ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 4 JUNE 2013

13-00065-FFPA - FISH FARM, GROAY LINGAY ISLANDS, , ISLE OF - APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION TO REPLACE AND RELOCATE EXISTING BARGE 50M TO WEST OF APPROVED SITE AND ADDITION OF SECOND FEED BARGE TO SOUTH OF EXISTING PEN EQUIPMENT. MOORINGS FOR BOTH BARGES TO BE WITHIN EXISTING FARM MOORINGS AREA. Report by Director of Development

PURPOSE OF REPORT Since this proposal has received six or more letters of representation from separate parties, which contain matters which are material planning considerations, this application cannot be dealt with under delegated powers and is presented to Committee for a decision. COMPETENCE 1.1 There are no legal, financial or other constraints to the recommendation being implemented. SUMMARY 2.1 This is a retrospective application for planning permission to modify the feed system at an existing fish farm site at Groay Lingay Islands, in the Sound of Harris. The existing planning permission permits, 6 no. shellfish longlines, 20 square fish cages arranged in two groups of ten, one raft style feed barge, dimensions 15m x 12m; 4.6 metres above sea level when loaded and 6 metres above sea level when empty. The current application is for two raft style barges each 15.6m x 10.8m; 5 metres above the waterline (to the railings) when loaded and 5.5 metres when empty, each with a capacity of 20 tonnes. One barge is to replace the formerly consented barge, but in a new position 50 metres to the west of the original approved position and the second feed barge to be sited to the south of the existing group of cages. The barges are required to allow automated feeding of both cage groups. 2.2 Two letters of representation and a petition (30 signatures) have been received, citing inaccuracies in submission details, that the second barge is already in situ, that a second barge will significantly detrimentally impact the National Scenic Area, that the farm is not in the approved location, that compliance with previous conditions should be enforced, that anti- predator nets have not been used, that the barge is noisy, not painted as required in the planning permission; not fit for purpose to service the site in bad weather and that no further development should be approved at the site until these issues are resolved. 2.3 The Comhairle requires to determine planning applications in accordance with the provisions of its Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Issues raised by those making representation include material considerations and these have therefore been assessed and given due weight. Each application for planning permission must be decided on its merits, and it is for the Planning Authority to determine whether material considerations are of such weight to justify a decision other than in accordance with its adopted Development Plan. 2.4 The planning permission previously granted and now implemented in respect of a fish farm development at the site is not re-visited as the current application is to install barges to facilitate an automated feed system and does not involve any change to the fin-fish cages. Matters raised that pertain to the existing consent can be investigated through the Planning Enforcement process. None of the statutory consultees raised concerns regarding the current application. The Northern Lighthouse Board asked that the site should be marked for navigational safety. 2.5 The proposal has been assessed against the Development Plan and is considered to accord with its provisions. Material considerations have also been assessed and given due weight. The conclusion following assessment is that there are no material considerations that indicate that the Comhairle’s Development Plan should not be accorded priority and on that basis the application is recommended for approval. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions appended to this Report. Contact Officer Cathy Leary Telephone:01851 822 690 Email: [email protected] Appendix 1 Schedule of Proposed Conditions 2 Location Plan, Site Layout and Equipment Plan Background Papers None REPORT DETAILS DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 4.1 This is a retrospective application for planning permission to modify the feed system at an existing fish farm site at Groay Lingay Islands, in the Sound of Harris. The site is a mixed species production facility consisting of twenty cages in two groups of ten for the rearing of Atlantic Salmon, a raft style feed barge and six double-headed longlines for the culture of shellfish and seaweeds and the site has been operating for the farming of salmon for over two years.

4.2 The two barges for which consent is now sought each measure 15.6m x 10.8m and sit 5m above the waterline when loaded and 5.5m when empty with a capacity of 20 tonnes. The application states that the barges will allow automated feeding of both cage groups instead of the single feed barge initially consented.

4.3 The application is for planning permission to replace and relocate the formerly consented barge to a position 50 metres to the west of the formerly approved site and the addition of a second feed barge to the south of the existing cage group. The moorings for both barges will be within the fish farm moorings containment area. Moorings for the proposed second barge will consist of two mooring legs (each 55m in 36mm ground chain) with 700kg anchors and two chain attachments to the existing pen group in a 22mm long-link chain. The addition of an all round white light is likely to be required for navigational safety.

4.4 The barges are of a raft type design as detailed in the application. They consist of a floating raft on which containers housing feed silos, feed delivery system and generator are mounted. The proposed barges are of a low-lying design and relatively small scale. (To put their scale in context, barges typically in use at fish farms in the Outer today range from 100tonnes – 230tonnes).

4.5 The site is located in the Sound of Harris between the islands of Groay and Lingay some 400m from Lingay Island and 4km to the south west of Renish Point on the south west tip of the coast of Harris. The site is located within the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area, but sits within a landscape and seascape context of islands and skerries.

4.6 The site will continue to be serviced from the existing facilities at slipway. Harvesting will be carried out on site at the pen side using a harvest raft and landing craft vessel. The applicant indicates that the proposed modification will ensure the continued employment of eight full time site staff.

4.7 There are no known habitats of conservation importance within or adjacent to the proposed development. Seals, otters, seabirds and cetaceans, largely porpoise, the occasional minke whale and dolphin, are all likely to frequent the areas around the development. There is no history of marine cultural heritage at the site. The area in and around the development is not classified or protected under EU legislation and the environmental quality standards laid down in EU community legislation will not be exceeded as a result of this proposal either on its own, in conjunction with the existing farm, or in conjunction with other marine development in the area.

4.8 The proposal is within the class of local development within the Planning Hierarchy. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES 5.1 The Planning Application by Loch Duart Ltd, c/o Miss Sonja Brown, Badcall Salmon House, Scourie, Sutherland was registered on 1 March 2013. 5.2 The Planning Application was advertised for public comment in the Public Notices section of the Gazette in the publication dated 14 March 2013 as required by regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT () REGULATIONS 2011 6.1 The proposed development is Schedule 2 Development – Category: (d), in terms of the 2011 Regulations. 6.2 Having assessed the characteristics and location of the development and the characteristics of the potential impact as set out in Schedule 3 to the 2011 Regulations, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar on 15 April 2013 issued a Screening Opinion stating that in its opinion the development for which consent is now sought was not considered likely to have a significant impact on the environment and that the submission of an Environmental Statement was not required. PREVIOUS PLANNING DECISIONS RELATING TO THE SITE 7.1 The following planning history relates to the site. Ref. No. Description Decision Date 09/00256 Fish Farm SC/SC No EIA 13/072009 09/00627 Development of Atlantic Salmon site and Decision 22/03/2011 complimentary shellfish longlines Quashed 10/00468 Development of new Atlantic Salmon site and NO EIA 05/10/2010 complementary shellfish longlines 10/00468 Scottish Government Screening Direction NO EIA 02/03/2011 10/00468* Development of new Atlantic Salmon site and PERC 19/09/2011 complementary shellfish longlines RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 8.1 The full terms of the responses to statutory and other consultation by the Planning Authority can be read on file at the Development Department. The following is a summary of those relevant to the determination of the application.

SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY 8.2 ‘We have no objection to this planning application and, on this occasion, we have no site specific comments to make.’

SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE 8.3 ‘The proposed development is within the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area (NSA). Based on the information provided and the existing consented proposal the changes proposed are not of a design or scale that would affect the integrity of the South Lewis Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area. The changes will not pose any additional impact to any other natural heritage interests.’

COMHAIRLE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 8.4 ‘I do not foresee any noise issues given the location of the site, however it may be prudent to apply the standard noise conditions as attached.’

Condition 2 Should any reasonable complaints (by residents in nearby noise sensitive dwellings) be received in respect of noise levels, the developer shall fully investigate these complaints and, to establish noise levels at any affected property, shall undertake noise monitoring which shall be carried out by a suitably qualified noise expert or consultant previously agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and which shall be carried out in accordance with BS4142:1997 –“Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas”. Reason To quantify the loss of amenity at noise sensitive premises resulting from the operation of the development.

Condition 3 Should any noise monitoring undertaken in accordance with condition 2 above demonstrate that the noise thresholds in condition 1 are being exceeded, the developer shall submit a scheme of mitigating measures to the Planning Authority for written agreement within three months of the breach being identified. The agreed mitigating measures shall be implemented within three months of the written agreement or within any alternative timescale agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter retained throughout the life of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason To ensure adequate mitigation is in place to protect amenity at noise sensitive premises.

DISTRICT SALMON FISHERIES BOARD 8.5 ‘I am responding on the behalf of WIDSFB as the OHFT biologist. As the repositioning of a feed barge or the addition of a new barge does not increase biomass production, does not perceivably increase the risk of escapes or disease or will not affect the applicant's ability to maintain lice levels at below threshold limits there are no reasonable grounds to object to this application. We therefore have no further comments to make at this time.’

MARINE SCOTLAND 8.6 ‘There does not appear to be any negative implications on fish health, containment or sea lice from the proposed modifications, and have no objection to the planning application.’

REPRESENTATIONS 9.1 Representations have been received from the following:  Against Fish Farms, c/o 6a New Street, Back, HS2 0LH;  N Anderson, 1 Ferry Road, ;  Anne Anderson, 1 Ferry Road, Leverburgh;  Christine Hurley, 2 Ferry Road, Leverburgh;  Martin Myers, 2 Ferry Road, Leverburgh;  Pippa Stevens, Cnoc an t-Sithean, Borrisdale;  Ann Milne, Cnoc an t-Sithean, Borrisdale;  Dave Thomas, 8a Strond, Leverburgh;  Jane Edwards, 8a Stond, Leverburgh;  Chris Merlin, 7 Quidinish, Harris (owner of Groay);  Annick Merlin, 7 Quidinish, Harris (owner of Groay);  Margarita Williams, Holmasaig, Quidinish, Harris;  Wendy Else, Nurses Cottage, Manish, Harris;  Jill Woolf, Isle of , Sound of Harris;  Douglas Woolf, Isle of Killegray, Sound of Harris;  Andrew Johnson, 1 Strond, Leverburgh;  Alison Johnson, 1 Strond, Leverburgh;  Willie Fulton, 3 Drinishader, Harris;  Moira Fulton, 3 Drinishader, Harris;  Tony Scherr, Borve Cottage, Harris;  Heather Scherr, Borve Cottage, Harris;  Elaine Farmon, 1 Finsbay, Harris;  Roddy Campbell, 5 Drinishader, Harris;  Niall Stewart, Reay Cottage, Back, Isle of Lewis;  Catriona Clements, 39a Outend Coll, Isle of Lewis;  Tony Clements, 39a Outend Coll, Isle of Lewis;  Ruth Clements, 39a Outend Coll, Isle of Lewis;  S Merlin, 20 The Pastures, Repton, Derby DE65 6GG;  E Merlin, 20 The Pastures, Repton, Derby DE65 6GG;  David Bines, 14 Copheap Rise, Warminister, Wiltshire BA12 OAR

9.2 The full terms of the Representations can be read on the file at the Development Department. However, they can be summarised as follows:  Alleged significant inaccuracies in the applicant’s submission including the fact that the application is retrospective in that the barge is already in place.  The barge should be painted dark grey in accordance with SNH guidelines. The existing barges are very light coloured and rusty.  The barge has not been painted to reduce visual impact in accordance with the details in the approved plans and enforcement action should be taken to ensure compliance with the original permission before any further development is approved at the site.  The condition of the barge raises concerns in the NSA where it is viewed by more than 60,000 people every year from the ferry. The installation of the barge is a serious environmental hazard which should be removed from the site prior to any further development being considered.  The second barge is smaller but only by 11 sq.m and has the same capacity. These will therefore have double the visual impact on the National Scenic Area.  The second barge is already on site in contravention of planning regulations. If no planning permission for this barge exists then this application must be regarded as retrospective.  The existing barge is not adequate in scale or capacity to safeguard fish welfare in terms of adequately serving the site and providing a feed supply in bad weather. It is argued that the current application may not be necessary if the approved barge had been installed.  The provision of two barges on the site will reduce the number of site visits and increase the risk of undetected damaged nets, tapped seals, otters and birds. The potential for large numbers of salmon escapees will increase the risk of disease spreading to the wild salmon population.  The location of the fish farm is not in the approved position. As a result the fish farm is located much closer to Groay Island and therefore closer to concentrations of predatory species and seals.  The applicant has not utilised tensioned and anti-predator netting required under the current consent  The applicant has not complied with the consented grouping of the cages and as the cages are further apart than 52.7m in the approved consent the development is in breach of planning regulations.  The local Planning Authority should take enforcement action to ensure compliance with the approved plans before any further applications are approved at the site.  The existing single feed barge at the site is not in the type approved in the original permission and is causing considerable noise nuisance to the local community. It is argued that the barge is not fit for purpose and that the environmental impacts of different feed barges have not been examined.  The applicant has shown a complete disregard for the terms of the planning consent and no further consents should be granted pending enforcement and prosecution. Granting planning permission for the additional barge will double the size of the feeding barge area and therefore the visual impact. VIEWS OF THE APPLICANT 10.1 The full details of the views of the applicant can be read on the file at the Development Department. However, they can be summarised as follows:  It is not proposed that the site boundary or pen equipment will change in any way.  Relocation of the barge and siting of a second barge allows appropriate arrangement of the feed system.  Combined capacity of the barges is 40 tonnes which will make deliveries to the site necessary once every 3-7 days.  This avoids large quantities of feed at sea with potential wastage.  The barges are small in the context of fish farm feed systems.  The footprint of the barges would accommodate a much larger, more intrusive barge.  Initially only 18 out of the 20 approved pens were installed. The larger gap between the two groups was due to the absence of two of the pens.  Loch Duart staff are present on site on a daily basis except where extreme weather prevents this.  The site has been operated for over 12 months and health and monitoring has been consistently achieved.  This type of barge has been chosen because the applicant prefers low lying designs which have less impact on the visual amenities.  SNH has advised that the present colour is acceptable as it is a slightly darker colour.  The applicant advises that the barges have been painted twice but acknowledge that further maintenance is due.  The addition of a second feed barge will effectively reduce the operating time and duration of any potential noise issues associated with the development as it will allow completion of operations in a much shorter timeframe.  The site will be lit for navigational safety.  Lighting at the site will be limited to that required for navigational safety  Occasional use of lighting will be made during well boat operations.  The second barge will require also require a single white light with a visible range of two nautical miles.  Sound presently generated at the site comes from harvesting operations, feeding and husbandry activities.  Only during well boat operations will these activities take place outside the approved hours of operations.  The Sound of Harris is approximately 4.7km, 8km and 7.2km from the nearest residential properties on Harris and North Uist respectively and given the distance the sound will be attenuated  The second barge will be powered by a generator and to minimise noise impacts the generator exhaust is fitted with a silencer and the entire unit housed within an acoustic enclosure. ASSESSMENT OF EIA 11.1 An EIA was not required in support of this planning application. Refer to Paragraph 6.2 above. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 12.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An assessment against the policies and provisions of the Development Plan is therefore made initially. This is then followed by an assessment of any other material considerations, prior to a conclusion and recommendation as to the determination.

