ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 22 MARCH 2011

APPLICATION TO DEVELOP A PREVIOUSLY UNUSED SITE AT SRON ALLA TOLLAN (TOA TOLSTA), , (REF NO 10/00105/FFPAES)

Report by Director of Development

PURPOSE OF REPORT Since this proposal has received more than three letters of representation from separate parties, which contain matters, which are relevant material, planning considerations, the application cannot be dealt with under delegated powers and is presented to the Comhairle for a decision. COMPETENCE 1.1 There are no legal, financial or other constraints to the recommendation being implemented. SUMMARY 2.1 This is an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) application by the former Lighthouse Caledonia Ltd (now The Scottish Salmon Company), Cairndow, Argyll for the development of a salmon farm in Broadbay, Isle of Lewis. The site is the subject of an existing, but previously undeveloped lease from the Crown Estate for a salmon farm. The development now proposed is to install within the existing lease area 12 no. circular cages, each of 120m circumference and a 400 tones automatic feed barge. The site would be serviced from Brevig Harbour. 2.2 Two petitions, one containing 933 signatories and one on-line petition with 565 signatories and numerous written representations cite a range of objections and issues, including adverse impact on wild salmonids from sea lice, disease and risk of escape, the resultant damage to the wild fishery and recreational and angling tourism, the negative socio-economic impact on access, recreation, tourism and commercial fishing operations, the negative impact of the development on the seabed, on the water column, marine species, such as minke whale and seals and sea birds, such as arctic terns; on neighboring properties through noise, light and waste pollution; negative landscape and visual impact, adverse interaction between predators and the fish farm. Navigational safety and anchorage issues were also raised as were queries over the durability of cages, moorings, nets and barge, the competence of the attestations and wave and moorings analysis and the ability to service the site from Brevig in adverse weather. Reservations were raised as to the independence, adequacy and accuracy of the Environmental Statement as well as non-compliance with both national and local planning policy. Two letters of support were also received. The Report, considers the detail of the above issues. 2.3 In response, the applicants state that the wild salmonids impact raised are not specific to this site, that the cages would be installed for a winter with no fish to further assess impact of sea conditions on the infrastructure, that a robust maintenance and monitoring regime would be in place. Subsequently, the applicant submitted detailed technical assessments to support the attestations for the moorings and cage structures. The applicant also provided barge details, a list of medicines and stated the sea lice treatment regime. They also contend that the location of the farm in relation to the river mouth is compensated for by the fast flow of water in an exposed location. 2.4 This is an EIA development and despite the additional information submitted, it is considered that there are clear deficiencies in the Environmental Statement that would require to be addressed in order to demonstrate that environmental risks had been adequately assessed and mitigated. These deficiencies are the lack of a robust, independent and accurate assessment of the potential impacts on the wild trout populations in Broadbay from sea-lice dispersal and on salmon and trout populations arising from containment failure (mooring failure or interaction with predator species). Furthermore there is an outstanding clear statement of objection from a statutory consultee; the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board. These concerns have also been reflected in the responses from Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Science. The choice of this site as opposed to the alternatives studied is not set out on the basis of the environmental effects and also considered to be a deficiency in the Environmental Statement. 2.5 While the proposals broadly accord with the provisions of the Development Plan it is considered that the deficiencies in the Environmental Statement justify the refusal of the current application. For this reason it is considered that the application should be REFUSED. A refusal would not prejudice consideration of a future application provided the environmental risks were adequately addressed. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that the application be REFUSED for the reasons as set out at Appendix 1 to the Report. Contact Officer Cathy Leary Tel: 01851 822690 Email: [email protected] Appendix 1 Reasons for Refusal 2 Location Plan Background Paper 1. Toa Tolsta Fish Farming Site - Review of Technical Information by W A Fairhurst. & Partners REPORT DETAILS

REPORT STRUCTURE 4.1 The Report is structured as follows: Section 5 Description of the proposal Section 6 Legislative framework and duties of the Planning Authority Section 7 Summary of representations Section 8 Consultee responses Section 9 Comments from applicant Section 10 Planning history Section 11 Western Isles Development Plan Policy considerations and response Section 12 Environmental Impact Assessment and comment Section 13 Other material planning considerations and comment Section 14 Summary & conclusion

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 5.1 This is an application by the former Lighthouse Caledonia Ltd, Cairndow, Argyll for the development of a salmon farm on the site of an existing salmon farm lease in Broadbay. The site is currently undeveloped and presently has a lease from the Crown Estate. The proposed development will be located within the existing lease area. The developer is proposing to site 12 cages each of 120m circumference arranged in two groups and each group will be arranged in a 2 x 3m formation. The application and accompanying attestations state that nets will be constructed to the highest roping specification, which will be able to deal with the environmental conditions experienced at the site. Tensioning of the nets along with false bottom nets will be used to help prevent predator attack on caged fish. Top nets with a 2” square mesh will be used to help prevent net entanglement. All nets will be anti-fouled at the beginning of each production cycle and each time the nets are removed for cleaning. Each net will have a depth of 12m. The proposed barge is a Seamate 400t rectangular concrete pontoon designed to house nominal feed capacity in six silos, plant room, canteen and equipment, toilet, partitioned office, communications systems, generator, feeding system and safety equipment to comply with relevant legislation and guidelines. The barge specification is generally in accordance with the drawing “400T SEAMATE General Arrangement” dated April 2009.

5.2 The site would be serviced from Brevig Harbour, which would consist of an office and small storage facility, planning permission for which has now been applied for. However, the fish farm will be predominantly serviced from the proposed feed barge. It is anticipated that the site will have four full time employees.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND DUTIES OF THE PLANNING AUTHORITY THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED) 6.1 Marine Fish Farming came into the jurisdiction of the planning system on the 1 April 2007. In assessing an application for Planning Permission for a Marine Fish Farm, the Comhairle must base its decision on the statutory Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development proposal is therefore assessed against the Development Plan and consideration given to material considerations including Scottish Government Guidance, and relevant third party representations.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1999 6.2 Intensive Fish farming is a type of Development identified in Schedule 2 Column 1 of the EIA Regulations (Agriculture and Aquaculture - 1(d)). The proposed development exceeds the thresholds set out in the Regulations and therefore required to be screened to establish its likelihood of a significant effect on the environment. In carrying out the Screening Assessment, consideration was had of the ‘Characteristics of the Development’, the ‘Location of the Development’ and the ‘Characteristics of the potential impact’. 6.3 The EIA Screening Opinion of the Comhairle was that the development had potential to have significant effects on the environment and therefore required these effects to be assessed and presented in the form of an Environmental Statement (ES).

6.4 The EIA Regulations provide that an ES is a statement that includes ‘information as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile’.

6.5 The ES was required to focus on the following potentially significant impacts: • The Interaction with Wild Salmonids • Visual Impact • Benthic Impact • Interaction with Predators

6.6 An ES was submitted in support of the Planning Application and advertised in accordance with the EIA requirement. A review of the ES by the Comhairle’s planning service, statutory consultees and the public, identified deficiencies. Following a request, the applicants submitted barge details, a list of medicines and stated the sea lice treatment regime, a wave climate analysis and an analysis of a cage and barge moorings system. The receipt of this further environmental information was advertised and further comments obtained from both statutory consultees and the public. The ES is discussed at Section 12 below.

THE CONSERVATION (NATURAL HABITATS, ETC) REGULATIONS 1994 6.7 The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 make provision for the implementation in the UK of the EU Habitats Directive. Regulation 3(4) of the Regulations state that “every competent authority in the exercise of any of their functions, shall have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they [the requirements] may be affected by the exercise of those functions." 6.8 Members are advised that the Comhairle as competent authority is required to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in exercising their function as a planning authority.

BIODIVERSITY DUTY 6.9 All public bodies, including planning authorities, have a duty when exercising their respective functions to further the conservation of biodiversity under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions. SPP defines the term “biodiversity” as the variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic eco-systems and the ecological complexes of which they are part. This includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992).

6.10 In satisfying its duty under S 1 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (the 2004 Act) to further the conservation of biodiversity it is necessary for a planning authority in assessing planning applications to make an assessment of any relevant impact on biodiversity, if appropriate to consider proposals for mitigation and if reasonable and necessary, to impose conditions.

OTHER REGULATORY CONTROLS PERTAINING TO FISH FARMING 6.11 The responsible authorities and control regimes (other than planning) that relate to marine fish farming can be summarised as follows:

• SEPA - The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (CAR) - sets limits upon the scale and rate of discharges from fish farm sites. It requires any effluent to be assimilated and broken down by natural processes, ensuring no lasting impacts or lasting accumulation of pollutants. • Marine Scotland (MS) has statutory responsibilities for the health of both farmed and wild fish. Health of farmed fish is dealt with under The Aquatic Animal Health (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

• Containment and parasite (sea lice) control is covered under The Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007. • In Scotland, The Aquatic Animal Health (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (2009 Regulations) implement the Council Directive 2006/88/EC on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals. The 2009 Regulations requires the authorisation of all Aquaculture Production Businesses (APB's). The authorisation procedure is undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) based at the Marine Scotland, Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen. • All new fish and shellfish farms are required to apply for authorisation before any development takes place. The details of the specific locations (sites) that the APB will be authorised to farm at will be included in the authorisation of the APB and the details of each site the APB operates at will be published in the publicly available register. • Scottish Government Port and Harbours Branch: Navigation - Section 34 Coast Protection Act 1949 consents - the purpose of which is to minimise obstruction or danger to navigation. • Marine Scotland – Licensing - issues new licences to take or kill seals at any farm or fishery; issues licences to deploy ADDs.

REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 A total of 77 representations (below) and two petitions, one with 933 signatories and one on- line with 565 signatories were submitted in respect of the initial submission of the planning application. Subsequent to the submission of additional information (in response to the above representations and to address requirements identified by statutory consultees) a further 16 representations were received.

7.2 Representations relating to the initial submission of the planning application have been received from the following:

• Chirsty Fisher, Roselea, 3 Claddens Wynd, Lenzie, Glasgow; • Craig Wilson, 28 Links Walk, Port Seton, East Lothian; • John Morrison, Tynecastle, 15A Aird, Tong, Isle of Lewis; • Michael Martin, 6 Snetterton Close, Parklands, Northampton; • Paul Rouse, Coniston, Ogbourne St George, Wilts; • Michael Graham, 22 Macgegor Park, , Isle of Lewis; • Henry Spence, 109 Endlesham Road, London; • Charles A Prior, 84 Myreside Road, Edinburgh; • Eric Paterson, Church Street, Golspie; • Holley McCoy, 30 Vatisker Park, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Paul Bristow, 6a Fowley Common lane, Glaszebury, Cheshire; • Alexander Walker, Inverlochy; • Catriona Clements, 30a Outend Coll, Isle of Lewis; • Dr Anton Michel, 12 Smith Avenue, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis; • Ruth Clements, 39a Outend Coll, Isle of Lewis; • Tony Clements, 39a Outend Coll, Isle of Lewis; • Tim Atkinson, 1a Upper , Isle of Lewis; • Gress Angling Association, per Alasdair Murray & Iain Roxburgh; • Peter Lyons & Ann Palmer, 'Druideag', 44 Gress, Isle of Lewis; • Calum Macleod, 5 Gearraidh Ghuirm, Upper Coll, Isle of Lewis; • Mrs J Allen, Lane End House, Broadhembuiry, Honiton, Devon; • John Allen, Lane End House, Broadhembuiry, Honiton, Devon; • Ian MacDonald, 61 Parkend, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis; • Martin Scott, RSPB Conservation Officer, Office 2, Clintons Yard, Rigs Road, Stornoway; • Paul Hudson, 71 Vatisker, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Jim Fisher, 3 Claddens Wynd, Lenzie; • Alex Stobart, 1 River Massan Cottage, Benmore, Dunoon, Argyll; • John Maclean, 22 Upper Coll, Isle of Lewis; • Joe Sinclair, Heywood House, Westbury, Wiltshire; • Ross MacDonald, 49 Concraig Gardens, Aberdeen; • Donald Maciver, 66B Newmarket, , Stornoway, Isle of Lewis; • Norman MacDonald, 46 Upper Bayble, Point, Isle of Lewis; • Calum Mackenzie, Gardeners Cottage, Castle Grounds, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis; • Jonathan Maclean, 42B Coll, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Iain Murray, 23b Coll, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Alasdair Murray, 37A Gress, Isle of Lewis; • Gordon Mackenzie, Tern House, 12 Steinish, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis; • Evelyn Dunstan, Cragro, , Isle of Lewis; • Ian Stephen, 2 Iobht nan seol, North Brach, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis; • Nina Hakanpaa, Burnside Cottage, School Road, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Iain N Morrison, 50 Gress, Isle of Lewis; • Tommy Boyle, 5 Leslie Park, Old Rayne, Insch, Aberdeenshire; • Fish Legal, Eastwood House, 6 Rainbow Street, Leominster, Herefordshire; • Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, Rivers & Fisheries Trusts of Scotland, Capital Business Centre, 24 Canning Street, Edinburgh; • Senior Fisheries Biologists; • Iain A Leitch, Scottish Game Angling Instructor; • Chriselle Bain, 42 Gress, Isle of Lewis; • Anna Marie Watson, 45 Dales Court, Peterhead; • Neill Sproull, 9 Willow Street, Glasgow; • Calum MacDonald, 22b Bhatasgeir, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Murdo Macaulay, 1 Laxdale Stornoway, Isle of Lewis; • Iain Trayner, 10 Lochside, North Tolsta, Isle of Lewis; • Jack Bain, Monivey, 42 Gress, Isle of Lewis; • Jane Roxburgh, “Failte” North Road, Saline, Dunfermline; • Mr A Bendall, 4 West View, Abbey Oaks, Burstall Lane, Sproughton, Ipswich; • Peter Urpeth, 6a New Street, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Joan Kilvington, 7a Gress, Isle of Lewis; • Mr Alasdair Smith, 15 Coll, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Andrew Graham-Stewart, Clamhan Lodge, Bonar Bridge, Sutherland; • Ian Maclennan, 15b Coll, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Iain Roxburgh, 42 Upper Coll, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Julie Roxburgh, 42 Upper Coll, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Ros Rouse, Coniston, Ogbourne, St George, Wilts; • Katie Ann Maciver, 3 Willowglen Road, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis; • Fideach Angling Club, c/o AJ Maclennan; • Stornoway Angling Association, 18 Keith Street, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis; • Niall Stewart, Reay Cottage, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Norman Mackenzie, Tabhaigh, Keose, Isle of Lewis; • No Fish Farms Campaign – c/o Peter Urpeth / Catriona Clements; • Stuart Baird, 9 Stewart Drive, Stornoway; • Iain M Maciver, Estate Factor, Stornoway Trust; • Brian Shaw, 47 Ward Court, Ayr, Ayrshire; • Neil Stamper, 19 Gress, Isle of Lewis; • Eve Mitchell, Rose Cottage, Farness, Dingwall; • Ewen Scobie, Rhidorroch, Ullapool; • Kevin MacCormick, Glentarff, 10 Kirkton Avenue, Bathgate; • Atlantic Salmon Trust, Suit 3/11, King James V1 Business Centre, Perth.

