locations that the world’s first successful wireless two-way transatlantic transmission took place.
In their response to this planning application HES has confirmed that the proposal does not present adverse impacts to the nearest scheduled monument (cairn at 330m) due to separation by existing structures. They note the presence of the remains of the former transmitting station and comment that the Council should have regard to potential adverse impacts on the site and its setting in reaching a determination. HES concludes that the proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance and therefore HES do not object. West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) advise that this proposal raises a number of complex and potentially significant archaeological issues, most notably relating to the presence within the site of the remains of the transmitting station which represents an important site in development of wireless communication technology. The various concrete bases along with surviving records allow a degree of understanding of how the station would have functioned.
The application submission indicates that the fragmented mast base itself would be preserved, although associated structures such as hut bases and cable stays would be removed. In recognition of the heritage of the site, the applicant has added a visitor reception building and toilet block to their proposal, and that the outer part of the reception building will contain some interpretive panels. Whilst welcoming this WoSAS does not consider that it represents sufficient compensation for the loss of the physical remains themselves. WoSAS would therefore advise that the application, as it is currently constituted, should be refused, in order to preserve the surviving elements of the former wireless station.
Beyond concerns in relation to the wireless station, WoSAS indicate that the locality has proven productive in terms of evidence of historic occupation. Evidence for this activity could survive in the form of buried sub-surface deposits, and any material of this type that may be present would be at risk of damage or removal as a result of ground disturbance associated with the formation of the proposed new hatchery buildings. In the event that the Council feels that other considerations outweigh the need to preserve the remains of the former wireless station, and would therefore intend to grant planning permission for the development as currently constituted, then there would be a need for a condition to secure a programme of archaeological mitigation work to address the surviving remains of the wireless station, in addition to the potential for sub-surface archaeological deposits relating to earlier phases of occupation to be present. This would likely require that any elements of the former wireless station that would be affected by construction of the hatchery comments should be fully recorded in advance of their being removed, with this information being supplemented by additional research into the operation of the wireless station. WoSAS stress that mitigation of this type would be a less-favoured option, as it would result in the removal of the physical structures.
Clearly, the site is of some cultural significance being a successful, if short lived, means of early trans-Atlantic communication. All above ground structures have been long removed and only deteriorating concrete bases and anchor points remain. These are not readily capable of interpretation other than by those informed by prior research. There is a photographic record of the mast and its associated infrastructure and the foundation remains provide little further in being able to appreciate the former use of the site. They are not subject to any protection in law and there does not appear to have been any appetite locally or in the radio community over the last 100 years or so to accord the site recognition or to provide any on site interpretation. Members are invited to have regard to the comments made by HES and WoSAS about the cultural importance of the site and the desirability of retaining what remains of the foundations. However, officers are not convinced that in the absence of any recognised status as a historic asset, these remains are of such value as to warrant preservation in situ or for planning permission to be refused. The measures proposed by the applicants, including interpretation of the site for visitors, would go some way to raising visitor awareness of the significance of the site in early radio communications.
H. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters.
The site is accessed from the end of the single track section of the public road beyond Machrihanish village by an unmade private access serving Marine Harvest’s existing site and several other buildings. A short extension to this private access will be required to provide a link to a parking/delivery area and to a service access around the new site.
The Area Roads Engineer has some concerns about the adequacy of the public road approach and does not consider that the final single track section of the public road is capable of accommodating further traffic (either construction or operation) without upgrading. This will require some improvements within the road corridor to the running surface and improved passing place provision on the section of road between the termination of the two lane section and the termination of the public road. No objection is raised to the proposal but a condition should be imposed to require the submission of a scheme which will address the deficiencies in the final road approach to the site. This should require a phased approach with some improvements being required in advance of construction traffic taking access and further works to be carried out following the development being completed.
I. Aviation Safety
Highlands & Islands Airports Limited calculations show that at the given position and height, this development would not infringe the safeguarding surfaces for Campbeltown Airport. However, confirmation has been requested that the fish hatcheries are undercover and the waste disposal/waste water outfall will not become a bird attractant. As this is the case, HIAL do not object to the proposal.