OUTER HEBRIDES LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (OHLDP) 12.2 POLICY 1: DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

All development proposals will be required to accord with the Development Strategy as well as other relevant Plan policies…..Supplementary Guidance will be prepared in relation to both wind energy and fish farm proposals.

12.3 The approach to development within the Outer Hebrides Local Plan is based on land use strategy that aims to encourage and facilitate good quality development in appropriate locations in line with the plan’s vision and objectives. 12.4 The development which is the subject of this application is sited within the site of an existing fish farm, and therefore the principle of fish farm development at this location is established. 12.5 The proposal accords with Policy 1. 12.6 POLICY 2: ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Underpinning each of the policies in the Plan is a requirement to demonstrate that development proposals: 1. will not significantly adversely affect biodiversity and ecological interests and, where possible, result in an enhancement of these interests (The online Biodiversity Planning Toolkit should be consulted for general advice and good practice on habitats and species, and the NBN Gateway for site specific biodiversity data); 2. will not result in pollution or discharges outwith prescribed limits to the air, land, freshwater or sea; 3. have been designed to take account of the requirements of safeguarding zones notified by the Health and Safety Executive, Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Services, Ministry of Defence, Marine Consultation Areas, relevant Harbour Authorities and Marine Protected Areas. All development will be assessed for its impacts individually, incrementally and cumulatively to ensure no significant detrimental effects arise………..

12.7 The application has been subject to consultation with all the statutory consultees and none raise issues in respect of the application: SEPA has no objection to the development and had no site specific comment to make; Marine Scotland noted that there do not appear to be any negative implications on fish health, containment or sea lice from the proposed modifications and therefore they have no objections to the proposal. The District Salmon Fisheries Board noted that as the repositioning of the barge or the addition of a new barge does not increase biomass production, does not increase the risk of escapes or disease and will not affect the applicant’s ability to maintain lice levels at below threshold limits. 12.8 SNH assessed that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the NSA. 12.9 The Northern Lighthouse Board asked that the site be marked for navigational safety. 12.10 The Comhairle Environmental Health Officer has advised that he does not foresee noise issues given the location of the site. The site is 5km from the nearest ‘noise sensitive premises’. 12.11 The Comhairle is entitled to place due weight on the advice of consultees and in this instance concludes that the proposal complies with Policy 2. 12.12 POLICY 5: LANDSCAPE Development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area, ensuring that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained.

The Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment (WI-LCA) will be taken into account in determining applications and developers should refer to Appendix 1 of this plan for a summary of this guidance.

Development proposals in National Scenic Areas should satisfy the appropriate tests in Policy 28 Natural Heritage. Landscapes with the special qualities of ‘wild land character’ currently fall within the Remote Area classification of Policy 1 Development Strategy.

12.13 The siting and design of development proposals should be informed by the capacity of the landscape to absorb the new development. The Landscape Character Assessment of the Western Isles had identified eleven major landscape types and suggested that development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area ensuring that the overall integrity of the landscape is maintained. The area around the Sound of Harris is Crofting Three, Rocky Moorland Type. According to the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment Report, this landscape character type is characterised by short, even slopes, interspersed between rocky knock and boulder outcrops. Generally, the slope is towards the coast where land meets the sea in a series of deeply indented, low lying rocky promontories, small beaches and offshore islets. The Sound is a vast seascape studded with rocks, skerries and islands of varying size. They are typically of a relatively low lying topography and have a dark grey rocky shoreline. The proposed development secures a level of screening from Groay to the south-west, Lingay to the south-east, Scaravay to the south and Gilsay to its north east. The site is open to the north-west. Groay and Lingay rise to circa 20-25m AOD and from most directions will provide natural screening to the feed barges. When viewed from the north, the dark shoreline and topography of Groay and Lingay will largely provide a natural backdrop which can absorb the raft style low profile design of the feed barges.

12.14 Fish farming was established in the Sound of Harris between the islands of Groay and Lingay some two years ago. The applicant has argued that the use of two barges will bring benefits in terms of improved feed storage, automated feeding of both groups of cages and will reduce the number of trips needed to service the site.

12.15 The landscape impact has been assessed and given the low profile raft type design (5.5m to top of railings), the proposed barges if suitably coloured are not considered to have an adverse landscape impact. Further comment on the impact on the integrity and special qualities of the NSA is addressed under Policy 28.

Underwater lighting 12.16 The only lighting proposed is that required for safety and navigational needs. As such it is considered that the lighting of the two barges will not have a significant landscape impact in the area. 12.17 POLICY 28: NATURAL HERITAGE

Development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site and is not directly connected with or necessary to the conservation management of that site will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment by the Comhairle. Development which is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura site will only be permitted where:  an Appropriate Assessment has demonstrated that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, or  there are no alternative solutions, and  there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. Development that affects a National Scenic Area (NSA), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or National Nature Reserve (NNR) will only be permitted where:  it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated, or  any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. All Ramsar wetland sites are also Natura sites and/or Sites of Special Scientific Interest and are included in the statutory requirements noted above.