7.3 In addition, 565 signatures, many with comments on the proposed development formed part of an on-line petition. Additionally, 933 people signed up to the No Fish Farm in Broadbay Campaign Petition.

7.4 The following representations have been received in response to the additional information provided by the applicants: • Chirsty Fisher, 221 Sunnyside Drive, Glasgow; • Alexander Walker, Inverlochy; • Catriona Clements, 39A Outend Coll, Isle of Lewis; • Dr Anton Michel, 12 Smith Avenue, Stornoway; • Ann Palmer & Peter Lyons, ‘Druideag’, 44 Gress, Isle of Lewis; • Paul Hudson, 71 Vatisker, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Alasdair Murray, 37A Gress, Isle of Lewis; • Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, Rivers & Fisheries Trusts of Scotland, Capital Business Centre, 24 Canning Street, Edinburgh; • Robert W Younger, Solicitor, Fish Legal Scotland; • Peter Urpeth, 6a New Street, Back, Isle of Lewis; • Management Committee, Stornoway Sea Angling Club; • Niall Stewart, Reay Cottage, Back; • Catriona Clements & Peter Urpeth (No Fish Farms in Broadbay Campaign); • Stuart Baird, 9 Stewart Drive, Stornoway; • Brian Shaw, 47 Ward Court, Ayr, Ayrshire;

• Western Isles Salmon Fisheries Board, The Sawmill, Marybank, Stornoway.

7.5 The full terms of the representations can be read on the file in the Development Department, Comhairle Offices, Stornoway and are summarised below by topic. For each topic, the representations on the initial submission are followed by those received in response to the advertisement of additional environmental information.

7.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT • No Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out. • The development is contrary to Scottish Government advice on Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Location/Relocation of Fish Farms. There is no scientific support for the siting and no risk assessment in the Environmental Statement. Best practice for controlling sea lice is not working. • The frequency of interaction with wild salmonids is incorrect in the Environmental Statement as sea trout spend considerable periods at sea. • The reversibility of the development in environmental terms is questionable. • The Environmental Statement is biased and fundamentally flawed and should be assessed by an independent consultant. • Sea trout fisheries are more susceptible to catastrophic decline as a result of longer exposure to farmed fish. The EIA and planning application does not acknowledge the extent of the risk. • The Environmental Statement is inadequate and contains inaccurate, insufficient and misleading data. • The EIA does not contain sufficient information on hydrological and meteorological data on which to base its determination. • The EIA is neither objective nor impartial and the view that the cumulative impact of the development will be negligible cannot be substantiated. • The hydrographic surveys say that Broadbay is situated on the west coast of Lewis. It is not. • The flawed data submitted with the planning application on sea and weather conditions should be grounds for rejecting the application. • There should be an independent EIA carried out. • A glaring omission from the Environmental Statement is an assessment of the predicted sea lice dispersal from the site, bearing in mind that in spring the weather patterns are often dominated by long periods of north easterly winds which will distribute the larval lice all over the bay thus affecting the whole of Broadbay and all the fisheries it supports.

7.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT – COMMENTS ON FURTHER INFORMATION • No Fish Farm in Broadbay Campaign do not feel that the additional information submitted has addressed the issues raised. • The local Fisheries Trust despite being asked by the No Fish Farms in Broadbay has refused to provide any confidential information and have maintained their neutrality contrary to what is alleged by the applicants. • There is no evidence that the capacity constraint issue reliant to the cages has been addressed. • Assessment by Aquastructures state compliance with Norwegian Standards NS 9415 2009 but the document also states that measurement is not done according to the requirements of NS 9415 2009. • A1 in 50 year storm could produce 10 or 12 metre wave heights. • The west and north anchoring of the mooring are outwith the Crown Estate lease and there is no evidence that there has been a variation or increase in lease size. Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar are asked to clarify this position and to defer determination of the application until this is resolved. • Lighthouse Caledonia has made no effort to refute the points made on the inadequacy of the Environmental Statement. • There does not appear to be any details of the escapes contingency plan mentioned in the EIA. This plan should be subjected to a worst-case scenario assessment of loss of fish when access to the site is hampered by weather conditions.

7.8 INTERACTION WITH WILD SALMONID • The proposed development will have significant adverse impacts on wild Atlantic salmon and will undermine the work of local anglers. The decision to locate the farm so close to rivers runs contrary to responsible planning. • Because of the risks to wild fish from sea lice and disease, consideration should be given to removing salmon production from the open sea on to the coast. • The development will have an adverse impact on wild salmon in the Gress, Coll and Laxdale Rivers as a result of sea lice. • The magnitude of impact of duration of transmission of disease and parasites to wild fish is underestimated especially with the weather conditions in spring months. • The probability of impact on sea trout migration routes and feeding is likely to be high because fish caught along the east coast of Lewis are being infected. • The scale of risk to wild salmonids as a result of this development is more likely to be permanent. • Despite mitigation measures the development is likely to have a negative impact on wild fish with potential major implications for the environment. • Lighthouse Caledonia had the worst record of escapees in Scotland in 2009 and the impact of escaped salmon on the genetic fitness and the spread of disease in the wild population will be significant given the exposed nature of the site and the lack of assessment by Lighthouse Caledonia on access to the site in adverse weather conditions. • The development will have a detrimental impact on the largest sea trout population in the Western Isles because their long stay in Broadbay makes the frequency of interaction with the caged fish and the associated risk of disease and sea lice infestation high and not a medium risk as proposed by the applicant in the ES. • There has been a steady improvement in the catch returns at the Gress and Laxdale rivers, which are threatened by the introduction of a fish farm directly into the migration path of returning adults and smolts leaving for the Atlantic. Although Broadbay is a wide body of water, returning salmon stay close to the shoreline and consequently close to the proposed fish farm. • Lice infestation cannot be eradicated and smolts on their way to the Atlantic are at risk of falling victim to this blight to wild fish from fish farms. • The Gress river system provides a control site for monitoring sea lice within the fish farming industry and wild fish interests in the Western Isles through Area Management Agreements. The new application threatens this arrangement. • Scottish west coast salmon and sea trout stocks have been devastated by salmon farms Salmon farms should be moved on to land with better waste treatment facilities. • The current planning and regulatory system fails to assess and manage risks associated with marine cage salmon farms on native wild fisheries. • Fish farm escapees are detrimental to our ecosystem as genetically modified salmon are not an indigenous species. • If the application is approved, then a full baseline survey of salmonid numbers in the rivers and lice in Broadbay must be carried out before development starts and repeated regularly. • The sea lice associated with this development would severely impact on wild salmon and sea trout and would nullify the hard work and commitment of the local angling group. • The development is opposed by the local community because of the impact on wild stock. • Various studies by the Fisheries Research Service FRS at Loch Torridon have concluded that high levels of juvenile lice at the mouths of local salmon rivers coincide with sea lice on farmed fish in the second year of a typical two year salmon cycle. • Recent catches of sea trout show infestation with sea lice. Scientific analysis of the fish revealed that they were coming to Broadbay from areas where they were exposed to intense concentration of sea lice. • Broadbay currently has only naturally occurring background levels of infection in sea lice. • A moratorium should be placed on fish farm development in Broadbay until fish-tagging research on sea trout movement has been conducted. • Broadbay should remain free of fish farms to provide a firebreak for parasite infection in sea trout. • Sea trout feeding in Broadbay will be exposed to infection at all times and not just during the spring of the second year of production. • Wild salmon that interact with farmed fish are turned into mutants. • Land based tanks on closed contained sites is the only responsible way to develop fish farms. • The east side of Lewis is now contaminated with sea lice just like Loch Roag. Lice are now immune to any chemical treatments. • No scientific proof that problem of sea lice has been solved.

7.9 INTERACTION WITH WILD SALMONID– COMMENTS ON FURTHER INFORMATION • SLICE (a feed premix containing avermectin, emanectin benzoate in a 0.2% formulation for the control of sea lice) as a control for sea lice is becoming ineffective and this application should be turned down. • Fish Legal assisted in co-ordinating the letter from the senior biologists in response to the view of the applicant that the objections are from and funded by the same sources and that the Fisheries Trusts/Associations are all against aquaculture. • The motivation for the letter is to help the Comhairle form a view of the risks and avoid inappropriate siting of fish farms near salmon rivers. • The composition of the group of Senior Biologists includes ex-government scientists, independent experts and some from academia, not all Member of the Fisheries Trust. They are independent bodies whose remit is to protect aquatic ecosystems and are not against aquaculture. • Adherence to the Industry code of Good Practice does not prevent risks to wild fish. Wild fish are in decline and while not all is attributable to aquaculture it does have a significant impact on salmonids particularly sea trout. • Many farms existed before the damaging links between aquaculture and wild fish were identified. • In response to the suggestions by the developer that there is no correlation between aquaculture and decline in wild fish it is suggested that this link is established. • An apposite analogy is the link between smoking and lung cancer. This is a strong warning of the threat to the viability of wild salmonids from a group of experts. • The Scottish Government supports the conclusion that the relocation of fish farms away from rivers is the best way to mitigate against damage to wild fish. • If this were a local company collateral damage to the environment would be more acceptable. • Four of the senior biologist who signed the original Atlantic Salmon Trust objections are respected leaders in their field and it is incorrect to say they are beholden to local fisheries interests. There is no campaign against aquaculture that the AST is involved in but maintain their objection to impacts of sea lice on wild salmon. They advocate a location-by-location site analysis and the application gives an opportunity to initiate a sustainable scheme of risk analysis. • Salmon rivers are recovering and this development will permanently damage this recovery. There is evidence of this in Norway and Iceland. • The development will lead to a higher mortality of native species such as salmon and sea trout. • Gress Angling does not believe that the additional information submitted address concerns over containment or sea lice issues. In particular little value is given in the Environmental Statement to the damage done to sea trout through sea lice. The wave climate assessment is considered to be inadequate and concerns and unanswered questions remain regarding the veracity of the 6m height of the predicted wave, which the equipment is designed to withstand. Gress Angling considers a 12m high theoretical wave more likely. This size of wave would have a similarly catastrophic impact on the moorings system. • We urge the Comhairle to adopt a precautionary approach bearing in mind the views of 18 marine biologists over sea lice infestation into the wild salmon population.