J. Flood Risk
Given this is a coastal site the prospect of tidal inundation and overflow from an adjacent burn prompts consideration of flood risk. The site boundary lies within the indicative limits of 1 in 200 year coastal flooding shown upon the SEPA Flood Map (2014) and isolated locations of the site lie within the indicative limits of surface water flooding shown upon the SEPA map. A small burn discharging to the sea crosses the site. A Flood Risk Assessment has been supplied by the applicants - ‘Machrihanish Fish Hatchery Hydrological Assessment’, May 2016
SEPA have no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds subject to the imposition of conditions re construction of redirected burn, and the establishment of appropriate floor levels. Any proposed discharge of surface water to the water environment must be in accordance with the principles of the SUDS Manual (C753) CIRIA November 2015 and shall be required to comply with the terms of The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR).
The Council’s Flood Risk Assessor has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. As per SEPA, design details of the redirected watercourse are requested along with finished floor levels and confirmation of surface water drainage arrangements. Surface water can be discharged to the realigned watercourse which is acceptable as it discharges directly to the coast.
K. Infrastructure
In terms of servicing Scottish Water has no objection. There is currently sufficient capacity in the Campbeltown 2000 Waste Water Treatment works to accommodate the development. There is currently insufficient capacity at the Campbeltown Water Treatment Works and further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted for connection. Issues associated with the abstraction of seawater and discharge into the sea will be addressed separately by SEPA under the CAR licensing process. In these circumstances a suspensive condition is proposed to ensure that no development can take place until such time as a public connection has been secured and evidence has been presented to the planning authority to demonstrate this.
L. Lighting
External lighting will primarily be required at loading areas for fish transport purposes. There will also be security lighting within the car park and at the staff entrance to allow safe entry and exit from the facility at night. Lighting will also be installed at the egg reception area, food stores and at the equipment disinfection site. All operational outside lighting will only be switched on when operations are taking place. Details of the external lighting arrangement and its operation should be secured by condition, given the character of this otherwise unilluminated area.
M. Noise and Odour
Noise arising from machinery associated with the hatchery has been a key consideration of the design of the development, which benefits from being fully enclosed within buildings. It is expected that the major producers of noise would be blowers, generators and drum filters installed within the plant room. However, this equipment will be contained within the building which will be adequately insulated to prevent any noise transmission. Given the absence of residential property or other sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the buildings noise nuisance is unlikely to be an issue at this location.
N. Socio-Economic Impact
Policy SG LDP CST 1 requires that the provisions of the National Marine Plan are taken into account in the assessment of proposed coastal development. The proposal contributes to the following national objectives in the Government’s National Marine Plan:
• An aquaculture industry that is sustainable, diverse, competitive, economically viable and which contributes to food security whilst minimising environmental impact; and
• Quality employment and sustainable economic activity in remote and rural areas, as well as more widely in Scotland.
The proposal will contribute either directly or indirectly to the following Council priorities/actions in the Council’s Local Development Plan and Economic Development Action Plan:
• Retention and creation of jobs in remote, fragile, rural, coastal and island-based communities;
• Support for aquaculture as an important sector in the local economy; • Promote a sustainable food and drink supply chain that adds value across all its key components, primary producers to processors, in order to generate growth and vvealth for Argyll and Bute (linked to provenance); • Support the production of a high quality food product that meets market demands.
Aquaculture makes a significant contribution to the economy of Argyll and Bute and in particular to coastal communities in more remote and fragile areas. The development will result in £6 million investment (£3 million estimated to benefit local contractors during construction) and create an additional 10 jobs on site, with other downstream jobs likely to be supported in transport, and support services. The hatchery proposal is also described by the applicant as a key supporting development which will provide a reliable and sustainable supply of cleaner fish which will make a significant contribution to the control of sea lice numbers at marine fish farms in an environmentally sustainable way, which in turn, will underpin the ambition of future growth of the salmon farm industry across the west coast of Scotland. Consolidating the existing wrasse hatchery at Machrihanish enhances the prospect of successful expansion through the ongoing work of existing skilled staff and supporting infrastructure.