Where there is good reason to suggest that a protected species is present on site, or may be affected by a proposed development, the Comhairle will require any such presence to be established and, if necessary, a mitigation plan provided to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts on the species, prior to determining the application. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a European protected species unless the Comhairle is satisfied that:  there is no satisfactory alternative, and  the development is required for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, and  the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a European protected species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 unless the development is required for preserving public health or public safety. For development affecting a species of bird protected under the 1981 Act there must also be no other satisfactory solution. Applicants should submit supporting evidence for any development meeting these tests, demonstrating both the need for the development and that a full range of possible alternative courses of action have been properly examined and none found to acceptably meet the need identified. Development affecting the Loch Stiapavat Local Nature Reserve (LNR) should aim to enhance the site and will not be permitted if it will have an unacceptable impact on the features of interest of the site. In addition to the conditions listed above, developers are encouraged to assess the impacts of their proposed development on UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and habitats and Local BAP habitats and species. Developers should refer to the Scottish Biodiversity List* for a full list of animals, plants and habitats considered to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland (this list includes all UK priority species). 12.18 The application site is not within a Natura site, an SSSI or a National Nature Reserve.

12.19 Otters and cetaceans, European Protected species do frequent the area at times but are unlikely to be impacted upon.

12.20 In 2010 SNH ‘Commissioned Report 374’ published more detailed descriptions in the form of the special qualities of the National Scenic Areas. This publication defines the special landscape qualities of the NSA’s as ’the characteristics that, individually or combined, give rise to an area’s outstanding scenery’. 12.21 The special qualities of the South Lewis Harris and North Uist NSA, according to the report lists amongst the generic special qualities:  A rich variety of exceptional scenery – the bold rugged hills of South complementing the islands in the Sound, and the islands in turn appearing as an extension to the water dominated landscape of North Uist.  A great diversity of seascapes.  Inter-visibility between landscapes; views to another landscape type. The eye continually led to distant horizons. 12.22 SNH has noted that as the proposal is within the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area, but that based on the information provided and the existing consented proposal, the changes proposed are not of a design or scale that would affect the integrity of the NSA. They consider that the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the NSA. SNH also note that the proposed changes raise no other natural heritage impacts of national importance. 12.23 Having taken advice from the statutory consultee and given due weight to the views expressed, the Comhairle considers that the proposal complies with this policy.

12.24 POLICY 22: FISH FARMING AND MARINE PLANNING In reaching planning decisions, the Comhairle will have regard to the National Marine Plan and subsequent Regional Marine Spatial Plans in so far as they impact within the inter-tidal zone and on the wider coastal zone. Proposals for new marine fish farming developments or amendments to existing marine fish farming sites will be assessed against the Supplementary Guidance for Marine Fish Farming which forms part of the Development Plan. The Supplementary Guidance sets out a spatial strategy and a development policy framework to guide fish farming development in the Outer Hebrides. The spatial strategy identifies areas for potential growth including areas subject to constraint, and areas that are sensitive to new or further fish farming development, while the development framework sets out a suite of detailed development policies against which fish farming proposals will be assessed. These policies address: Siting and Design; Landscape; Water Quality; Operational Impacts (including Site Restoration and Waste Management); Other Marine Interests; Noise and Lighting Impacts; Economic Benefit; Cumulative and Incremental Impacts. Proposals for new freshwater aquaculture developments will be assessed against all of the following criteria:  acceptable location in terms of the Development Strategy;  sympathetic siting and design of installations and associated facilities;  no unacceptable adverse noise and lighting impacts;  satisfactory operational impacts (including site restoration and waste management arrangements);  no significant adverse impact on other uses of the site or neighbouring water or land;  no unacceptable adverse environmental or amenity impacts arising from access or servicing considerations;  the incremental or cumulative impact of the proposal. 12.25 The location of the proposal has been considered in terms of the LDP Development Strategy (Policy 1).

12.26 The siting and design of the proposal has been assessed against LDP Policy 5 Landscape and will be considered further below in terms of Supplementary Guidance: Marine Fish Farming (SGMFF): Development Policy 1: Siting & Design in the Landscape.

12.27 Noise and lighting impacts of the proposal are assessed below in terms of SGMFF: Policy 4: Noise & Lighting;

12.28 Operational Impacts of the proposal are assessed below in terms of SGMFF: Development Policy 5: Operational Impacts;

12.29 Impacts on other uses of the site or water and environmental or amenity impacts arising from access or servicing considerations are assessed below in terms of SGMFF: Development Policy 3: Other Marine Interests.

12.30 The incremental or cumulative impact of the proposal is assessed below in terms of SGMFF Development Policy 6: Cumulative Impact.

12.31 A review of the proposal against the Supplementary Guidance for Marine fish farming follows:

12.32 SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE FOR MARINE FISH FARMING (SGMFF) SPATIAL STRATEGY POLICY 1: AREAS FOR POTENTIAL GROWTH 12.33 The Sound of Harris is within an area identified for potential growth on the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan supplementary guidance for marine fish farming. The identified constraint in this area is the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area. 12.34 As the development comprises installing equipment within the mooring limits of an existing fish farm and does not relate to an increase in the size or capacity of the existing farm the location of development is taken as established for fish farm development. 12.35 The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of Policy 1.

12.36 DEVELOPMENT POLICY 1: SITING AND DESIGN IN THE LANDSCAPE Development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area.

The developer will be required to submit information which demonstrates that the proposal can be satisfactory integrated with the landscape through appropriate siting and design.

Siting ‐ The placement, layout, and orientation of installations should reflect the scale and subtleties of the surrounding landform, coastline and coastal character.

Design – The scale, configuration, number, cage grid size, and the form and height of feed‐barges and support structures, should ensure the proposal is capable of being absorbed into the landscape/seascape with minimal intrusion.

Details of the colour of cage structures, nets, top‐nets, barges and other surface equipment should be submitted, together with a statement detailing how the proposed colour scheme is appropriate to minimise landscape and visual impacts arising from the proposed development.

Details of the associated on‐shore facilities will also require to be submitted and will accord with Development Policy 8.

A design statement is required for developments within a National Scenic Area (NSA). The design statement for proposed fish farming development within an NSA will be expected to demonstrate how the proposed development responds to the Special Qualities of the specific NSA and explain how the proposal has paid special attention to the desirability of safeguarding or enhancing the NSA’s character or appearance.

Proposals will be assessed to ensure that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained and if sited within an NSA, against the special qualities of the NSA.

12.37 The Supplementary Guidance requires that developers should ensure that their proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the area ensuring that layout and orientation reflects the scale and subtleties of the surrounding landform, coastline and coastal character.

12.38 The fish farm sits in an area of the marine environment between the islands of Groay and Lingay which are c. 5km distant from the mainland shore of Harris. The farm is partly screened by the island of Gilsay to its north east, various reefs and skerries and to a lesser extent Scaravay to the south. The proposed farm is low-lying but the barges may be visible in the distance when viewed from the north west, from boats in , on part of the ferry route from Leverburgh to Berneray and to a lesser extent on the other navigable routes through the Sound. Otherwise it will be either partly obscured by landform and/or sited against the backdrop of the land-form of nearby islands and rocks and skerries thereby minimising its landscape and visual impact.