7.10 SOCIO ECONOMIC ACCESS AND RECREATION • Adverse impact on tourism and subsequent loss of jobs. Any jobs created will be unlikely to have local benefit. • The recent decision of an American food retailer to stop selling farmed salmon may in the longer term make approval of this type of development short sighted. • Markets in farmed salmon will collapse. • Several famous sea treat fisheries such as Loch Maree have been almost completely wiped out by the introduction of fish farms in the area and the loss of the Broadbay fishing would have be a severe blow to the local tourist economy. • The application should be considered completely separately from the applicant’s proposed development at Arnish. • The development will affect the livelihood of skippers and boat owners working out of Brevig harbour and that of those who provide accommodation for tourists and visiting anglers. • There has been a ban on mechanical fishing in Broadbay for 30 years. • The development will inhibit users of the beach at Gress from kite surfing and swimming due to environmental degradation of the waters. • Tolsta, Gress and Coll are the best beaches on the east coast. • According to the Salmon Act of 1986, the seaward limits for ownership of fishing rights extends to one mile to sea from the mean low water mark. • There is hardly an anchorage on the island that does not have some marine fish farm development. The Western Isles has a great asset in terms of the best yacht and cruising grounds in Europe with the potential for jobs and income when developed further. • Scottish Planning Policy identifies potential conflict between fish farming and local fishing interests and these are evident here. The Western Isles Structure Plan Policy ED7 requires a strategy to be prepared to identify sites suitable for development. • Broadbay provides economic prosperity through tourism by making available to visitors prime fishing locations at low cost. Ticket numbers have risen over 500% since 2008 and will continue to rise as species thrive. This is a vital spawning area that, provided it remains pristine, will provide a useful comparison in the future to other developed areas. The worldwide appeal of the coastline around the islands would justify leaving certain area free of aquaculture development and it associated pollution. • Gress Beach is safe and widely used by children at present but pollution from a fish farm may render it unsafe. • Local employment is not more important that tourism and angling. Visit Scotland promotes the Western Isles as a holiday destination with pristine beaches and not being able to swim or play because of pollution is unacceptable. Such environmental consequences will detrimentally affect house prices and local fishing job. For each four created, seven will be lost. • The development is unnecessary, as the company’s processing plans do not hinge on this application. • It will result in a loss in tourism from those who wish to see an unspoilt environment. • The applicant has failed to submit sufficient information on climate date or wave climate analysis. • Since inadequate site-specific climate data has been submitted suitable insurance cover should be provided to cover a catastrophic event. • With the effects on the wild fish stock and acoustic deterrents to exclude seals, whales, dolphins and porpoises there will be a marked impact on tourism. • The creation of four jobs is questionable because CCTV and a computerised feeding system, which requires attention only once a week, survey fish farms. • The applicant has not submitted hydrographic, meteorological or sea condition data to support operating from Brevig Harbour. This is considered necessary because local fishermen are unable to leave the harbour due to adverse weather conditions at times. • Angling tourism generates significant income to the local economy but research analysis shows that sea trout and salmon anglers generate considerably more than trout anglers. • The unregulated fish farming can blight the area for other users. • Pristine areas should be kept for therapeutic and recreational benefits and free from pollution. The proposal represents short-term and short sighted greed. • What about all the public money used in setting up the Scalpay and Marybank site and the subsequent loss of jobs. Tourism is more vital to the economy and provided the environment is protected will continue to be so. • Previous attempts to recruit fish farm workers required immigration rather than local people. • Farmed salmon contains significant levels of toxins. • The proposed fish farm encroaches onto the Gress Angling Association fishing rights, which extend one mile below low water mark. This was not identified nor disclosed during the application. • Adverse economic impact of the development on employment at Brevig Harbour and the prospect of further loss of jobs with the decline of shellfish fisheries.

7.11 SOCIO ECONOMIC ACCESS AND RECREATION - COMMENTS ON FURTHER INFORMATION • No public consultation by the Community Council and as such their views should be ignored. • There is no guarantee that any jobs created will be filled by local people, indeed given the demographics of local employment it is unlikely that the proposal will generate any local employment. • The Gress and Creed rivers have not been damaged by fish farming. • The applicant’s prediction of 8% loss of stock would not be acceptable in other livestock industries. • It is unacceptable that the pattern of local need and the loss of a high number of local jobs are threatened by a large company to create only four new jobs. • The overarching trend in aquaculture is increased production through mechanisation such as staff living on barges more remote from the community and resulting in fewer jobs. • The allegations by the applicants that the online petition and responses from objectors was generalised against fish farming is not true and is very site specific. The campaign was not against fish farming in the Western Isles. The objections were directed at the site by many visitors who would not come if the development was approved and despite the allegations of the developers to the contrary no attempt was made to mislead the community. One year ago the company formally stated at a public meeting that this development was not necessary for their development plans but it is now central to their plans to develop the Arnish factory. This is considered to be a cynical attempt at manipulating the community.

7.12 BENTHIC AND WATER COLUMN IMPACTS • The development will have an adverse impact on the benthic community structure because of feed, treatments and eutrophication of marine waters as a result of the development. These adverse impacts are already apparent in Norwegian rivers many of which are now closed. • The site currently has no SEPA discharge consent for medicines and there is no information on whether what is proposed is acceptable particularly in view of size of the site. • Pollution from a fish farm will damage the razor fish beds and prevent the traditional harvesting of razor fish at low tide by local people thus undermining the cultural heritage of the local community. • No assessment has been made by Lighthouse Caledonia on the effect wastes and chemicals will have on shellfish in the area. • The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has confirmed that exposure to sea lice treatment chemicals by non-target species such as crab, and lobster will prove lethal to these creatures whose breeding grounds are only 300 metres from the site of the proposed fish farm. • The claim that the fallowing of Loch Roag in 2009 has cured the problem of sea lice and disease has yet to be proved. • If the Comhairle is minded to approve the application then conditions requiring that no chemicals be added to the water but used only in well-boats should be utilised. Further conditions relating to clearing up derelict equipment and monitoring biodiversity before and after development should be required. • The faecal matter, chemicals and feed will decimate the seabed beneath it. • The size of the biomass will result in pollution on the seabed from faeces, medicines and uneaten food and will have an adverse effect on the marine food chain with the resultant loss of livelihood of inshore fishermen. • This fish farm will damage the commercial shell-fishing grounds of Broadbay as a consequence of pollution. The complete disappearance of horse mussels in Loch Erisort since the inception of fish farming demonstrates this point well. • The inshore razor fish banks at low water are just half a mile from the site and will be affected by chemical and waste discharges. • There has been a remarkable turnaround of the Laxdale River in the last five years with large increase in catches of salmon and sea trout. This is because of the huge numbers of sand eels feeding the sea trout due to the pristine waters in Broadbay.

7.13 NOISE AND LIGHT NUISANCE • The development will cause noise, light and waste nuisance to neighbouring properties along with pollution from these factors.

7.14 INTERACTION WITH PREDATORS • The development will attract predators with the result that dead seals will pollute Broadbay. • Approval of this application would destroy the natural environment and wildlife. • Concern at how acoustic deterrents affect wildlife. • It is irresponsible to site a fish farm close to a large colony of seals when it is unlikely that the sound and light deterrent devises will be effective.

7.15 INTERACTION WITH PREDATORS - COMMENTS ON FURTHER INFORMATION • In the event that the protected seals are damaged by this fish farm Members of the planning committee should be aware of the implications of granting planning permission.

7.16 LOCATION AND CONTAINMENT • The location of the site justifies a site-specific meteorological survey to be carried out during winter months. The survey from the west coast carried out during summer months to support this application does not reflect the local conditions. • The cage, feed barge, mooring equipment and net attestation is not supported by a site- specific conditions survey. An accident in severe weather conditions particularly with the barge carrying ensiled fish, feed and chemicals would cause severe pollution to the local marine environment. To moor such a vessel less than 300 metres from the rocks is foolhardy. • The applicant fails to justify the choice of a virgin site and not a developed location for fish farming. • “No go” areas for fish farming should be identified. • There is insufficient information in the EIA regarding potential cage damage and fish escape risks during the winter months. No worse case scenario in terms of infrastructure and component durability has been undertaken for conditions such as a severe northerly gale with high seas and a heavy swell nor has the issue of access to Brevig Harbour in such conditions been addressed. • The Chair of Lighthouse Caledonia has stated that approval of the Broadbay development is not critical to the development of the new factory at Arnish. Why not therefore choose a more appropriate location. • Data involving wind speed and swell appears to have been recorded in summer and not in winter when conditions are more hazardous. • The developer has not considered alternative locations. • The developer has not submitted a planning application for operating from Brevig Harbour. • It would be irresponsible to allow this large farm to be sited in such an exposed site. • The attestations submitted do not include the environmental information i.e. the wave regime used to show the equipment can stand up to severe exposure. • The applicant has failed to demonstrate that other sites in Scotland with similar sea conditions have operated successfully. • The applicant should be required to produce a detailed wave model of the site to compare with the specification of the equipment to allow the Comhairle to assess risk of damage. • The development, if approved should be operated without fish for one winter to assess the ability of the infrastructure to withstand the sea conditions. • The industry needs to clean up and move its sites closer to open water. • The attestation for the equipment is based on information supplied to the manufacturers by Lighthouse Caledonia and as this was not site specific it is not reliable as a basis for attestations. • The applicant has failed to submit sufficient information on climate data or wave climate analysis.

7.17 LOCATION AND CONTAINMENT - COMMENTS ON FURTHER INFORMATION • Petition shows that development is not welcome in the community and that this should be taken into account. The Aquaculture Tech Report states that that the wave height may be higher than the barge can withstand and lines may be prone to snap. • The objection is seen by the applicants as against fish farming in general. The environment of Broadbay is among the most pristine in the UK. The applicants rely on computer-generated data for weather information rather than direct observation. This does not take account of freak weather conditions and there is concern that given the increased incidence of such weather and the concerns of marine biologists the precautionary principle should be applied. • Despite saying that the designs have been tested off the coast of Norway there is no evidence submitted to show that similar conditions prevail in Broadbay. In the Environmental Statement and in the additional information the applicants have failed to justify the use of this location especially having regard to the likely difficulties in serving the site from Brevig in bad weather. The Board is trying to avoid the inappropriate siting of fish farms. • Toa Tolsta is inappropriate because of the proximity to improving west coast fisheries. • The site is in the wrong place, there are concerns over the stability of the equipment and the site cannot be serviced in severe weather. • The Computerised Modelling Data submitted by the applicant is not site specific and relates to an area east of Ness in deeper waters meaning that the waves heights at the site will be a lot higher that suggested in the data. • A new wave programme Wave 111 has recently been introduced which has not been used by the applicant. The data submitted by the applicant shows that greater swells are shown to be generated by lesser wind speeds and similar compass directions and is suggested that the data should not be relied on to be accurate. • The applicant has demonstrated serious doubts about the relevance of comparing sites in Faroes and Spain and this evidence should be disregarded. • There is no evidence that the barge is suitable for Broadbay and none of the issues raised by the analysis is addressed. • The proposed gear and moorings are not suitable for the site given the wave height. • We have very serious concerns that there will be a mass-escape given that the bottom of the site is approximately 25 metres deep and that when a wave goes through the nets will be in contact with the sea bed. • The site was not developed when the rights were acquired due to fears over the survivability of the feed barge and the fear of cages bottoming out in storm conditions.

7.18 WASTE MANAGEMENT • The site will produce waste every 22 months in excess of that produced by a small city and will negate the works carried out by Scottish Water to clean up the sewerage in Broadbay. This will also impact on bathing at Gress Beach. • The company’s fish mortality plan does not appear to be feasible because the site will not always be accessible in bad weather to allow the removal of the significantly higher figure of mortalities than quoted in the Predator Control Plans by the company thus leaving rotting fish carcasses lying in the cages. • What are the measures to ensure that nearby residents will not be adversely affected by storage of dead fish? • A full economic survey on the benefits of keeping rivers healthy should be carried out. • Concern at storage of chemicals. • Pollution produced by the fish farm when wastes are transported is unacceptable. • It is wanton vandalism to produce salmon that is forced to live unnatural entrapped existence swimming around in a cocktail of parasites and carcinogenic chemicals.

7.19 WASTE MANAGEMENT - COMMENTS ON FURTHER INFORMATION • Pollution from the farm from waste products, chemical treatments and fuel spills will cause environmental problems.

7.20 NAVIGATION ANCHORAGE COMMERCIAL FISHERIES • The siting of the fish farm will have a negative impact on safe navigation forcing small boats further offshore and away from shelter as they round the point of Gress. • Concern at access to harbour in bad weather

7.21 NAVIGATION ANCHORAGE COMMERCIAL FISHERIES - COMMENTS ON FURTHER INFORMATION • The applicants concede that the proposed development will impact on navigation and other users but do not offer alternatives to avoid such disruption.

7.22 IMPACT ON SPECIES OR HABITATS OF CONSERVATION INCLUDING SENSITIVE SITES • The site is close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest for a wide variety of wildlife including migratory birds such as Artic Terns, Skuas and seals. • The application is premature pending the outcome of Marine Conservation legislation. • While the fish farmers can restock in the event of a catastrophe the rivers and Broadbay cannot be returned to their current condition. • Results from recent surveys show the bay to be of national and international importance for long-tailed ducks and great northern divers, the number of the latter counted (C 300) being of major significance. Important wintering populations of Slavonian grebes and eiders and others has made Broadbay an Area of Search for a Marine Protection Area for its aggregation of water birds. • The area from the Broadbay to the is recognised as an important sand eel fishery and as these play an important role in feeding species from Minke Whales in the Broadbay to the largest UK colony of Artic Terns at the Tong Sands SSSI, an assessment of the impact of the development should be required. • The Atlantic salmon is a conservation species under the EU Habitats and Species Directive. • The operations on site will disturb the abundant population of otters, seals cetaceans along with the sea-bird population of gannets, guillemots, fulmars and assorted divers. Fish waste and chemicals will decimate the marine sealife including crabs, whelks, razor fish and lobsters. • Broadbay is home to porpoises and a large dolphin colony and research shows that the sound deterrents impacts negatively on such species causing them to leave the area. Alternatively seals develop a tolerance and see the fish farm as potential food source.

7.23 IMPACT ON SPECIES OR HABITATS OF CONSERVATION INCLUDING SENSITIVE SITES - COMMENTS ON FURTHER INFORMATION • Habitats have an intrinsic value beyond economic usefulness and the removal of the equipment in the event of catastrophic damage cannot address remediation and reversal of the damage. • Will staff be trained to recognise the impact of ADD on cetaceans and why place a fish farm in an area known for predators, which will then require to have them shot. • The siting of a fish farm in the proposed new Area Of Conservation for common seals in the Western Isles contrary to the terms and aims of the Marine Conservation Area designation. • The deterrence measures proposed are not proven to be effective to stop the harms to seals as a result of interaction between seals and fish farm and the new designation will make shooting licences more difficult o acquire. There is currently research examining acoustic deterrent devises and the decline in porpoise populations.