As part of this development proposal Marine Harvest has commissioned an independent consultant, to carry out a review of socio-economic impacts. The report recognises the economic fragility of the South Kintyre area and notes that “the Campbeltown and South Kintyre area is in relatively high need of new employment opportunities, which will help address its problems of deprivation, relatively high unemployment, elderly age structure and dependence on seasonal employment”.
The LDP identifies the central challenge facing Argyll and Bute as being the delivery of sustainable long-term economic growth. It recognises this as the key to supporting the retention and growth of the population, supporting the retention and improvement of essential services, and supporting the maintenance and improvement of quality of life in the area. The vision for Argyll and Bute is "one of an economically successful, outward looking and highly adaptable area, which enjoys an outstanding natural and historic environment, where all people, working together, are able to meet their full potential and essential needs, locally as far as practicable, without prejudicing the quality of life of future generations."
One of the key objectives of the LDP (objective B) is: “to secure the economic and social regeneration of our smaller rural communities; in a bid to reverse population decline in fragile communities by encouraging the retention of existing, and influx of new, economically active families”.
This proposal has the potential to help sustain existing jobs at the existing hatchery, to create new jobs in connection with the operation of the new facility, and to provide short term economic benefits to the locality during the construction period. It also stands to make an important contribution to the future of the aquaculture sector on the west coast of Scotland, which includes marine farms operated by the applicants in Argyll and Bute. The socio-economic impact of the implementation of this proposal therefore has the potential to be much wider and more significant than just the localised increase in jobs and construction, increasing local, regional and national economic impact of the aquaculture industry in the longer term.
O. Other Scottish Government Advice
Scottish Planning Policy 2014 (SPP) sets the framework for planning decisions across the country. Planning Authorities are expected to "play a key role in facilitating sustainable economic growth, particularly the creation of new jobs and the strengthening of economic capacity and resilience within communities". SPP introduces a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. ''The planning system should support economically, environmentally and socially sustainable places by enabling development that balances the costs and benefits of a proposal over the longer term."
Under 'Promoting Rural Development'. SPP advises: "In remote and fragile areas and island areas outwith defined small towns, the emphasis should be on maintaining and growing communities by encouraging development that provides suitable sustainable economic activity, while preserving important environmental assets such as landscape and wildlife habitats that underpin continuing tourism visits and quality of place."
In terms of 'Supporting Business and Employment' SPP recognises that: "NPF3 supports the many and varied opportunities for planning to support business and employment. These range from a focus on the role of cities as key drivers of our economy, to the continuing need for diversification of our rural economy to strengthen communities and retain young people in remote areas. Planning should address the development requirements of businesses and enable key opportunities for investment to be realised."
In relation to 'Supporting Aquaculture', SPP confirms: "The planning system should: play a supporting role in the sustainable growth of the finfish and shellfish sectors to ensure that the aquaculture industry is diverse, competitive and economically viable." ‘Planning Advice Note 73 - Rural Diversification’ provides additional detailed advice.