12.39 The barges for which consent is sought are of a low profile raft type design with a maximum holding capacity of 20 tonnes in a muted colour to minimise visual impact.

12.40 This view is supported by an SNH commissioned report on landscape/seascape that accepts that smaller equipment, when viewed from a low level viewpoint and backed by land formation relates well to the landscape and makes the cages and barges more difficult to distinguish in the landscape.

12.41 The site is within the NSA but the site is not identified as sensitive in terms of its capacity for aquaculture. The area is considered to have the potential to accommodate further small to medium scale development. The current proposal is therefore assessed as not having a significant impact on the landscape.

12.42 DEVELOPMENT POLICY 2: WATER QUALITY AND BENTHIC IMPACT Proposals will require to be accompanied with modelling and calculations which demonstrate that the benthic and water column impacts of the proposed farm are localised and within environmental limits.

Proposals will be assessed to ensure to ensure that impacts on water quality and benthic environment are minimised or mitigated.

Proposals will also be assessed against the requirements of LDP Policy 9 Water Environment.

Proposals for new marine fish farming development and/or extensions to existing sites will not be permitted in locations where they would have a significant adverse impact on water quality.

12.43 The replacement and relocation of a barge and the siting of an additional barge does not increase biomass, does not increase the risk of escapes or disease nor will it affect the applicant’s ability to maintain lice levels at below threshold limits. The development will therefore have no significant impact on benthic and water quality and as such the development conforms to this policy.

12.44 DEVELOPMENT POLICY 3: OTHER MARINE INTERESTS Developers should provide evidence that potential impacts of new or extended fish farm sites on commercial fisheries, wild fisheries, MOD activities, navigational routes, anchorages, and recreational and leisure activities have been identified. Where there are likely to be conflicts, details of impacts and the mitigating measures proposed should be submitted.

Areas identified for energy exploitation, including oil, gas and renewable energy developments should be avoided unless the developer can demonstrate that the energy resource will not be sterilised by the proposed development.

Proposals for new or extended fish farm development will be permitted where it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on wild fish populations, either individually or cumulatively with other fin fish developments. Applications for new fin fish farms or extensions to existing farms to increase cage surface area by 50% or more should include the following information:  Location and where available catch data of salmon producing rivers which are judged to be potentially adversely impacted on in the loch system;  A statement as to whether the area is known to support sea trout fisheries.

The Comhairle will seek the advice of Marine Scotland Science and the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board in respect of the information provided with regard to wild fish in informing its determination of an application.

12.45 As the siting of the barges are within the mooring limits of the existing fish farm and there is no change to the use of the site, the development for which consent is now sought will not have a significant impact on other marine interests such as tourism and commercial fisheries. Furthermore both the Harbour Master and the Northern Lighthouse Board accept that the development will not impact on navigational safety provided it is marked with appropriate lighting. This can be managed by way of condition. The District Salmon Fisheries Board and Marine Science Scotland have been consulted on wild fish impacts and both have noted that there does not seem to be any negative implications on fish health, containment or sea lice. Neither objects to the proposal which is designed to allow automated feeding at both groups of cages. As such the development complies with Policy 3 of the supplementary guidance.

12.46 DEVELOPMENT POLICY 4: NOISE AND LIGHTING Developers will be required to provide details on noise and light emissions relating to the proposed development, along with details of any mitigating measure that will minimise the impacts. This should include details of surface and underwater lighting and if sited within 2km of a residential property, details of noise generating equipment and hours of operation. The Comhairle may require the applicant to provide further technical information or undertake survey work if the information submitted is not considered adequate. Proposals will be assessed to ensure that impacts arising from noise and lighting at fish farms are minimised.

12.47 Developments which are likely to generate a significant level of noise do not generally make good neighbours with noise sensitive land uses such as housing, hospitals, educational establishments, offices, places of worship and nursing homes and some livestock farms. The potential impact from noise from fish farm activities both in relation to every day operations and particularly from operations such as stocking and harvesting can be detrimental to these uses while certain lighting can cause nuisance and be visually intrusive in the landscape. This is particularly relevant where there are residential properties close to the site.

12.48 The applicant has provided details of noise and light emissions along with mitigation measures in accordance with the requirement of the Supplementary Guidance. These measures are assessed to be adequate. There are no noise sensitive land uses within 5 km of the farm. However planning conditions have been recommended to ensure noise and light emissions can be controlled at the site. The proposal therefore complies with this policy.

12.49 DEVELOPMENT POLICY 5: OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Information on the arrangements for waste management at the proposed site and should be submitted along with the planning application. The proposal should be designed so as to minimise any negative impacts arising from the operation and will be assessed to ensure adequate waste management measures; no adverse environmental or amenity impacts arising from the servicing and operation of the site; and satisfactory measures for the restoration of the site, including removal of redundant equipment. Conditions will be imposed on the grant of a planning permission to ensure management of equipment during fallow periods exceeding six months and to control the removal of damaged equipment and to ensure restoration of the site following cessation of operations.

12.50 The current application is to provide two barges which will allow automated feeding of both groups of cages. It is assessed that this will improve feed storage as waste minimisation initiatives can be improved through bulk delivery of feed to the automated systems.

12.51 It is also recommended that the proposal is conditioned to ensure that in the event of the equipment falling into disrepair or becoming damaged, adrift stranded, abandoned or sunk in such a manner as to cause obstruction or danger to navigation the developer will carry out or make necessary arrangements for lighting, buoying, raising, repairing, moving or destroying as appropriate the whole or any part of the equipment. The application of these conditions will ensure compliance with this policy.

12.52 DEVELOPMENT POLICY 6: CUMULATIVE IMPACT The potential cumulative impact of a proposal, in conjunction with all other existing and consented fish farming developments in the same loch system will be a factor in determining the acceptability of a development proposal. This assessment will have regard to the information submitted in relation to other policy areas and the potential cumulative impact on: landscape and seascape character, including visual impacts (farms within same view from key viewpoints); noise and lighting impacts; carrying capacity of loch system; and water column and benthic impacts. Where adverse cumulative impacts are significant and cannot be mitigated, planning permission will not be granted.

12.53 While a development proposal is initially assessed on its individual merits the cumulative impacts of the proposal alongside other existing developments and consents within the surrounding area will be taken into account.

12.54 There are three existing fish farms in the wider area known as the Sound of Harris namely Vacasay, Grotay and Grey Horse Channel. These sea farms all lie to the south, are serviced from a shorebase at Cheesebay, North Uist and fall within the same Natural Heritage designation and Landscape Character type ‘Rocky Moorland’ as the application site. 12.55 The sites to the south of the sound are 4-5km to the south-west of the site and the seascape between is interspersed with rocks and skerries. The feed barge at Grey Horse Channel and other vessels working at the site are visible from Lingay in conditions of good light. However, the distance and nature of the landscape and seascape is such that it is considered that there is no adverse cumulative visual impact arising from the development.