7.24 OPERATIONAL ISSUES • Commercial fishermen operating out of Brevig practise a clean water policy on which keep netting of live catches depends. This cannot be controlled in northerly wind conditions if the debris and waste from the proposed fish farm is swept into the harbour waters. • The applicant has proposed adherence to the Aquaculture Code of Guidance but there is insufficient evidence that this mitigates against risks. The Comhairle has no duty to comply with the response of Marine Scotland. It is requested that the Comhairle examine the weight of evidence submitted by marine biologists. • A mass mortality event such as that caused by a jelly fish attack would bring salmon oil and guts on to the beaches causing severe pollution and smells. The applicant acknowledges this possibility but there is no adequate risk assessment or a plan for control or clean up. • In audits carried out by Marine Scotland on 24 fish farms between Nov.2008 and Dec 2009 Marine Scotland admitted that 20 were recorded as breaching sea lice regulations and shows the ineffectiveness of the industry’s Code of Practice. • Marine Scotland also acknowledges that while the science on interaction between aquaculture and wild fisheries is inconclusive, it seems that expansion may be limited by biological factors such as lice control.

• The Scottish Government has acknowledged that a voluntary industry lead approach is no longer able to control the impact of the industry.

7.25 OPERATIONAL ISSUES - COMMENTS ON FURTHER INFORMATION • The application must be considered on it own merits and not tied to the development at Arnish.

7.26 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT • The development will have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities. • Concern at the number of empty cages left on lochs and debris coming ashore. • The development will be highly visible from local beaches and moorland. • We need to leave a few clear vistas. The island is close to saturation with farms. • The views over Gress beach are too beautiful to spoil. • This is an area of outstanding natural beauty, which should be kept pristine. • Lighthouse Caledonia will ruin my view if this fish farm goes ahead.

7.27 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT - COMMENTS ON FURTHER INFORMATION • Lighthouse Caledonia’s visual impact assessment is poor.

7.28 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT • The need for land-based facilities has not been adequately addressed. • There is the added pressure of heavy lorries up and down from the ferry at times of harvest.

7.29 PLANNING & EIA PROCEDURES • It is concerning and as such not open and transparent that comments [made through the Public Access On-Line System are limited to 6000 characters and that other comments are not available to review.

• The moorings are outwith the Crown Estate lease.

• Planning Officers place too much reliance on the response from Marine Scotland Science who may well be under pressure as a government agency not to undermine government policy to expand the aquaculture industry in Scotland. 7.30 PLANNING & EIA PROCEDURES - COMMENTS ON FURTHER INFORMATION • Determination of the planning application should be suspended pending consideration by the Scottish Parliament of a petition to protect wild salmon and sea trout stocks from commercial fish farm activities.

• The petition if accepted and legislated on could have important implications for the future of fish farming in the Western Isles.

7.31 PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE • The development is contrary of the aspirations of the Western Isles Structure Plan Focus and Key Aims in terms of promoting sustainable communities. • The development is contrary to the provision of Policy SC9 of the Western Isles Structure Plan because the development if approved would damage biodiversity. • The development is contrary to the provision of Policy DM1 relating to the location of development on the grounds that it cannot be absorbed without damage to local, social or environmental characteristics of the area and that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. • The development is contrary to policy DM7 of the Western Isles Structure Plan because it will cause undue harm to neighbouring uses and that the proposed fish farm will harm biodiversity and ecological interests. • The development will have a negative impact on water-based recreation and as such is contrary to the aspirations of the tourism chapter of the Western Isles Structure Plan. • In terms of aquaculture and marine development in both Local and Structure Plan the proposals the applicant does not address the issues of incremental and cumulative impact, mitigation against of pollution, impact on local communities and tourism. • The Main Issues Report in the Local Development Plan is promoting a spatial strategy for aquaculture and this application should deferred until the new development plan is adopted. • The development does not fulfil the criteria in the Western Isles Structure Plan and the Western Isles Local Plan due to the failure to produce a Coastal Zone Management Plan or a strategy with which to inform decision-making on aquaculture development. • The applicant has not provided sufficient information to assess the application against Scottish Planning Policy 22 Planning for Fishfarming or Scottish Framework for Aquaculture. • The Comhairle should apply the precautionary principle set out in SPP 22 to ensure that risk to wild fish is not realised. • The key aims and objectives of the Structure Plan is ensuring prudent stewardship of natural resources to maximise their economic potential in a sustainable manner. • Approval of this scheme would be premature in advance of the preparation of a Coastal Zone Management Plan, which may adopt the strategy to keep Broadbay free of fish farms. • Structure Plan policy ED7 proposes a strategy for the sustainable development of marine aquaculture. As the responsibility for fish farming now lies with the Comhairle the development potential of existing Crown Estate leases is not necessarily acceptable. • Concerns were expressed to the Crown Estate regarding the exposure of the site at the time of the lease application. • Policy LP/ED4 of the Local Plan makes provision for the operational arrangements and these should include the possibility of risk of damage by high seas. • Fresh Start, the renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture stresses the need to reduce stock loss securing the future of the industry by reducing environmental impacts. This should include better containment systems and better control of seals. • Scottish Planning Policy 22 focuses on three general principles requires that the impact of fish farming on local communities, traditional fishing grounds and angling interests should be considered. • SPP2 states that the precautionary principle may be invoked where there is insufficient scientific evidence to make a decision that the development will not cause significant irreversible damage to natural heritage interests. Atlantic salmon should be considered in the context of natural heritage. • Because of the lack of irrefutable evidence to support hypothesis of the impact or otherwise of fish farming on wild fish interests, the precautionary approach should be applied to Broadbay because there is no history of fish farming activity. 7.32 LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION • As a supplier of cages the application is supported as an important step towards open sea salmon farming vital for the future of the whole industry. The support of Lighthouse Caledonia has generated at least two new jobs with Fusion Marine this year. • As one of the many downstream beneficiaries of fish farming I support the application. Objections from landowners, riparian concerns and wild fish interests were received to a similar fish farm in Argyll and Bute in December 2009 on the basis of dilution of genetic integrity and threats to wild fisheries. Arguments that the river fishery contributed more to the local economy that fish farming was rejected by the local council because there was evidence of few fish in the river. The application was ultimately approved. • The demise of river salmon came about as a result of uncontrolled seal populations, bag and drift netting, splash netting and finally local anglers. • Lighthouse Caledonia has taken great strides to reduce sea lice in Loch Roag.

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 8.1 The full terms of the comments that have been received in response to consultation can be read on file at the Development Department. The following are those that are relevant to the determination of this application.

WESTERN ISLES DISTRICT SALMON FISHERIES BOARD (WIDSFB) 8.2 ‘I am responding from the Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust (OHFT) on behalf of the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board (WIDSFB). Both the WIDSFB and OHFT object to the application to site a fish farm at Toa Tolsta, in Broadbay. 8.3 The area from Broadbay to the Butt of Lewis has long been recognised as an important sand eel fishery. For this reason it is vital that the area remain free from fish farming activity as sea trout from local rivers will remain in the area feeding throughout the year.

8.4 The developer justifies the application for this specific site compared to other sites in the area from Ness to Tolsta head. However, the developer fails to justify why they have chosen to develop in a previously unused area. 8.5 Predators such as seal pose a significant threat to the containment of farmed fish within all fish farm cages. 8.6 The developer does not recognise any other industries that offer employment in the area that may be negatively affected by the proposed development (i.e. angling tourism and inshore fisheries). The recreational, social and economic value of the wild fisheries in the area should be assessed against the current proposal by the developer. 8.7 The developer also states that the current proposal is linked to the sustainability of its processing plant at Arnish. This is irrelevant. The current application should be assessed as a stand-alone development. 8.8 The developer states ‘that the interaction with wild salmonids is only likely to occur during migration. The developer fails to identify the interaction with sea trout in the area despite recognising this species in section 5.1.4. Sea trout will feed in the area year round and therefore the assessment made in this section should be revised to recognise sea trout. 8.9 The developer has assessed the probability of impact on wild salmonids as being ‘low’. Again we challenge this assessment. 8.10 The developer states that ‘there is a large seal population within Broadbay that frequently haul out within 3km of the site’. However, Annex 12 states that the site ‘has local seal populations within 300m radius of the site’. We ask that the developer clarifies what parameters it has used to assess the interaction with predators and the proximity of populations of seals. 8.11 The Toa Tolsta site it extremely exposed, especially to northerly and easterly winds. The meteorological data used in the hydrographic report was taken from a station in Loch Roag (40km from the proposed site), during July 2009. 8.12 The site should be assessed from a ‘worst case scenario’ basis, using data from the site itself or as close as reasonably practical. Annex 5 states that the ‘deployment meets the requirement for at least three consecutive days with mean daily wind speed 10m/s (19 knots). Data taken from the Stornoway airport meteorological station shows that wind speed in the area can regularly reach over 20knots for extended periods (in an E or NE direction), with high wind speeds reaching over 70 knots. 8.13 We request that the developer clarifies what environmental data it released to the netting and mooring providers. At this time we can only assume that the attestations in Annex 3 are based on the information given in Annex 5. Data from a more appropriate station, at an appropriate time of year, should be provided in order that both consultees and equipment providers can assess the ability of the equipment to cope with the conditions experienced at the site. 8.14 We also request that the developer assesses the ability of its employees to access the site at time of adverse weather. 8.15 Inability to access the site for days at a time could lead to serious health risks for wild fish and the surrounding environment should mortalities be allowed to build up on site. 8.16 These are also the times when it is most likely that damage will be done to nets/mooring and escapes can go unnoticed/be allowed to persist whilst the site is inaccessible. Escapes of framed fish can have negative impacts on wild fish populations.’

WIDSFB - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.17 ‘I am responding to the additional information submitted in relation to the above application. Response by WIDSFB to Points raised in Applicant’s Letter dated 27th April 2010: 8.18 The developer states that ‘interactions between farmed and wild fish were addressed in the submitted ES’. As noted in our original response the developer has shown little consideration for sea trout within the application. This is also pointed out by Marine Scotland Science (MSS) in their notes on the application. 8.19 The developer questions the validity of responses from a number of sources, namely OHFT, ASFB, Fish Legal and the Senior Fisheries Biologists. It should be noted that our response is from the WIDSFB and not directly from the OHFT. It is the WIDSFB that is the statutory consultee. 8.20 The developer accuses the Fisheries Trusts/Associations of instigating ‘a campaign against all aquaculture’. This claim is completely unfounded, untrue and potentially damaging. The OHFT continually works with the aquaculture industry in the Western Isles, and responds on behalf of the WISFB to all aquaculture applications. The OHFT employed an Aquaculture Liaison Officer (ALO) long before the advent of the Tripartite Working Group (TWG), and was instrumental in the formation of the Western Isles Aquaculture Association. The OHFT is also leading negotiations to continue aspects of the work of the TWG beyond its current funding period, to ensure ongoing communication between the aquaculture and wild fisheries industries. Despite our ongoing cooperation with the aquaculture industry in the Western Isles, the OHFT and WIDSFB maintains the right to object to what we consider inappropriate fish farm developments. In the section relating to Sea Lice the developer states that ‘the site is located over 3km from the mouth of the Gress River; this is further away from the river mouth than some existing sites in confined lochs’. There is no evidence presented to suggest that a distance of 3km between a river mouth and a fish farm reduces the risk to wild salmonids. Previous studies (Gargan et al, 2003) have shown statistically significant relationship between lice infestation on sea trout and distance to the nearest salmon farm, with highest infestations and variation in infestation at sites less than 20km from farms. 8.21 The developer goes on to quote fish catches from the Fish Hebrides website from the Gress River, along with two other fisheries (the Grimersta and Hamanavay). It is unclear why the developer has included these figures in their response. The developer states that the Gress River catches ‘are not high’. This statement is untrue. The sea trout catch from the Gress River in 2009 was 249, making it one of the more productive sea trout fisheries in the Western Isles, and one of the few improving sea trout fisheries in the West Coast of Scotland. As stated in our previous response, local angling clubs, making the fishings available to both local and visiting anglers, runs both the Gress and Laxdale river. These fisheries are very important to the local community, both economically and socially, as is demonstrated by the public opinion expressed in recent months. The catches quoted for the Hamanavay area incorrect, the figures quoted are Uig & Hamanavay Estate’s catches from the Langabhat system. As such, to state that the Hamanavay sea trout numbers are ‘dwindling’ is erroneous. The developer makes no attempt to demonstrate the relevance of these numbers to the current application. If they did it would be apparent that the catches from the Broadbay area are generally increasing, this cannot be said for other sea trout (and salmon) fisheries on the West Coast of Scotland. 8.22 The developer states that ‘Having regard for the ability of fin fish farm developments elsewhere to co-exist acceptably with wild fish interests, and in the absence of evidence which would indicate that the circumstances of the current proposal are substantially different to other fin fish sites, Lighthouse Caledonia feel that it would be inappropriate to refuse permission solely on precautionary grounds’. Whilst we acknowledge that aquaculture exists in other areas alongside wild fisheries, it is not appropriate to assume that this is always ‘acceptable’ to wild fishery interests. The reality is that the majority of areas that are subject to ongoing aquaculture development were established long before the links between aquaculture and wild salmonids were identified. As stated in our original response, it is essential to keep some areas free from aquaculture, so we can better understand the interactions between this industry and wild salmonids. The establishment of aquaculture free areas is something that is generally supported by the aquaculture industry, wild fisheries and is in fact identified in the CnES Local Development Plan. Given the sensitivity of a number of habitats and populations in the Broadbay area, it is surely an ideal location to remain free from aquaculture development. 8.23 Response by WIDSFB to Points raised in Marine Scotland Science (MSS) comments on letters of objection and Lighthouse submission 8.24 MSS have commented on a number of points raised in the application. MSS comment on the catches from the Broadbay area. We would like to emphasise the point made by MSS that the number of fish caught by a fishery (or a number of fisheries) does not directly reflect its ‘value’. As stated above, the fact that the Gress and Laxdale fisheries are run by local people may mean that they have a much greater amenity value to the local community than their catch statistics may suggest. 8.25 MSS state that ‘LHC have shown little consideration for sea trout in the ES’, a point made in our original response and by SNH. MSS also question the fact that the application is to ‘change’ the site, the developer also states that ‘the majority of the objections are not specific to this location’. All of the objections raised in our response dated 17th March 2010 are specific to the current application. a point raised in our original response.’

SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE 8.26 ‘Background: The proposal is to develop a previously unused site at Broadbay, Isle of Lewis, installing 12 x 120m circumference plastic pens for the purposes of rearing Atlantic salmon (Salmon salar). An automated feed barge will accompany the pens, which will be arranged in two groups of six. The proposed maximum biomass held at the farm would be 244 tonnes, with a total development surface area 13,752 m2. The site will be serviced from Brevig harbour. This application was the subject of a screening and scoping consultation in November 2009. SNH Position: SNH has no objection to the proposal as submitted, but wishes to offer advice that we feel is relevant in helping the Comhairle determine the application.

8.27 SNH appraisal of the proposal: The proposal is for the establishment of a fish farm within a sea loch that has previously had no aquaculture development. The site is strongly flushed and water depth of approximately 23 metres. Standard chemical therapeutic chemicals will be deployed.

8.28 Benthic impacts: a baseline benthic and visual survey was provided by Lighthouse Caledonia in accompaniment to the ES. The video survey of the seabed was very thorough and well geo referenced, however the lighting was poor, and images were only properly 2 visible when the drop down system actually landed on the seabed. The series of still photos included give a good indication of the seabed character. 8.29 Interaction with predators: The proposed site lies within 3km of a harbour seal haul out which is used for pupping during the summer months. The Sea Mammal Research Unit survey from August 2008 records between 50 and 100 harbour seals using those skerries. Broadbay is also used by various predatory seabird species such as terns, cormorants, shags and divers. The ES proposes an anti-predator plan which details the use of tensioned netting and seal blinds, with ADD use and lethal control of ‘rogue’ seals being used where these have proven to be ineffective. 8.30 Interaction with wild salmonids: The proposed site lies within an area that is of local importance for populations of wild Atlantic salmon and sea trout, and the fisheries they support at Gress and Laxdale for example. The ES proposes to mitigate against potential impacts by correctly identifying the two issues that are most pertinent to wild salmonids; sea lice and escapes, and then detailing escape prevention and disease management measures. The ES goes on to state that the proposed site is exposed and therefore requires high containment standards to ensure that fish do not escape from the site. 8.31 Impacts on species and habitats of conservation importance: Broadbay is frequently used by cetaceans including Risso’s dolphin, white-beaked dolphin, minke whale, porpoise and orca (all European Protected Species). Surveys of Risso’s dolphins suggest that the area is of international importance as a nursery for this species. All cetacean species could be disturbed by the operation of acoustic deterrent devices (ADD) and other noise, the use of an ADD at Toa Tolsta is considered in the ES as deployable only where other anti- predator measures have been shown to be ineffective. Broadbay is of significance for its numbers of wintering bird species (including diver, seaduck and grebe species) and has been surveyed by JNCC over recent years to establish its relative importance in European and national terms. No data has yet been published from those surveys however. The largest Arctic tern colony in the Western Isles is at Tong, the birds from which use Broadbay as a feeding area. 8.32 Landscape and visual impacts: The proposal has potentially significant landscape impacts, with views of the development being visible from a number of properties. Mitigation measures, which are considered in the ES, include using muted colours and limiting lighting to ‘essential’ use (e.g. underwater lighting between January and June every second year). The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) map accompanying the application does not show the pattern of potential visibility of the site within the wider coastal area, including visibility of the proposed development from the B895. It does however highlight that the proposed development would be visible from houses within Glen Tolsta. 8.33 SNH appraisal of impacts on the natural heritage: 8.34 Benthic impacts: The seabed could be described as dominated by sub-tidal mobile sand- flat biotopes. This type of habitat typically has large particles sizes, and the visual survey clearly shows it is a high energy site, with large ripples in the sand evident. High energy sites with large particles have a high permeability, high levels of oxygen and low sediment stability. Characteristically there is low biodiversity, with a lack of sedentary species, which is evidenced by the survey. Animals that do inhabit this biotope will be agile swimmers (such as amphipods and isopods), and perhaps include certain types of polychaete worms. Sandeels could be important in this area for birds and other predators. This type of habitat will be moderately sensitive to organic enrichment (UK Marine SACs Project. Natura 2000 Vol II. Intertidal sand and mudflats and sub-tidal mobile sandbanks), however it looks like the energy at this site would sweep a lot of the waste away. We therefore advise that the proposal will not have any significant environmental impact on any sensitive benthic habitats or species.

8.35 Interaction with predators: We welcome the commitment of Lighthouse Caledonia to using tensioned netting and seal blinds as the primary means of managing predator interactions. 3 However the proximity of the proposed development to a harbour seal haul out means that there may to be a considerable amount of seals in the immediate vicinity of the pens. We haves concerns about the use of ADDs at this site (see section below on species of conservation importance). We recommend that boat movements to service the site should not pass closer than 500m to any known haul-out of harbour (or grey) seals to minimise disturbance (as a condition should the application receive consent). We also wish to advise that the Marine Act will require a specific licence to shoot seals at any time of the year, will introduce a statutory requirement to report all shooting of seals, and that it will be an offence to harass seals at their haul outs. This has considerable potential to impact the ways in which fish farms manage predator interaction in the future. 8.36 The use of correctly sized and tensioned top-nets, checked daily, will reduce mortality of birds likely to attempt to feed within cages, however there is no indication if the nets will be checked each day and given the exposed nature of the site this may prove impossible. Should the Comhairle chose to consent the application, we advise that the site should be checked every 24 hours when top nets are in place and that entangled birds are released unharmed where possible. 8.37 Interaction with wild salmonids: The assessment (5.1.6) is very much oriented towards Atlantic salmon and does not properly consider impacts on sea trout. For example, it states: "The interaction with wild salmonids is only likely to occur during migration…the outward and inward migration of salmon smolts and adults respectively to and from the freshwater rivers to the northern and southern river catchments in the East Coast of Lewis." This statement is correct insofar as Atlantic salmon are concerned in that returning adults and emigrating post- smolts are the two life history periods likely to come into contact with any new cage development. Sea trout on the other hand do not migrate to sea in the same way as Atlantic salmon do, and actually spend much of their adult lives in coastal areas. There is also at present a lack of information on salmon migratory pathways and sea trout coastal movements, which make a thorough assessment difficult, and the ES has had to make several assumptions because of this. Overall in its consideration of wild fish, SNH considers the ES to be limited in its scope to aid a full assessment. 8.38 i) Escapes: The ES identifies that the site is exposed and that it therefore requires high containment standards to ensure that fish do not escape from the site. In order to provide assurances, several attestations from the equipment’s manufacturers are provided, however there is no independent assessment of the equipment’s ability to withstand those conditions. Should equipment failure lead to a high volume of escapes, there appears to be little that can be done in terms of containment given the open nature of Broadbay. The risk of such an escape event is difficult to judge, should it occur, there is considerable potential for a significant adverse impact on the local wild Atlantic salmon and sea trout fisheries, through increased competition, disease transmission and ‘genetic pollution.’ The ES concludes that the risk to wild fish from escapes is low; however we retain some concern on the accuracy of the judgement of that risk. 8.39 ii) Sea lice: Without a full knowledge of the migration pathways of salmonids and the coastal movement of sea trout in the area, it is difficult to make an informed assessment of the risk such a development poses to the wild salmonids in Broadbay. The ES claims that: "The duration of the potential impact of disease and parasite transmission to wild fish would generally be limited to the spring months and during the second year of production." The main emigration period for post-smolt Atlantic salmon and sea trout is during the spring months, the period when the developer states that the risk of transmission would be highest. Given the exposed nature of the site which may limit the frequency at which operatives can access the cages there must be some doubt as to whether the treatment of sea lice can be effective and the 0.5 lice/fish target (detailed in the industry's CoGP) assured. The assessment states: "The coastal area occupied by the site may be used to some extent as a migration route for salmonids. The site area represents a small area in comparison to the whole area of Broadbay. Along with effective sea lice control and other mitigation as 4 mentioned in 5.1.5 the overall direct impact is considered to be low." We are unclear as to how that conclusion has been derived given that there is no information on salmonid movement and habitat use in Broadbay, so in our opinion this is an unsubstantiated claim. 8.40 We retain some concerns that effective treatment of sea lice can be undertaken on sites this large while remaining within the terms of a CAR licence (yet to be issued), and would seek further direction on this from SEPA and Marine Scotland as part of the CAR application. Our preference (in agreement with SEPA) is that all the technical information required for all permissions and licences is submitted at the same time as the planning application but the CAR application has only just been received by SEPA, and has not yet been assessed. In addition there is no consideration of the likely reduced efficacy of SLICE and other sea lice treatment chemicals (already reported on other east coast of Lewis sites). The ES claims that the impacts on wild fish are fully reversible and that cessation of farming activities would result in the removal of impact. However in our view much depends on the scale of impact. If a fish population is lost, then it cannot be recoverable. The key is therefore to ensure that all impacts are minimised and to do this the ES should also properly recognise that sea trout may be impacted (as well as Atlantic salmon), which the ES fails to do. 8.41 Impacts on species and habitats of conservation importance: SNH is obliged to inform the local authority and developers about European Protected Species which may be affected by the proposal. It is illegal to ‘Deliberately or recklessly kill, injure, disturb or capture/take European Protected Species of animal or deliberately or recklessly harass any cetacean’. The operation of an Acoustic Deterrent Device (ADD) has the potential to elicit aversion responses in cetacean species up to several kilometres from the source. Habitat exclusion, particularly in areas that may be of international importance for Risso’s dolphins is of concern to SNH. Broadbay is of particular importance for Risso’s dolphins between May and the end of September (although it used all year round by some species such as harbour porpoise). We advise that changes/mitigation as detailed below should be incorporated into any approval in order to avoid an offence that may occur under Regulation 39/44 of the Habitats Regulations (as amended). We suggest that a condition be put in place excluding ADD use over these summer months (1 May to 30 September). If you are minded to approve this application without this condition a licence from the Scottish Government will be required by the applicant before proceeding. You should ensure, prior to any approval, that all tests for a licence (under Regulation 44) are likely to be met. If the tests are not likely to be met, there is a risk that the developer would not be able to make practical use of the planning permission if a licence is not forthcoming. We understand however that there are ADDs being developed which do not disturb cetaceans (not audible to those species), should that technology become available we would welcome a reconsideration of the proposed condition. 8.42 We advise that the impact on the Arctic tern colony at Tong is likely to be low given the scale of the development relative to Broadbay. The impacts on wintering wildfowl are also likely to be low again due to the scale of the development within the wider context of the area, while the situation is not radically different to other sea lochs and sounds in the region, which also have high numbers of these species alongside aquaculture development (e.g. Loch Roag). 8.43 Landscape and visual impacts: We judge that the proposed development would have some adverse impacts on views along a number of glens oriented towards the fishfarm, including the glen of the Allt a’ Chamair Mhoir and Gleann Tholastaidh, the latter of which includes a number of residences. Nevertheless this landscape is not designated, these impacts would be localised and we consider that the proposed development would not impact significantly upon the characteristics and value of the wider landscape. Further details are provided below. 5. The proposed development is not located within or adjacent to, a designated landscape. It would be located offshore from an open area of ‘Boggy Moor’ Landscape Character Type as identified within the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment. This is a large scale landscape of gently undulating peatland, edged by sea cliffs and occasional eroded gullies. When seen from this simple landscape, the proposed fish farm would appear as a key focal feature and its industrial character and associated activity and lighting would compromise the sense of tranquility and remoteness experienced within parts of these areas. Nevertheless, within views from the moorlands, the development would typically appear as a distant, minor and isolated feature within a wide coastal panorama. 8.44 Of contrasting effect would be the impacts of the development from a number of glens oriented towards the east, including areas of ‘Crofting 1’ identified within the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment. From these areas, including Gleann Tholastaidh and the glen of the Allt a’ Chamair Mhoir, views towards the development would be focused by the landform and the fish farm would appear prominent. These impacts would however be limited in extent. It should be noted that the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) map accompanying the application does not show the pattern of potential visibility of the site within the wider coastal area, including visibility of the proposed development from the B895 and as such is incomplete. It does however highlight that the proposed development would be visible from houses within Gleann Tholastaidh. 8.45 The applicant states that they are intending to use underwater lighting from October to March in the first year of each production cycle. This, in conjunction with the large scale of the proposed site, has the potential to create a significant landscape and visual impact. The photographs and assessment within the ES and policy of adopting muted, non-reflective colours where possible indicate that recommendations in “Marine Aquaculture and the landscape: The siting and design of marine aquaculture developments in the landscape” have been followed. The shielding of anti-maturation lighting and use of a ‘quiet’ generator is noted. Although some landscape impact of the development will still be present, we do not consider this to be sufficient to damage landscape character. 8.46 SNH Summary: This development could have significant impacts on a number of natural heritage interests of International, national and local importance. However some of these can be reduced with the addition of conditions to any planning consent. In particular we recommend that conditions are included to reduce impacts on cetacean species and seals as advised above. We continue to have some concern regarding the location of the development given the exposed nature of the site and the potential this may have to impact on escapes, effective sea lice treatment and the regular checking of top nets for bird entanglement. In addition we advise that the ES has failed to fully address impacts on sea trout in particular, but also on landscape. 8.47 SNH Conclusion: SNH has no objection to this proposal, but recommends conditions to mitigate against some potentially significant impacts on the natural heritage. Please let me know if you require any further information or advice from SNH in relation to this proposal. I would be grateful if you could let me know of the Council’s decision in due course, or of any further changes to the proposal, which would be relevant to our interests.