The development accords with the objectives of the Scottish Government set out in SPP 2014 and PAN 73, by providing much needed employment in a remote rural area, by consolidating and expanding the productive capacity of the existing hatchery operation at Machrihanish, and by providing a sustainable supply of cleaner fish, the availability of which will underpin the expansion of the aquaculture sites operated by Marine Harvest across the west coast of Scotland. APPENDIX B - REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOR APPLICATION 17/00642/PP Total Representations: 162
Representations - Summary Totals 1 - OBJECTORS 62 2 - SUPPORTERS 99 3 - NEUTRAL 1
OBJECTORS
Save The Gauldrons No Address Given 30/06/2017 O Group Alexander, Christine Dassia Low Lossit Machrihanish Campbeltown 27/06/2017 O PA28 6PZ Amaut, Elizabeth 2 Summer Crescent Dalintober Campbeltown 07/07/2017 O Barham, Paul Flat 3/2 40 Derby Street Glasgow G3 7TG 11/07/2017 O Barr, Dugald Fishermans Cottage Machrihanish PA28 6PZ 27/06/2017 O Boag, Lorraine 129 Sound of Kintyre Machrihanish Campbeltown 01/07/2017 O Borthwick, Mark No Address Given 06/07/2017 O Branagh, Karla 7 Farmlodge Road Greenisland Co. Antrim N Ireland 28/06/2017 O Brown, Conner 24 Bayview Machrihanish Campbeltown PA28 6PX 07/07/2017 O Brown, Zoe 24 Bayview Machrihanish Campbeltown PA28 6PX 05/07/2017 O Cameron, Shelagh Eriador Lochpark Carradale Campbeltown PA28 6SG 07/07/2017 O
Finnie MSP, John Room MG. 16 The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 04/07/2017 O 1SP Gaughan, Eve Little Dalrioch Campbeltown PA28 6PH 04/07/2017 O Guthrie, Carol No Address Given 11/07/2017 O
Hambly, Sheron 2 Lochgoilhead Apartments Lochgoilhead Cairndow 11/07/2017 O PA24 8AA Horn, Anne Councillor - Kintyre And The Islands Ward 30/06/2017 O Jannetta, Raymond 11 Glenmavis Crescent Carluke South Lanarkshire 07/07/2017 O Kennedy, Ewan Kinloch Degnish Road Kilmelford PA34 4XD 21/06/2017 O Lewis, Heather 1 Cramond Glebe Terrace Edinburgh EH4 6NR 10/07/2017 O Lewis, Heather Cramond Glebe Ter 1/1 Edinburgh EH4 6NR 28/06/2017 O Lipowski, David 26 Thornbridge Road Garrowhill Glasgow G69 6RS 05/07/2017 O Lipowski, Sarah 26 Thornbridge Road Garrowhill Glasgow G71 6HZ 06/07/2017 O Livingstone, David The Bungalow Stewarton Campbeltown PA28 6PG 06/07/2017 O Livingstone, Sarah 24 Bayview Machrihanish Campbeltown 05/07/2017 O Macmillan, Gordon Flat 3/4 110 High Street Glasgow G3 6UA 10/07/2017 O Macmillan, Moira Flat 3/4 110 High Street Glasgow G3 6UA 10/07/2017 O MacNeil, Donna 20 Roebank RoadBeithKA15 2DX 05/07/2017 O Marshall, Gillian 1 Candy Street Peterborough PE2 2RE 07/07/2017 O Marshall, Margaret Kintara 155 Balmolloch Rd Kilsyth G65 9PH 07/07/2017 O Maxwell Macdonald, Gartnagrenach House Whitehouse Tarbert PA29 6XS 25/07/2017 O Donald Maxwell Macdonald, Margo Gartnagrenach House Whitehouse Tarbert PA29 6XS 25/07/2017 O