12.56 These existing sites are set against a backdrop of low lying islands of broadly similar landform and topography to those which are sited around the application site.

12.57 Given the nature of the development, the existing fish farms referred to above and the landscape/seascape of the surrounding Sound of Harris, there are not considered to be any significant incremental impacts.

12.58 DEVELOPMENT POLICY 7: ECONOMIC BENEFIT Proposals should include details of the anticipated economic benefits for the Outer Hebrides arising from the proposed development including direct and indirect employment (FTE and part time). The assessment should have regard to the potential for displacement of local jobs both within or outwith the sector. The potential benefits will be assessed to ensure there is no detrimental effect on the benefits to be derived from other economic activities unless it can be demonstrated that the benefits from the fish farming development outweigh the others.

12.59 The applicant advises that current operations in the Sound of Harris provides eight full time jobs and that approval of the current proposal would help ensure that these jobs are safeguarded.

12.60 The proposal is unlikely to have any displacement implications and is therefore assessed to be in compliance with the provisions the supplementary guidance.

12.61 DEVELOPMENT POLICY 8: ON-SHORE FACILITIES The Comhairle will only permit a marine fish farm development proposal where the associated shore based facilities are located within the Outer Hebrides. Where new or upgraded onshore facilities are necessary to service a development, developers are required to submit the planning application for onshore facilities simultaneous with the associated marine fish farming application. Onshore facilities will be assessed against Local Development Plan policies. Developers proposing to utilise existing facilities will be required to identify the shore based location and facilities from which the development will be served in the planning application.

12.62 The site will be serviced from the existing facilities at Otternish slipway. The proposal is therefore in compliance with this Policy.

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE 12.63 It is assessed that the current Planning Application complies with Policy 1 – Development Strategy, Policy 2 – Assessment of Development, Policy 5 Landscape, Natural Heritage and Policy 22 Fish Farming and Marine Planning.

12.64 It has also been assessed to comply with Spatial Policy 1 – Areas for potential growth and Development policies 1 to 8 of the Supplementary Guidance on Marine Fish Farms.

12.65 It is therefore concluded that the application is in compliance with the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 13.1 Having carried out an assessment against the Development Plan, the Planning Authority requires to identify and consider relevant material considerations, for and against the proposal, and assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the Development Plan. The weight to be attached to any relevant material consideration is for the judgment of the decision maker.

13.2 The following are material planning considerations considered relevant to this Planning Application:

Scottish Planning Policy - Fish Farming 13.3 Paragraph 104. Aquaculture is a nationally important industry, particularly for coastal and island communities, making an important contribution to the rural economy and providing a significant number of jobs, many in remote locations where alternative employment opportunities are limited………..

13.4 Paragraph 107. When determining planning applications, authorities should take into account the direct and cumulative effects of the proposed development on the environment, including carrying capacity, visual impact and the effects on the landscape, marine historic environment and the sea or loch bed. The needs of local communities and other interests should also be taken into account alongside the economic benefits of the sustainable development of the fish farming industry and the operational needs of fish farms. Where adverse cumulative impacts are significant and cannot be mitigated, planning permission should not be granted. Fish farms can be fitted into their surroundings to avoid or minimise visual intrusion and mitigation strategies should be incorporated into development proposals. Applications should be accompanied by information on the extent of the site, type, number and physical scale of structures, the disposition of structures across the lease area, on-shore facilities, ancillary equipment, lighting and noise impact and proposed restoration following cessation of operations.

13.5 Paragraph 108. There are a number of regulatory controls covering fish farming in addition to planning permission, including the rights and interests of the Crown Estate as owners of the seabed. The planning system should not duplicate other control regimes such as controlled activities regulation licences from SEPA or fish health, sea lice and containment regulation by Marine Scotland. Planning authorities and applicants should engage with other regulators to improve understanding of relevant requirements. Voluntary Codes of Good Practice have been produced by fish farming stakeholders which address a range of issues outwith planning control such as cage and equipment design, security, management and operational practices. These codes provide the basis for certification of standards and practices put forward in support of planning applications for fish farms.

Comments on Scottish Planning Policy 13.6 Paragraph 104 of Scottish Planning Policy states the contribution that marine fish farming makes to employment provision in remote areas. The applicant states that the development for which consent is sought will support the continued employment of the eight members of staff currently employed at the Sound of Harris site.

13.7 The applicant currently operates from the pier at Otternish, Berneray and has identified the site as the shore base to service Groay Lingay in line with Para 106 of Scottish Planning Policy.

13.8 The Application is in respect of the installation of two barges and therefore the primary consideration in terms of Paragraph 107 - direct and cumulative impacts of the development relates to Landscape. This has been assessed under Policy 5 and 28 of the Local Development Plan and found to be satisfactory.

13.9 The aims of Paragraph 108 of the SPP are to ensure that Planning Authorities engage with other regulators and the Comhairle has consulted with SEPA, SNH, Marine Scotland, the District Salmon Fisheries Board and other consultees to ensure that any direct and cumulative impacts on the environment are mitigated.

13.10 Scottish Planning Policy supports the assessment that has been carried out against the Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance for Marine Fish Farming. Scottish Planning Policy therefore supports a decision being taken in accordance with the Development Plan.

REPRESENTATIONS 13.11 As detailed at Section 9.1 above, representations have been received on a range of issues both in respect of the development for which consent is sought and others pertaining to the existing development. These representations have been grouped together into topics and addressed in terms of their relevance to the Planning Application and whether they constitute material considerations that would be of such weight as to indicate that the Development Plan should not be accorded priority.

THE BARGE HAS NOT BEEN PAINTED AS REQUIRED TO REDUCE VISUAL IMPACT AND HAS A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE NSA 13.12 The applicant acknowledges the current application is a retrospective Planning Application and that the barges require to be re-painted.

13.13 The barges are of a raft type design as detailed in the application. They consist of a raft base on which containers housing feed silos, feed delivery system and generator are mounted. This type has been chosen for its relatively low-lying design which the applicant considers preferable to a larger capacity barge which would stand higher in relation to the pen equipment and likely be more visually intrusive.

13.14 While the impact of the development on the surrounding area and on the NSA is a material planning consideration, it is assessed that the impact can be mitigated by the enforcement of a condition that requires that the proposed barge is painted and maintained to the satisfaction of the Comhairle as Planning Authority throughout the lifetime of the development.

13.15 It is considered that the proposed barges are modest in size, respect the low lying topography in the vicinity of the farm and if painted suitably and maintained will not impact adversely upon the South Lewis, Harris & North Uist National Scenic Area.

GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE SECOND BARGE (11 SQ M SMALLER WITH SAME CAPACITY) WILL DOUBLE THE IMPACT ON THE NSA 13.16 It is alleged that the introduction of a second barge in the fish farm will double the impact on the NSA.