SNH - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.48 Background: The proposal is to develop a previously unused site at Broadbay, Isle of Lewis, installing 12 x 120m circumference plastic pens for the purposes of rearing Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). An automated feed barge will accompany the pens, which will be arranged in two groups of six. The proposed maximum biomass held at the farm would be 2440 tonnes, with a total development surface area of 13,752 m2. The site will be serviced from Brevig harbour. This application was the subject of a screening and scoping consultation in November 2009, and an earlier planning application in March 2010. SNH provided comments on that earlier application on 27th April 2010, which are still relevant. The applicant has in the interim provided additional information on; 1. Site exposure and equipment specifications 2. The progression towards a CAR licence 8.49 SNH advice to planning authority: In our original response we raised concerns regarding the exposure of the site and its potential effect on containment and anti-predator entanglement checks. The developer has attempted to allay the concerns regarding containment risk by providing further information on equipment specification and use in other areas (e.g. the Faroes). We believe it is for the Comhairle to determine what weight to attach to that risk. 8.50 It is our understanding that SEPA will be shortly issuing a CAR Variation Licence. I can confirm we were consulted as part of that process, and have no objection to the proposed variation. 8.51 SNH Position: We have no objection to the proposal as submitted, and refer the Comhairle to our earlier letter of 27th April 2010 for further detail. In that letter we recommend that conditions are included (should you be minded to issue a consent) to reduce impacts on cetacean species (Risso’s dolphins) and seals.’

SEPA 8.52 ‘We have no objection to this planning application. 8.53 This site was issued with a COPA (Control of Pollution Act) discharge licence in 1996 for a maximum biomass of 2240 tomes. In 2006 (when CAR came into force) the licence was transferred into CAR but, as with all existing licences at that time, this was just an administrative transferral and not a full review. 8.54 The site has never been used and the applicant is required to apply to us for a CAR variation to change to site specific monitoring and to permit the use of medicines/chemicals. 8.55 From the limited information provided with the planning consultation, it is not possible for us to assess the likely efficacy of the operator’s proposed treatment regime and whether sufficient medicines will be licensable to allow treatment of the current maximum biomass. 8.56 We are therefore unable to advise the planning authority on the licence-ability of the proposed maximum biomass until the CAR variation application has been processed, at which time the maximum sustainable biomass and chemical usage for the site will be determined. 8.57 We note from the ES that the site is relatively exposed and may pose a risk to the proposed structures but this is something for the planning authority to consider.’ SEPA - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.58 ‘Thank you for your e-consultation of 14 October 2010, re-consulting SEPA on further information provided by the applicant. We have no objection to this planning application. Please note the advice provided below.’ Advice for the planning authority: 8.59 Site exposure: We note the majority of additional information submitted relates to the site’s exposure and although we made reference to this in our response of 27 April 2010, this is something for the planning authority to assess when determining the planning application. Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR): 8.60 We received a CAR variation application at the end of April 2010. We can advise the planning authority at this time that the application has been through the determination process. We consider that the guideline biomass of 2240 tonnes, chemical usage and the site-specific monitoring protocol are satisfactory. A CAR variation licence has been prepared and will be issued shortly.

8.61 This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, which may take into account factors not considered at the planning stage.’

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT – CLIMATE CHANGE 8.62 ‘In relation to the above development, without prejudice to any further consideration Scottish Ministers may be required to give to the application, we have no comments to offer on the planning application (with Environmental Statement).’ SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CLIMATE CHANGE - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.63 ‘No comments.’

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 8.64 ‘The three main problems with light are: Sky glow - the orange glow we see around urban areas caused by a scattering of artificial light by dust particles and water droplets in the sky;

Glare - the uncomfortable brightness of a light source when viewed against a darker background; and

Light trespass - light spilling beyond the boundary of the property on which a light is located. The Developer should ensure that any artificial lighting is designed to minimise light pollution.

The following condition is recommended.

Condition 1 Throughout the life of the development to which this planning permission relates, no means of artificial illumination, other than that required for navigation, shall be directed “off-site” so that the spread of direct light from any source does not extend more than 100m from the site, without prior written approval form the planning authority. Reason To protect the amenity at nearby sensitive premises. Noise There is a potential of noise disturbance from the development from its operation and from activities associated with this. The following conditions are recommended.

Condition 2 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 3 Should any complaints 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 4 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.’

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.65 ‘No further comment.’

BIODIVERSITY OFFICER 8.66 ‘I can clarify the status of Brown/Sea Trout (Salmo trutta). Salmo trutta is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) Priority Species - having been added to the UKBAP list in 2007. Salmo trutta is not a European Protected Species (EPS). It is not a Western Isles LBAP species and does not appear on the Scottish Biodiversity List. The Scottish Biodiversity List is a list of animals, plants and habitats that Scottish Ministers consider to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland. The Scottish Biodiversity List was published in 2005 to satisfy the requirement under Section 2(4) of The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004…. Trout conservation status: Neither forms of trout, freshwater resident or sea trout, receive extensive protection within conservation legislation. Some protection exists in terms of exploitation controls exist within fisheries legislation and sea trout are further protected within fisheries acts relating to the protection of 'salmon'. In 2007, however, both ancestral brown trout forms and sea trout were added to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species List.’

BIODIVERSITY OFFICER - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.67 ‘No further comments.’ ‘

COMHAIRLE ARCHAEOLOGIST 8.68 ‘No comment’.

COMHAIRLE ARCHAEOLOGIST RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.69 ‘No comment’.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT – MARINE SCOTLAND 8.70 Fish Health ‘The information that has now been provided satisfies most of the original concerns. The mortality removal and disposal procedures and contingency plan for dealing with an escape event is satisfactory. Attestations have been provided by suppliers of nets, cages and moorings which confirm the suitability of the equipment chosen for use at Broadbay, therefore this is also satisfactory.

8.71 The only outstanding issue is sea lice treatments. The site currently only holds a consent for use of hydrogen peroxide for treating sea lice. Marine Scotland would recommend that a site holds consents to treat with a wider range of chemicals than this. However, it is stated that there is an application for a variation to the existing licence in progress with SEPA to include more sea lice treatments. As previously requested by Marine Scotland in November 2009 a list of all sea lice treatments which are consented for use on site or those that are expected to be consented for use, stating whether consent has been granted or is pending is required. Details of how the site plan to administer treatments in large 120m circle cages should also be provided.

8.72 This application is to establish a cage farm at a previously unused, licensed site but amending the equipment previously consented. Although the cage number and size will be increased, the total biomass will remain within that licensed in the original application.

8.73 This area has freshwater inflows that carry populations of juvenile salmon and sea trout and returning runs of adults that have increased in recent years. Broadbay is reputed to be a sea trout feeding area, not only for the rivers Gress and Laxdale but from other rivers along the east coast. These small populations are very vulnerable to factors affecting performance at sea and would potentially be at risk from a fish farm development of this size.’ 8.74 ‘The areas of concern are:- • The effects on the genetic integrity of these vulnerable salmon populations if the spawning population was infiltrated by escaped farmed fish that have matured and been attracted to local rivers to spawn. The proposed site is in a very exposed position and at risk of storm damage and the possibility of escapes. • A build up of sea lice copepodids in the area could damage both salmon and sea trout smolts at times of coastal migration. Sea trout spend their marine going life stages feeding inshore and Broadbay is such a feeding area. Heavy lice infestations can compromise the growth and survival of these fish. The applicant is of the opinion that the frequency and probability of wild salmonids being in the vicinity of the site will be confined to migration periods but they have not mentioned sea trout feeding in Broadbay in their assessment. There is evidence that offshore currents and wind blown surface currents can carry the infective stages of sea lice up to 20km. Wild fish would not need to be in the vicinity of the site to be exposed to lice originating from there. 8.75 The applicant is clearly aware of these risks and includes an escape prevention plan with the submission and commits to adherence to industry recommended lice treatments strategies. 8.76 However, it should be noted that adherence to the industry Code of Good Practice (CoGP) may not necessarily prevent release of substantial numbers of lice from aquaculture installations. The CoGP takes no account of farm size, or number of farms in an area, in setting threshold levels for sea lice treatments. This may be appropriate when the aim is to protect the welfare of farmed fish but it will not necessarily prevent significant numbers of larval lice being shed into the environment, and posing a risk for wild fish.’

MARINE SCOTLAND - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.77 ‘We have reviewed the application submitted by Toa Tolsta Sron Alla Tolan (Broadbay) by Lighthouse Caledonia Ltd and have the following comments: 8.78 Outstanding information requested in March 2010 is detailed below along with comment on the suitability of the additional information provided. 8.79 Fish Health: Details on sea lice management strategies, in particular a list of sea lice treatment chemicals consented for use on site and the method of administration. 8.80 The method of administration for bath treatments is deemed to be satisfactory for managing sea lice as far as can reasonably be foreseen and SEPA have indicated that the list of sea lice treatment chemicals applied for have been consented for use on site. 8.81 Further comment: 8.82 Wild Fish: This application is to establish a cage farm at a previously unused, licensed site but amending the equipment previously consented. Although the cage number and size will be increased, the total biomass will remain within that licensed in the original application. 8.83 Potential risks to wild fish arising from this development would be through escapes and sea lice. 8.84 This area has freshwater inflows that carry populations of juvenile salmon and sea trout and returning runs of adults that have increased in recent years. Broadbay is reputed to be a sea trout feeding area, not only for the rivers Gress and Laxdale but from other rivers along the east coast. These small populations are very vulnerable to factors affecting performance at sea and would potentially be at risk from a fish farm development of this size. 8.85 The areas of concern are:- 8.86 The effects on the genetic integrity of these vulnerable salmon populations if the spawning population was infiltrated by escaped farmed fish that have matured and been attracted to local rivers to spawn. The proposed site is in a very exposed position and at risk of storm damage and the possibility of escapes. The wave height data included with the application and EIA indicate heights of over 7 metres have been recorded. This would indicate a need for a high degree of routine maintenance and a rigorous inspection regime for the cages and associated equipment. The escapes prevention and contingency plan submitted with the application indicates there will be regular inspection and maintenance carried out and recorded. We feel there is justification for a formalised, routine, maintenance and inspection plan and specifically to inspect after periods of high seas and storms. 8.87 A build up of sea lice copepodids in the area could damage both salmon and sea trout smolts at times of coastal migration. Sea trout spend their marine going life stages feeding inshore and Broadbay is such a feeding area. Heavy lice infestations can compromise the growth and survival of these fish. The applicant is of the opinion that the frequency and probability of wild salmonids being in the vicinity of the site will be confined to migration periods but they have not mentioned sea trout feeding in Broadbay in their assessment. The hydrographic reports indicate the area around the site to be subject to currents of moderate flow but there is no indication of how these currents relate to the flow in the bay as a whole. It appears that the range of effect of lice is at least 14km from farm source. This range will depend on both movements of lice and trout, which are not well understood. There is no published evidence of an effect of lice on trout at a population level, however, such an effect would be expected in view of the high infestation intensities observed near farms in the second years of salmon production cycles.’ 8.88 The applicant is clearly aware of these risks and includes an escape prevention plan with the submission and commits to adherence to industry recommended lice treatments strategies. The degree to which the wild salmonid populations are affected by this development will depend to some extent on the degree of success the applicant has in implementing and maintaining these management strategies and protocols. However, it should be noted that adherence to the industry Code of Good Practice (CoGP) may not necessarily prevent release of substantial numbers of lice from aquaculture installations. The CoGP takes no account of farm size, or number of farms in an area, in setting threshold levels for sea lice treatments. This may be appropriate when the aim is to protect the welfare of farmed fish but it will not necessarily prevent significant numbers of larval lice being shed into the environment, and posing a risk for wild fish, in the case of larger farms or management areas holding a large biomass of farmed fish. 8.89 We have no further outstanding information requirements.’

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT – TRANSPORT SCOTLAND 8.90 ‘Transport Scotland is not affected by this proposal.’

TRANSPORT SCOTLAND - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.91 ‘No comments received.’

HM COASTGUARD 8.92 ‘No comments received.’ HM COASTGUARD - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.93 ‘No comments received.’

ROYAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) 8.94 ‘I write to confirm that RYA Scotland has no objections to this application.

ROYAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.95 ‘No Comments.’’