Mayhew, John 4 Hunter Square Edinburgh EH1 1QW 10/07/2017 O McLellan, Cameron 1 Bayview Machrihanish Campbeltown PA28 6PX 25/06/2017 O McLellan, Don 79 Millknowe Campbeltown Argyll And ButePA28 6NJ 07/07/2017 O McLellan, James No Address Given 07/07/2017 O McLure, Nancy 22 Caroline St Langholm DG13 0AF 10/07/2017 O McSporran, Hazel 1 High Street Banff AB45 1AN 10/07/2017 O Middleton, Christie 11 Bayview Machrihanish Campbeltown PA28 6PX 07/07/2017 O Middleton, Rhiann 21 Johnston Court Falkirk 07/07/2017 O Middleton, Victoria 11 Bayview Machrihanish Campbeltown PA28 6PX 07/07/2017 O Miller, Bob 129 Sound of Kintyre Campbeltown PA28 6GA 06/07/2017 O Nicol, Hugh A No Address Given 07/07/2017 O Nimmo, Alister Taig A M'honadh Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6NT 04/07/2017 O Nimmo, Angus 2 Summerhill Crescent Campbeltown Argyll 28/06/2017 O Nimmo, Drew Via Vittorio Emanuele 46 Monza 20900 Italy 07/07/2017 O Nimmo, Jan 40 Derby Street 3/2 Glasgow G3 7TG 06/07/2017 O Nimmo, Richard 20 Roebank Road Beith Ayrshire 04/07/2017 O Nimmo, Valerie 2 Summerhill Crescent Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6TB 28/06/2017 O O'Neill, Jess No Address Given 27/06/2017 O
Paterson, Moyra Housing Services Burnet Building St John Street 04/07/2017 O Campbeltown Rohan, Louise Flat 2/2 Tangy Place High Street Campbeltown PA28 6EL 19/06/2017 O Russell, Christine An Ceardach Peninver Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6QP 22/06/2017 O Russell, Isabel Joyce 84 Station Road Burley in Wharfedale LS29 7NS 03/07/2017 O Russell, Livingston An Ceardach Peninver Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6QP 22/06/2017 O Sexton, Sue Reid 79 Bellwood Street Glasgow G41 3EY 07/07/2017 O Stewart, Agnes Top Flat Machrihanish Golf Club Machrihanish 10/07/2017 O Stewart, Agnes R No Address Given 04/07/2017 O Thomas, Marianne 37 Tormhor Carradale Campbeltown PA28 6SD 04/07/2017 O Tindall, Claire 35 Old Coach Rd Kelsall CW6 0QL 28/06/2017 O
Walker, Fiona Fisherman's Cottage Machrihanish Campbeltown PA28 31/07/2017 O 6PZ Walker, Kate Fisherman's Cottage Machrihanish Argyll PA28 6PZ 28/06/2017 O Watson, Eilidh Ardoch 22 Yerton Brae West Kilbride KA23 9HL 10/07/2017 O
SUPPORTERS
McFadyens Contractors 55 Glebe Street Campbeltown PA28 6LR 12/07/2017 S Anderson, Alan 49 Meadows Avenue Campbeltown PA28 6LW 11/07/2017 S Anderson, Holly 49 Meadows Avenue Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6LW 19/06/2017 S Anderson, Nicole Skerryvore Balegreggan Road Campbeltown PA28 6NN 06/07/2017 S Armour, Lesley Lossit Home Farm Machrihanish Campbeltown PA28 6PZ 11/07/2017 S Barr, Andy 56 Davaar Avenue Campbeltown PA28 6NH 03/07/2017 S Barr, Lorna Clochkeil Cottage Campbeltown PA28 6NT 01/07/2017 S Bassett, David An Caladh Muneroy Southend Campbeltown PA28 6RW 07/07/2017 S Biggs, John 56 Davaar Avenue Campbeltown PA28 6NH 30/06/2017 S Black, Stuart No Address Given 19/09/2017 S 88 Sound Of Kintyre Machrihanish Campbeltown Brown, Julie 12/07/2017 S PA28 6GA Carr, David 1/1 28 Howgate Avenue Drumchapel Glasgow G15 8qn 20/06/2017 S Carrigg, Tim Unit 14 233 Cardigan St Carlton Vic 3053 19/09/2017 S Chambers, David