13.17 The proposed barges are of a raft-type design, housing steel container and feed silos and delivery system. Their maximum height above the waterline to the railing is 5.5m and therefore the mass of the structure sits lower. In their response to the statutory consultation process, SNH agreed that the changes proposed are not of a design or scale that would affect the integrity of the South Lewis Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area.

13.18 It is considered that the proposed barges are modest in size, respect the low lying topography in the vicinity of the farm and do not impact adversely upon the South Lewis, Harris & North Uist National Scenic Area.

APPLICATION IS RETROSPECTIVE AND IS SIGNIFICANTLY INACCURATE 13.19 Representations state that the applicant has failed to comply with the terms of the previous planning permission at the site and that the barges referred to in this current application have already been re-sited and installed thus in breach of planning. A breach of planning control is not a criminal offence in itself and the first steps in addressing a breach of planning is to seek to remedy the matter e.g. initially through negotiation to seek submission of a planning application to determine the acceptability of the development or to seek removal of the structure prior to considering formal enforcement action. In general, commission of an offence relates to the failure to comply with the requirements of a notice served by the Planning Authority in exercise of its enforcement powers against the breach. The current planning application is to determine whether the re-siting of one barge and the addition of a further barge at the site is acceptable. In terms of national guidance and the Comhairl’e policy on enforcement, it is considered premature to require the removal or re-siting of the barges, in advance of a decision on the current planning application.

THE LOCATION OF THE FISH FARM IS NOT IN THE APPROVED POSITION AND NO FURTHER CONSENTS SHOULD BE GRANTED PENDING ENFORCEMENT ACTION 13.20 It has also been suggested by those making representations that the position of the fish farm is not on the approved site.

13.21 The applicant has refuted this statement and has provided co-ordinates taken by staff at the farm using a hand held Garmin GPS 76 with accuracy of less than 10 metres which confirms that the pen group centre positions are within the approved site boundary and within nine metres of the approved site.

13.22 The Comhairle is required to determine each planning application on its merits in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. This matter is outwith the scope of the application currently under determination but is an issue that can be checked to ensure that there has been no breach of planning control.

THE APPLICANT HAS NOT UTILISED ANTI-PREDATOR NETS 13.23 A further issue raised by those making representations related to the non use of anti- predator nets at the site. 13.24 This matter is not a relevant material planning consideration in respect of the current application which relates to the siting of two barges. 13.25 A Wildlife Interaction Plan has been agreed with SNH on the management of natural heritage and wildlife interactions with the fish farm development. The purpose of the plan was to ensure that management measures proposed in mitigation were implemented to ensure the protection of wildlife. SNH confirmed that they and Loch Duart agreed to this plan as a working document which would allow changes to the procedures as required. The management plan acknowledges the potential interaction between seals and the fish farm, but proposes a physical and non-physical barrier which is agreed between the applicant and SNH at their quarterly meeting. 13.26 The Comhairle has been advised that wildlife friendly predator nets are deployed where appropriate on sites during high risk periods; the first 2 months of a production cycle, and through the second sea winter from November to February. In the present production cycle at the Sound of Harris predator nets have not been considered appropriate given a lack of interaction necessitating their use. 13.27 A Wildlife Sighting Log is kept for the site and this data is shared and discussed with SNH on a quarterly basis, including discussion of any predator interactions and mitigation measures in use. Given that the applicant is complying with the terms of their Management Agreement with SNH, the Comhairle has no concerns over the management of wildlife at the site. The current application relates to the siting of barges and as such the operational issues at the site cannot be considered to be material considerations. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONSENTED GROUPING OF THE CAGES 13.28 The grouping of the cages is not relevant to the consideration of the current application for the barges. Nevertheless the applicant was asked to explain the discrepancies in perceived distances of 52.7 metres between the cages. 13.29 The applicant stated that despite being granted planning permission for 20 No square cages, not all the cages were installed on site at the same time. A substantial gap was therefore visible between the two groups of cages until such time as the final pens were installed and this may explain the discrepancies in distances raised by those making representation.

13.30 Although not strictly relevant to the determination of the current application, this issue has also been brought to the attention of the Comhairle’s Enforcement Officer for further investigation to ensure no unauthorized siting of the cages.

THE SINGLE FEED BARGE IS NOT THE TYPE APPROVED IN THE ORIGINAL PERMISSION AND IS NOISY 13.31 The original barge approved by planning permission 10/00468 which was for a 15m x 12m structure, 4.6 metres above sea level when loaded and 6 metres above sea level when empty with a capacity of 20 tonnes was replaced with a smaller barge with a similar capacity.

13.32 The barge, the subject of this retrospective Planning Application, is a raft style structure with two containers which rise 2.5 metres above the waterline when loaded and 5.0 metres when empty.

13.33 It is proposed by the developer that the change in barge design and layout is the preferred configuration for the feed system. In terms of visual impact it is not considered, given the location of the farm within the Sound, that either design would have a significant impact on the National Scenic Area. However, given the reduction in height above the water line, the barge proposed in the current application is likely to have less of a visual impact provided it is painted to the satisfaction of the Comhairle as Planning Authority. This can be achieved by conditions.

13.34 Although the Comhairle does not foresee any noise issues given the location of the site, it is proposed that any planning permission shall be subject to noise conditions to control unacceptable noise emanating from the site.

THE EXISTING BARGE IS NOT ADEQUATE IN SIZE AND SCALE TO SERVE THE SITE IN BAD WEATHER 13.35 It has been proposed by those making representations that the existing barge on site is not adequate in scale or capacity to adequately maintain suitable levels of fish welfare. Emphasis has been placed on the possibility of running out of feed for periods during bad weather when the site cannot be accessed. It has also been suggested that the installation of the second barge is necessary only because of the inadequacy of the existing arrangements.

13.36 Fish welfare and operational issues such as structural integrity are the responsibly of Marine Scotland. In response to the statutory consultation procedure Marine Scotland noted that there did not appear to be any negative implications on fish health, containment or sea lice from the proposed modifications and as such Marine Scotland raised no objections to the proposal.

13.37 In support of the application the applicant proposes the use of two barges instead of one large barge in order to reduce visual impact, improve feed storage appropriate to the size of the operation and potentially reduce the number of trips required to serve the site.

13.38 Combined maximum capacity of the barges is 40 tonnes; based on this capacity feed delivery to the barges, dependent on the stage in the production cycle, is estimated to be necessary once every 3 - 7 days. This is considered adequate for the scale of the site and avoids storage of large quantities of feed at sea with potential quality or wastage issues. 13.39 The applicant further proposes that the modification would allow automated feeding for the twenty pens which are arranged in two groups. These arrangements are considered to be adequate to safeguard fish health and visual amenity.