NORTHERN LIGHTHOUSE BOARD 8.96 ‘We recommend that this site be marked by 2 lit yellow poles, exhibiting a yellow flashing light, character flash one every five seconds (Fl Y 5s) and fitted with a yellow multiplication cross topmark. 8.97 The poles should be positioned at the most Northeasterly and Southeasterly corners of the group of cages. 8.98 The pole should be at least 75mm in diameter and not less than two metres in height. The light should be installed on the top of the pole; the visible range of the light should be two nautical miles. The multiplication cross should measure a minimum of 75cm in length by 15cm in width. 8.99 In addition to the markers on the site equipment Lighthouse Caledonia Ltd will be required to place an East Cardinal Mark, this will be of a buoy type consisting of a black lower buoy body minimum of 1 meter at the water line with a yellow middle structure and a black top structure, fitted with two black cones in a vertical line (the top cone should face upwards and the bottom cone should face downwards) with a light flashing Group 3 Quick Flash every 10 seconds (Q. Fl (3) 10s) placed at the top. The visible range of the light should be 2 nautical miles. This mark should be placed at the midpoint of the sites seaward side at the same distance as the sea anchors. 8.100 The feed barge on the site is required to exhibit an all round fixed white light, which should be exhibited from a point at least 1 metre above any obstruction. The visible range of the light should be 2 nautical miles.’

NOTHERN LIGHTHOUSE BOARD - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.101 ‘No comments’.

HARBOUR MASTER 8.102 ‘Information, as provided in Lighthouse Caledonia Letter of 27th April, is insufficient to assess the suitability of the Cages, Feed Barge, and Mooring System for the intended application.

8.103 Lighthouse to provide detailed, separate, SITE SPECIFIC mooring plans for both cages and feed barge.

8.104 Plan to include:-

• Details of any Classification Society involvement and rules being applied

• Mooring Analysis that clearly demonstrates:-

(a) Mooring Geometry (3D plan)

(b) Environmental forces anticipated at site.

(c) Maximum anticipated line tensions in all parts of the system

(d 50 year storm condition

(e) Wind, wave, & ocean current, data for the location, historical & projected

(f) Detail of seabed ground condition

(g) Detail of Anchors and anticipated holding power

(h) Programme of inspection of all component parts of the mooring system

8.105 The fact that a similar site exists in open waters in the Faroes, may or may not be relevant, as different wave and swell patterns may well, and probably do, exist in the areas. Which in turn will have different effects on the survivability of the system.

8.106 Suitability of feed barge for location to be clearly demonstrated. We have observed that a similar barge with DNV notation for open waters has a shipshape bow, which can be angled into direction of worst anticipated conditions.

8.107 Within the Offshore Industry, mooring of all offshore structures is, almost without exception, in accordance with Class rules, and closely monitored by Warranty Surveyors, normally appointed by insurers. Despite this attention to detail, failures do occur and much effort has been into improving mooring line integrity.

8.108 The aquaculture industry is now moving into locations where a similar approach is required. It would be inappropriate for the Comhairle to set the standards for mooring design, or be the approving authority. Rather we should be in a position to insist that the operator clearly demonstrates a design in accordance with recognised national and international standards.’ HARBOUR MASTER - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.109 ‘I have reviewed the Mooring Analysis by Aquastructures, it is very comprehensive and the model has produced high load factors particularly for the barge, these are much higher than what appeared to have been anticipated in original application. I would suggest that we now ask for a method statement for the moorings that demonstrates compliance with the analysis document. The barge is more likely to be problematic than the cages given the load factors identified, but with the correct equipment the project is quite feasible.’ The method statement is fine in principle.

8.110 They have stated that annual inspection will take place, and that moorings will be recovered every two years with any wear down in excess of 15% to trigger replacement.

8.111 I am happy with this regime, it compares favourably with other commercial mooring arrangements. I would however like to see each application cross-reference the mooring equipment selected with the initial mooring analysis to ensure all equipment is suitably sized.

8.112 Can we make an annual inspection of moorings a condition of planning, with full recovery at end of cycle (bi-ennial)?

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SECTION 8.113 ‘In relation to the above planning application I would have serious concern regarding site exposure and the ability of any installed infrastructure to withstand annual wave and wind action especially over winter periods i.e. structural failure during adverse weather conditions. Can the company provide evidence that in areas of similar site exposure fish farm infrastructure of a similar specification has operated effectively with no compromise to site integrity?’ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SECTION - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.114 ‘At the original application my concerns surrounded the integrity of the infrastructure in such an exposed location and information required to support proposal that such infrastructure could cope with such conditions. Having reviewed the original and additional information the RPS report on Detailed Assessment of Wave Climate concludes that it is recommended that the moorings/cages be designed to withstand 1 in 50 year storm conditions with wave height up to 6.26m, mean wave period 13.5s. However it is unclear from The Aqua-structures report (12/08/10) what the potential impact of this wave climate will be on the proposed moorings/cages.’ 8.115 The latest available figures from the Scottish Government (Scottish Fish Farm Production Survey 2008, 2009) confirm that employment in the Outer Hebrides from smolt production and salmon farming has increased from 141fte in 2008 to 189fte in 2009 with the trend still upwards. This in turn supports processing activity employment of over 100fte, which includes 77fte, employed at The Scottish Salmon Company factory at Marybank. A recent survey by the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO) indicates that in the Outer Hebrides activity by SSPO members in 2009 supported wages of almost £4.5M accounting for £20.5M expenditure in local communities after taking multiplier effects into account. It also found 82% of employees lived within 20 miles of their place of work and remained with their employer for 7 years. 8.116 From a freshwater fisheries perspective in 2000 it was estimated that direct expenditure of visiting anglers to the Outer Hebrides accounted for at least 185fte jobs with a capital value of the fishery in the order of £17M. (Fisheries Resource Management)

HISTORIC SCOTLAND 8.117 ‘We have considered this proposed development in light of the Environmental Statement contained herein. We offer the following summary comments:

8.118 We do not consider there shall be a significant adverse impact on assets within our statutory remit as a result of the proposed development. We advise the Competent Authority that the proposed development, May be granted planning permission under EIA Regulations.’

HISTORIC SCOTLAND - RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8.119 ‘No comments.’

WESTERN ISLES FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION 8.120 We discussed this application with our members and they did not raise any objections.

COMHAIRLE ARCHAEOLOGIST 8.121 ‘No Comments.'

VIEWS OF APPLICANT 9.1 ‘Reading through the objections, the majority of them are concerned with the potential to impact on the wild salmonids. The interactions between farmed and wild salmon were addressed in the submitted ES, although additional information has also been provided within this response. However, I would like to make note that many of the objections are from and funded by the same sources, namely the Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust, Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, Fish Legal (who act on behalf of the Fisheries Trust) and the Senior Fisheries Biologists, who are all biologists working for the Fisheries Trusts. Brian Shaw had a separate letter of objection, as well as signing the Senior Fisheries Biologists objection. It would appear that the Fisheries Trusts/Association have instigated a campaign against all aquaculture development. The majority of the objections are not specific to this location/development but to the wider aquaculture industry (for example suggesting that marine sites should be sited 20km away from river mouths). 9.2 I would also like to raise concern regarding the appropriateness of the petitions as collected through the No Fish Farms in Broadbay Campaign. Many of the online signatures are from locations around the world and rather than objecting to this development specifically, they are objecting to the aquaculture industry as a whole. There is also circumstantial evidence to suggest that the local paper petition was collected under false information (for example the paper stated that the development can be seen from Back beach, which, as clearly shown in the Environmental Statement, is not the case). I would also highlight that the three Community Councils who were consulted did not raise objections to the development. 9.3 Lighthouse Caledonia addressed the main environmental issues in the Environmental Statement, however I would like to follow up the two main concerns (exposure bad sea lice) and provide some further information to support the application: Site Exposure/Containment 9.4 The cages, nets and moorings that Lighthouse Caledonia propose to use at Toa Tolsta are designed to withstand extreme weather conditions. This equipment has been tested and certified by the manufacturer as suitable for use at this specific location and is very much designed for the local weather conditions. 9.5 As was raised by Stuart Baird (SEPA Unit Manager), ‘no examples have been provided of the successful operation of the equipment in similarly exposed sites’, I have included further details and examples of the equipment being used at exposed sites in Faroe Islands and Spain. In additions of this Lighthouse Caledonia intend to operate the equipment for a winter without fish in the cages to further assess the impact of the sea conditions on the infrastructure. 9.6 Lighthouse Caledonia undertakes regular maintenance and monitoring checks to ensure the equipment remains fit for purpose. We are also committed to ongoing stall training to improve husbandry techniques, standard operating procedures and equipment handling in addition to regular visual monitoring, more critical surveys will be carried out by divers. These will occur monthly, as well as after significant weather conditions of following site procedures that are assessed as high-risk. Furthermore, an independent auditor assesses compliance with the industry Code of Good Practice measures. 9.7 Broadbay has high numbers of seals, however it was highlighted in the ES the preventative measures in line with best practice to mitigate the risk to the site. It is not uncommon for fish farms to be located close or near large numbers of seals. Lighthouse Caledonia will use the more advanced Acoustic Deterrent Device at this site, which is considered to be the best technology available. 9.8 Lighthouse Caledonia is committed to ensuring that escapes are minimised to the greatest extent possible in line with the best industry practice and standards. Sea Lice 9.9 Concern was raised regarding the issue of siting cages near river mouths. The Toa Tolsta development is at an exposed coastal location and not within a confined loch system. The site is located over 3km from the mouth of the Gress River; this is further away from the river mouth than some existing sites in confined lochs. There is evidence to suggest that locating sites in fast flowing/exposed locations can decrease the incidence of sea lice attachment. A recent study undertaken at Loch Shieldaig by Professor Ian Bricknell, University of Maine showed that there was a strong correlation between the flow rate of the water and the number of lice that were found, as faster flows mean less lice landed on the fish. 9.10 As farmers, it is extremely important for us to minimise the impact of sea lice and integral to our prevention of this is careful husbandry and management of the farms. We have implemented strict regulations to ensure biological control and minimise the risk of sea lice, such as stocking only one-year class at a time and allowing for fallow period in the loch system. Where the loch system is shared with other producers, we have also adopted Area Management Agreements to ensure the most effective strategy is implemented. 9.11 Wild Catches www.fishhebrides.com

• Gress Five year average: 21 salmon/grilse, 119 sea trout & 46 trout Gress average salmon and sea trout catches are not high. Salmon has averaged at 21, which means between 3 and 36 per year, although this year there has been 63 caught. The variation is difficult to explain, but it is hoped that sampling and records over the years will help with research.

• Grimersta Five year average: 412 salmon/grilse And 67 sea trout Grimersta system has resulted in above sea trout catches this year, but it varies season to season

• Hamnavay – Uig Hamnavay area has shown sea trout numbers dwindling Five year average: 77 salmon/grilse, 201 sea trout & 583 brown trout 2007 – 25 salmon, 492 brown trout 2008 – 36 salmon, 175 brown trout 2009 – 32 salmon, 3 sea trout, 406 brown trout 9.12 Lighthouse Caledonia recognises the effort the local angling association have put in to improve the stock levels in the area and support the association’s efforts. If the application were to be granted Lighthouse Caledonia would consider an agreement to increase ‘in river’ monitoring on the wild fish and post smolts.

9.13 Marine Scotland Science requested some clarification on the medicines that would be available at the site. Lighthouse Caledonia have submitted an application to SEPA to include all available sea lice medicines on the existing licence, including in-feed and bath treatments. I have attached a letter from our company biologist confirming the amounts applied for and the ability to treat the tonnage on site, within certain timeframes. As is required under the SEPA CAR authorisation, all bath treatments will give adequate containment. It is our intention to undertake bath treatment within a well boat (FEPA licence will be applied for) however; there may be situations that the site will treat the site using full tarpaulins. 9.14 The provisions of SPP 22 indicate that there will always be conflicts between commercial fish farming and environmental interests. In this particular instance the site will be operated in strict adherence with industry best practice, and as such is comparable with the operation of other sites, which operate under the same principles, without any significant adverse impact to wild fish populations being demonstrated. The potential impacts of the development identified in the environmental statement, by statutory consultees and objectors to the proposal in which relate to wild fish interests are generic to marine fish farming rather than relating specifically to this site. Having regard for the ability of fin fish farm developments elsewhere to co-exist acceptably with wild fish interests, and in the absence of evidence, which would indicate that the circumstances of the current proposal are substantially different to other finfish sites, Lighthouse Caledonia fell that it would be inappropriate to refuse permissions solely on precautionary grounds. 9.15 The reason for this application is to change the equipment on a site that already holds both Crown Estate lease and SEPA CAR consents. There will be no change in biomass at the site, however Lighthouse Caledonia have submitted an application to SEPA to ensure the site has adequate medicines to effectively treat sea lice. The change of equipment is to ensure the site has adequate protection from the exposure and to stock the site at a low stocking density. There is an existing site at Toa Tolsta and currently there is no national or local policy provision, which would specifically seek to resist fish farm development within Broadbay.

9.16 The site at Toa Tolsta is an integral part of the future plans of the company. The potential volume harvested from the site will allow us to secure year-round production and full-time employment and is central to our plans for developing the processing plan at Arnish and to create jobs locally. Lighthouse Caledonia is committed to building a sustainable business within Scotland’s rural communities, which means year round employment and meticulous farming methods, processing and product development, as well as securing long-term markets’. DECISIONS AFFECTING THE SITE 10.1 The site is currently undeveloped but has a lease from the Crown Estate (Lease RC5-39-1) for 16m X 20m square steel cages and a permitted biomass of 2240 tonnes of Atlantic Salmon. The site was issued with a COPA (Control of Pollution Act) Discharge licence in 1996 for a maximum biomass of 2240 tonnes. In 2006 this licence was transferred to CAR but as with all existing licences at that time this was just an administrative transfer and SEPA did not carry out a full review. This has subsequently been carried out and a CAR licence has now been issued. The lease was also renewed in 2006. The applicants acknowledge in the Environmental Statement that the site was not developed because of concerns that “the equipment would not be able to withstand conditions at that site”.