No Address Given 19/09/2017 S Colman, Benjamin J No Address Given 18/09/2017 S Cowie, Keith 12 Meadowburn Place Campbeltown PA28 6ST 11/07/2017 S Cowie, Marjory 3 Hazelbank Court Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6EZ 12/07/2017 S Currie, Jack North Ardminish House Isle of Gigha PA41 7AA 04/07/2017 S North Ardminish House Isle of Gigha Argyll And Bute Currie, Paul 03/07/2017 S PA41 7AA Darling, Alistair No Address Given 19/09/2017 S Denham, Andrew 24 Kintyre Gardens Campbeltown PA28 6DH 30/06/2017 S Denham, Becca 24 Kintyre Gardens Campbeltown PA28 6DH 11/07/2017 S Denham, Graeme 24 Kintyre Gardens Campbeltown PA28 6DH 12/07/2017 S Denham, Phillip N No Address Given 14/07/2017 S Eagers, Isabel 63 Meadows Avenue Campbeltown PA28 6LW 30/06/2017 S Eagers, Mark 63 Meadows Avenue Campbeltown PA28 6LW 01/07/2017 S Elliott, James 8 Summerhill Crescent Campbeltown PA28 6TB 04/07/2017 S Ellison, Matthew No Address Given 04/08/2017 S Balvaig East Chiskan Chiskan Road CampbeltownPA28 Featherstone, Paul 11/07/2017 S 6PN Finn, Amy 3/2 148 Cumberland Street GlasgowG5 0SH 11/07/2017 S Forshaw, Nicola 35 Dalaruan Street Campbeltown PA28 6HG 04/07/2017 S Gallagher, Catherine 149 Mayall Road London SE24 0PR 11/07/2017 S Gallagher, Jane C 1 Hutcheon Court Campbeltown PA28 6TE 19/06/2017 S Gillespie, Lyle 17B Dell Road Campbeltown Argyll And ButePA28 6JG 10/07/2017 S Gillies, David 10 Killeonan Campbeltown Argyll And ButePA28 6PL 15/07/2017 S Gillies, Joanne 10 Killeonan Road Campbeltown PA28 6PL 03/07/2017 S Gillies, Megan 21 Castleacres Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6SJ 10/07/2017 S Gillies, Ross 17 Lochend Street Campbeltown PA28 6DL 11/07/2017 S Griffiths, Lorraine 61 Meadows Avenue Campbeltown PA28 6LW 01/07/2017 S Griffiths, Peter 61 Meadows Avenue Campbeltown PA28 6LW 01/07/2017 S Hasson, Christopher 4 Craigowan Park Campbeltown PA28 6HQ 01/07/2017 S Hasson, Katie 9 Lochruan Road Campbeltown PA28 6TD 01/07/2017 S Kilchiaran Fort Argyll High Askomil Campbeltown Howell, Kathryn 11/07/2017 S PA28 6EN Jardine, Christine Glenburn Southend Campbeltown PA28 6RF 22/06/2017 S Jordan, Julie 56 Davaar Avenue Campbeltown PA28 6NH 30/06/2017 S Karavela, Ioanna No Address Given 19/09/2017 S Kelly, Bethany Strathmore Drumlemble Campbeltown PA28 6PW 30/06/2017 S Kelly, Craig Lanbeth Station Road Ellon AB41 9AZ 30/06/2017 S Kelly, Darren 2 Knockruan Way Campbeltown PA28 6TN 30/06/2017 S
Kelly, Donald Councillor – South Kintyre Ward 16/06/2017 S Kelly, Jennifer Strathmore Drumlemble Campbeltown PA28 6PW 30/06/2017 S Kelly, Rhona Strathmore Drumlemble Campbeltown PA28 6PW 30/06/2017 S Kirkland, Amy 20 Harleyburn Drive Melrose TD6 9JX 11/07/2017 S Macalister, Eilidh Glenacardoch Farm Glenbarr Tarbert PA29 6UT 04/07/2017 S MacBrayne, Stuart Low Machrimore Farmhouse Southend Campbeltown 12/07/2017 S Macdonald, James 6 Killeonan Campbeltown Argyll And ButePA28 6PL 02/07/2017 S Macdonald, Katrina 6 Killeonan Campbeltown Argyll And ButePA28 6PL 13/07/2017 S 130 Davaar Avenue Campbeltown