THE PROVISION OF TWO BARGES WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SITE VISITS AND INCREASE RISKS OF ACCIDENTS SUCH AS UNDETECTED DAMAGE TO BIRDS, SEALS, OTTERS, AND SALMON ESCAPES 13.40 A reduction in the number of site visits that would result in a detrimental environmental impact on wildlife may be a material planning consideration. However, the applicant has stated that the site is operated according to the Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture, Freedom Food and ISO 14001 standards and operations are regularly audited against these standards in addition to statutory monitoring through Marine Scotland and SEPA.

13.41 Conformity to the Code of Good Practice requires that Loch Duart staff are present on site on a daily basis except in the event of extreme weather and the application detailed above does not reflect an inability to access the site nor failings to monitor stock.

13.42 Furthermore, the Sea Site Wildlife Interaction Plan agreed with SNH sets out procedures that will minimise interaction between fish farm activities and local wildlife and includes the Sound of Harris.

13.43 For these reasons, it is not considered that the provision of two barges on site will increase risk to wildlife or increase risks of accidents.

OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS – PLANNING HISTORY 13.44 The planning history of a site may be a material consideration and it is relevant to consider what can be carried out on site in terms of existing permissions.

13.45 The approved use of the site is for a marine fish farm comprising 20 No 24m x 24m steel cages in two groups with a 20 tonne automated feed barge. The current application is for the replacement and relocation of the existing barge and the addition of a second feed barge to serve the two groups as the applicant has recognised that this layout is the preferred configuration for the feed system to allow for the automated feeding of both groups. A change to the feeding system at an existing fish farm is consistent with the approved use of the site.

CONCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT 14.1 In terms of spatial strategy the site is located in an area identified for potential growth in the Supplementary Guidance – Marine Fish Farming.

14.2 The proposal is also considered to be in accordance with the criteria relevant to the assessment of development proposals. These include a demonstration that the proposal will not significantly adversely affect biodiversity and ecological interests, will not result in unacceptable pollution outwith prescribed limits and take account of the requirements for navigational safety.

14.3 Those making representations raised concerns over the accuracy of the details in the application, the correct position of the fish farm, the adequacy of the barges and the impact of the development on the NSA. While the potential impact of the development on the NSA and the adequacy and design of the barges are material considerations, the correct position of the farm and the accuracy of the details are issues that can be addressed by enforcement proceedings. 14.4 None of the statutory consultees raised concerns as they considered that as there was no increase in biomass at the site, there would be no increase in nutrient input into the water neither would there be any likely impact on the health and well being of migratory fish.

14.5 It was assessed that given the existing use of the site, there would be no significant impact on the landscape and there would be no navigational issues provided the site was marked according to the requirement of the Northern Lighthouse Board.

14.6 It is therefore assessed that there are no material planning considerations that would warrant a departure from the Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION AND REASONS 15.1 This is a retrospective application for planning permission to replace and relocate the existing barge 50 metres to the west of the approved fish farm site at Groay Lingay and the addition of a second feed barge to the south of the existing pen equipment. Representations and a petition were received. 15.2 The site is located in an area identified for growth in the Supplementary Guidance for Marine Fish Farms in the Western Isles Local Development Plan. 15.3 Having consulted the statutory consultees and having given due weight to the advice received, it is not considered that any of the concerns raised are of sufficient weight to justify refusal of the application. 15.4 The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to the application of conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the Report. APPENDIX 1

SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Condition 1 Throughout the life of the development to which this planning permission relates, the two barges shall be painted and the painted surfaces maintained in a colour of grey, the BS or RAL number for which requires to be submitted and agreed in writing with the Comhairle as Planning Authority within one month of the date of issue of this permission. Reason In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

Condition 2 Throughout the life of the development to which this planning permission relates, no means of artificial illumination other than that required for health and safety or navigation reasons shall be installed above or below the water surface, without the prior written approval of the Comhairle as Planning Authority. All lighting not required for safe navigation purposes should be directed downwards by shielding and be extinguished when not required for the purpose for which it is installed on the site. Reason In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

Condition 3 In the event of equipment falling into disrepair or becoming damaged, adrift, stranded, abandoned or sunk in such a manner as to cause an obstruction or danger to navigation, the developer shall carry out or make suitable arrangements for the carrying out of all measures necessary for lighting, buoying, raising, repairing, moving or destroying, as appropriate, the whole or any part of the equipment. Reason To prevent environmental dereliction and risk to safe navigation.

Condition 4 In the event that the barges or associated feeding equipment approved by this permission cease to be in operational use for a period exceeding six months, they shall be wholly removed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason To prevent deterioration of the site in the event of cessation of operations.

Condition 5 The site should be marked by means of a lit yellow pole, flashing group four yellow every twelve seconds, (Fl(4) Y 12s) and fitted with a yellow multiplication cross topmark.  The pole should be positioned at the most Northerly corner of the group of cages.  The pole used should be at least 75mm in diameter and not less than 1 metre in height above the site equipment hand rails, the light should be installed on the top of the pole; the visible range of the light should be two nautical miles. The pole should be positioned such that it can be clearly seen by vessels approaching from all navigable directions. The multiplication cross should measure a minimum of 50cm in length by 7.5cm in width and be installed below the light.  Both feed barges on the site will be required to exhibit an all round fixed white light, which should be exhibited from a point at least 1 metre above any obstruction. The nominal range of the light should be 2 nautical miles.  The use of trip ropes and mooring buoys to indicate the seabed extremity anchors should be prohibited on the Northerly and Westerly side of the site but at the most Southwesterly corner we recommend the anchors are marked with 50cm high visibility orange buoys to give indication to any vessels using the safe anchorage where these anchors are placed.  The navigation recommendations given above must be installed at the same time as the site equipment. Reason In the interests of navigational safety. Condition 6 The ‘Rating noise level’ generated by the development and associated operations, including sea going vessels, when measured at any noise sensitive dwelling in accordance with the requirements of BS4142:1997 –‘Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas’, shall not exceed the background noise level by 5 or more Decibels. It is assumed that the ‘Rating Noise Level’ includes an acoustic feature correction of 5 decibels. Reason To protect the amenity at noise sensitive premises.

Condition 7 Should any reasonable complaints (by residents in nearby noise sensitive dwellings) be received in respect of noise levels, the developer shall fully investigate these complaints and, to establish noise levels at any affected property, shall undertake noise monitoring which shall be carried out by a suitably qualified noise expert or consultant previously agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and which shall be carried out in accordance with BS4142:1997 –“Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas”. Reason To quantify the loss of amenity at noise sensitive premises resulting from the operation of the development.

Condition 8 Should any noise monitoring undertaken in accordance with Condition 7 above demonstrate that the noise thresholds in Condition 6 are being exceeded, the developer shall submit a scheme of mitigating measures to the Planning Authority for written agreement within three months of the breach being identified. The agreed mitigating measures shall be implemented within three months of the written agreement or within any alternative timescale agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter retained throughout the life of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason To ensure adequate mitigation is in place to protect amenity at noise sensitive premises. APPENDIX 2

LOCATION PLAN SITE LAYOUT EQUIPMENT PLAN