Argyll And ButePA28 Maclean, Iona 01/07/2017 S 6NH Macsporran, Donna 34 Bayview Machrihanish Campbeltown PA28 6PX 11/07/2017 S MacSporran, Stephen Flat 5ALongrowCampbeltownPA28 6ER 04/07/2017 S Maier, Megan No Address Given 07/08/2017 S Mathieson, Julie 15 Range Road Campbeltown Argyll And ButePA28 6LL 30/06/2017 S McAllister, Kerry 4 Castlehill Court Ralston Road Campbeltown PA28 6QA 06/07/2017 S 18F Davaar Avenue Campbeltown Argyll And Bute Mccallum, Kevin 23/06/2017 S PA28 6NG McClement, Andrew The Warren Machrihanish Campbeltown PA28 6PT 11/07/2017 S McDougall, Allan 117 Sound of Kintyre Machrihanish Campbeltown 11/07/2017 S Mcgeachy, Bryan 17C Kirk Street Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6BL 06/07/2017 S Mcgeachy, Jacqueline 163 Ralston Road Campbeltown PA28 6LG 11/07/2017 S McKay, Gail Crann TaraGallowhill RoadCampbeltown PA28 6JH 11/07/2017 S McKinlay, Eileen Wilardean High Askomil Campbeltown PA28 6EN 11/07/2017 S McMurchy, Glen 1 Bell Mhor Court Campbeltown Argyll And ButePA28 6AN 07/07/2017 S Mcphee, Adam 2/2,35 Craig Road, Glasgow G44 3DW 30/06/2017 S Megson, Corrine 146 Ralston Road Campbeltown PA28 6LQ 07/07/2017 S Menzies, Gregor 37B Albyn Avenue Campbeltown PA28 6LX 11/07/2017 S Millar, Jacqueline 17C Dell Road Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6JG 21/06/2017 S Millar, Myra Craigmore West Machrihanish Campbeltown PA28 6PZ 13/07/2017 S Millar, Thomas Dunollie High Askomil Campbeltown PA28 6EN 10/07/2017 S Muir, Richard 57 Limecraigs Road Campbeltown PA28 6JT 23/06/2017 S Murray, Kerri Ann 27 High Street Campbeltown Argyll And ButePA28 6DS 11/07/2017 S Pack, Erik No Address Given 19/09/2017 S Peacock, Michael South Trodigal Cottage Machrihanish Campbeltown 26/06/2017 S Philand, Dougie Councillor – Mid Argyll Ward 11/07/2017 S Pitman, Emily 24 Fore Street Camborne TR14 7SB 15/07/2017 S Pitman, Lydia Thurlyn Station Road Yarmouth, Isle of WightPO41 0QX 07/07/2017 S Playle, Jacqueline No Address Given 04/08/2017 S East Trodigal Cottage Machrihanish Campbeltown Argyll Preston, Andrew 11/07/2017 S And Bute PA28 6PT Roberts, Ronald Carrick Point Farm Campbeltown PA28 6QR 06/07/2017 S Ronald, Andrew Glenbreckrie Southend Campbeltown PA28 6RN 27/06/2017 S Roy, William Mill Cottage Machrihanish Campbeltown PA28 6PZ 01/07/2017 S Sheriff, Lindsay Millstone Cottage Isle of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AA 05/07/2017 S Craiganrioch Cottage Kilkerran Road Campbeltown Stogdale, Peter 04/07/2017 S PA28 6JN Tait, Alistair No Address Given 02/08/2017 S Tait, Fiona No Address Given 02/08/2017 S Taylor, Stuart No Address Given 04/08/2017 S Ward, Jon 9 Lochruan Road Campbeltown PA28 6TD 23/06/2017 S Watson, Debbie No Address Given 04/08/2017 S Willett, Jane 10 Laymoor Avenue Renfrew PA4 8BS 30/06/2017 S Willett, Marion Longstop Witchburn Road Campbeltown PA28 6PD 30/06/2017 S Willett, Peter A Longstop Witchburn Road Campbeltown PA28 6PD 30/06/2017 S
NEUTRAL
Machrihanish Holiday Machrihanish, Campbletown, Argyll 11/07/2017 R Park