10.2 In October 2009 the applicant requested the Comhairle to adopt a screening opinion under the provision of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 and on the 22 December 2009, the Comhairle as planning authority, having considered the characteristics, location and potential impact of the development proposal as detailed in the application and supporting documentation, and following consultation with advisory bodies, adopted the opinion that the development proposal as described was likely to have a significant effect on the environment and therefore in these circumstances an Environmental Statement was required to accompany the Planning Application. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 11.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 says, “Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” Attention is therefore drawn initially to any relevant policies or other elements of the development plan. This is then followed by comment on any other material considerations before a conclusion is reached.

11.2 WESTERN ISLES STRUCTURE PLAN

PLAN RELEVANT TERMS IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS CASE REF ED7 Marine and Freshwater Aquaculture Development In conjunction with interested parties, Marine fish farming come under the Comhairle will prepare a strategy to planning control on the 1 April enable the sustainable development of 2007. aquaculture in the Western Isles. In line with the policies of this Plan, Western Isles Structure Plan Policy consideration will be given to the ED7 (December 2003) pre-dates following: this and the ‘Interim Scheme’ i) location of sites suitable for developmen referred to in the Policy is no longer ii) design of associated facilities; in operation. iii) biodiversity landscape and other parts of the natural heritage; Assessment is therefore carried out iv) access and servicing considerations; below against Local Plan Policy v) appropriate measures to deal with ED4 - Aquaculture and Marine the issues of pollution, disease and Planning Powers, this being the navigational considerations; more recent policy on Marine vi) appropriate management, monitoring Aquaculture Development. It and site restoration arrangements. incorporates the criteria stated in Structure Plan Policy ED7 together Until such time as marine fish farm with additional criteria. planning powers are confirmed, the development of marine aquaculture will proceed in accordance with the Interim Scheme, taking account of the Scottish Executive's Locational Guidelines (2003). The Comhairle will recommend to the Crown Estates Commissioners that they include conditions in any lease that they grant to meet the above criteria.

RM11 Habitats and Species The Comhairle will not normally grant In this case neither the application consent for developments on land or site nor its near environs contain water that would have a significant habitat that has been designated adverse effects upon habitats or under the provisions emanating species listed under from the EC Habitats or Wild Birds the EC Habitats Directive*, Directives. the EC Wild Birds Directive** or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 However there are species listed (as amended)***. on Schedule II and Schedule IV of the Habitats Directive in and around the application site.

The Comhairle will encourage the The key species considerations are appropriate management and therefore: enhancement of features of the • Otter and Cetaceans (European landscape, which are of major Protected Species(EPS)), importance for wild flora and fauna. • Grey and Common Seals (Annex II species albeit not within a designated SAC) and • Various sea-birds protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the EC Wild Birds Directive • Atlantic Salmon (Annex II species in fresh water only)

In the event of a proposed The proposal is EIA Development, development having an adverse and therefore an Environmental impact on breeding or resting places Statement has been required to used by these species, it should only assess in detail the effect and proceed if: potential measures that may i) action must be to preserve public mitigate against any significant health or safety, or for other effect. imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a Cetaceans (EPS) social or economic nature; and Risso’s dolphins, white beaked ii) there is no satisfactory alternative; dolphin, minke whale, porpoise and and orca are reported as being present. iii) there will be no adverse impacts on the species as a whole. SNH identify Broadbay as a * Annex 1, 2 & 4 **Annex 1 potential nursery area for Risso ***Schedules 1, 5 and 8 dolphin but the ES fails to give any detailed consideration to the Risso dolphin from acoustic deterrent devices. SNH has required that any planning permission should be subject to a condition excluding the use of ADDs over the summer months. In the absence of such a condition, an EPS license from Scottish Government will be required.

The Comhairle considers that the ES requires to reflect this mitigation and consider the consequential impacts arising from ADD’s not being available for use in the summer months.

Grey and Common Seals Broadbay is not designated an SAC for grey or common seals. However the Outer Hebrides are designated a Seal Conservation Area for Harbour/Common Seals and the ES while briefly acknowledging this does not explore the effect of the proposed development on negative interactions in light of the impact of gaining or not gaining a licence to take or kill a rogue seal(s).

Seabirds Broadbay is also considered by SNH to be significant for its wintering birds. While not an SAC, the area has been surveyed in recent years to establish its importance in European and/or national terms. The data from these surveys has not yet been published. However SNH assess the risks to birds as a result of the development to be low.

Atlantic Salmon The Atlantic Salmon is an Annex II species in fresh water only. An adverse impact on the species could arise if there was a containment failure, which resulted in farmed fish travelling upstream, inter-breeding and potentially weakening the gene pool of the fish in the fresh water environment. In terms of sea-lice dispersal, the hydrographic reports indicate the area around the site to be subject to currents of moderate flow but there is no indication of how these currents relate to the flow in the bay as a whole.

DM1 Location of Development

Development proposals that can be The Western Isles Structure Plan absorbed without harming the local was approved in December 2003 social, economic or environmental prior to Marine Fish Farming characteristics of the Sustainable coming under the control and Community Area in which they are management of the land use located, will generally be supported. planning system. The “Location of Proposals serving social or Development” Policy criteria as community interests should have existing is therefore focused on regard to the needs of the users of development of land (as opposed such facilities and be located near a to marine based development). public transport node/ junction/ interchange and/or within safe and easy walking or cycling distance of their catchment population. DM7 Assessment of Development Proposals In dealing with applications for While Policy DM7 is to a great development the Comhairle will take extent directed to the assessment account of the requirements of other of land based development, some relevant Structure Plan policies and of the criteria can be considered to will ensure: be relevant to marine based development. i) quality siting, landscaping and (i) The Environmental Statement designs that incorporate was required to assess the Visual sustainable management Impact of the proposal as the techniques. (In this regard the proposed development was Comhairle will encourage considered to potentially have development that follows the significant adverse effects. guidance contained in the Scottish Executive publication ‘Designing The ES suggests that the change in Places’ as well as its own Design visual impact should be assessed Guidance); in the context of the original consent i.e. 16 x 20m square cages. Notwithstanding this statement in the ES, the photomontages are based on the undeveloped site.

The ES identifies the accessible viewpoints onto Toa Tolsta as being from Gleann Tholastaidh, Back, and Point, which offer views across the loch and of the surrounding area. Photographs and photomontages have been taken from these key viewpoints overlooking the site. The ES considers that the views from Gleann Tholastaidh are the only views likely to be of any significance, but in analysing the matter further suggest that cages design and landscape character impact are small given that there is an existing consent.

SNH in their response to the statutory consultation process, note that the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) map accompanying the application does not show the pattern of potential visibility of the site within the wider coastal area and as such is not entirely comprehensive. They point out that the proposed fish farm would appear as a key focal feature and its industrial character and associated activity and lighting would compromise the sense of tranquility. However, in summing up SNH and the Planning Service while noting that the development would have adverse impacts on views along some glens including Glen Tolsta, (which has a number of houses), concludes that the landscape is not designated and despite the limitations of the ES these impacts would be localised and would not significantly detract from the wider landscape. ii) no undue harm to neighbouring ii)The neighbouring uses are uses as a result of the considered to be salmon and trout development; fishing/ sea angling (recreational and commercial), commercial fishing, and recreation on the beaches around the bay.

There are widespread objections relating to the potential adverse impacts on both recreational and commercial salmon and trout and sea angling. The ES does not fully explore the effects or set out mitigation measures that would adequately mitigate risk.

The applicant was made aware of the representations but no further information was received. However analysis of data obtained from the Comhairle’s Development Department while partly now dated, indicates that socio-economic gains from wild fish fisheries compare favorably with those from fish farm development. The potential impact on recreational beaches was not an issue initially identified as potentially significant.

The area is used by commercial

crab and lobster fishermen. The

Western Isles Fishermen’s

Association was consulted and

raised no objections to the proposals.

The beaches are used for recreational purposes and there are numerous objections citing the potential adverse impact on local beaches. However these are not considered significant in terms of the overall resource available. iii) appropriate provision is made iii) Not considered applicable to allow access for the disabled; iv) the impact on the natural iv) The impact on the natural heritage is fully considered (e.g. heritage has been considered the Western Isles Landscape above at (1). The conclusion is that Character Assessment will be while the Environmental Statement used); is not comprehensive in this regard, the development is unlikely to have a significant impact on natural heritage in terms of landscape character. SNH consider that while the landscape impact of the development will be present they do not consider that this will be sufficient to damage landscape character. v) biodiversity and ecological v) The Nature Conservation interests are maintained and, (Scotland) Act 2004 imposes a duty where possible, enhanced. on public bodies ‘in exercising any (Account will be taken of the functions, to further the actions and priorities contained in conservation of biodiversity (all the Western Isles Local nature of species and habitats), so Biodiversity Action Plan currently far as is consistent with the proper in preparation); exercise of those functions’.

Policy RM11 addresses Protected Species and Habitats.

Of non-protected species two particular concerns are raised, firstly the potential to adversely impact on sea/brown trout and secondly the adverse impact on the sand eels that provide a food source for the sea trout and the Arctic tern colony at nearby Tong.

Sea/Brown Trout was added to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan list at its review in 2007.

The impact on Wild Salmonids was one of the issues identified at screening as potentially significant. However Marine Scotland Science, SNH and the WI DSFB all point out that the Environmental Statement has failed to identify the potential risk to wild sea trout, which unlike the Atlantic Salmon spends most of its adult life in coastal waters. While the lack of hard information on sea trout coastal movements is acknowledged, the ES fails to adequately address the risks to trout and where it does refer to wild salmonids, assesses the risk to be low. Marine Scotland Science, SNH and the DSFB all highlight concerns as to the accuracy and independence of that assessment. The DSFB highlight that the Gress River has the best sea trout catches in the Western Isles. The ES does not acknowledge the close proximity of the river and while the hydrographic report demonstrates current movement around the immediate footprint of the site, it does not provide any information on current movements within the bay and how sea lice may disperse.

Neither SNH nor the Western Isles Fisherman’s Association express concern regarding the impact on the sand eel resource. Benthic impacts from the farm are likely to be localised.

vi) appropriate measures are in vi) Not considered applicable. place for the safe movement of traffic and associated parking both on and off site;

vii) there will be no pollution vii) SEPA advise that the outwith prescribed limits to air, application has now been through land, fresh water or sea; the CAR determination process. This indicates that the benthic and water column impacts are within environmental limits.

viii) there will be no likelihood of viii) Not considered applicable. causing harmful erosion;

ix) account is taken of the ix) Not considered applicable. requirements of safeguarding zones notified by the Health and Safety Executive,* the Ministry of Defence and of Marine Consultation Areas.

x) The protection, maintenance x) Historic Scotland and the and where possible, enhancement Comhairle’s Archaeologist have of built heritage resources. been consulted. HS confirms that there are no built heritage resources within their remit that would be impacted upon.

A Screening Opinion concluded This will be determined by screening that the development was EIA every appropriate application in Development and an accordance with the EIA (Scotland) Environmental Statement was Regulations. submitted in support of the current The Comhairle will seek to facilitate planning application. development that would otherwise be unacceptable by the imposition of conditions, and in doing so, will seek the agreement of the developer to such conditions.

RM6 Coastal Development

Proposals for development will be In common with Structure Plan encouraged on developed coastline Policy DM1, this policy pre-dates or within existing settlements. Marine Fish Farming entering what Proposals within areas of undeveloped was historically a terrestrial or coast where no township settlement ‘Land’ use based planning system. exists, and along isolated coastline, will be assessed against the criteria set out in DM1. This policy deals with land based development.

The same can be said for Scottish Planning Policy (para 102), in that the presumption against development in areas of isolated coast in the SPP, relates primarily to land based development in coastal locations.

11.3 WESTERN ISLES LOCAL PLAN PLAN RELEVANT TERMS IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS CASE REF LP/ED4 Aquaculture and Marine Planning Powers In assessing development proposals the following considerations will be taken into account: • Location The Comhairle does not at present have strategic framework plans to identify preferred locations for fish farms and therefore the Development Plan comprising the Structure and Local Plan in conjunction with Scottish Planning Policy and material considerations provide the criteria against which all planning applications for Marine Fish Farms are assessed.

The Scottish Government – Marine Directorate produce ‘Locational guidelines’ which categorise suitability of location according to existing levels of nutrient loading and associated benthic impact from finfish developments. The Scottish Government guidance states that “a combination of factors were taken into account in deriving the categories including natural heritage interests, physical attributes, hydrographical characteristics as well as existing levels of development. As a result there will be areas within Category 3 which are or could be sensitive to aquaculture development but have not been specifically highlighted as they do not contain significant aquaculture development at the moment.” The Broadbay site falls within a Category 3 area i.e. an area where there appears to be better prospects of satisfying environmental requirements although the detailed circumstances require careful examination.

However the location of the site has raised many concerns over 1) accessibility in adverse weather 2) the ability of the cages, barge and moorings to withstand the exposure and wave climate 3) the risks to wild salmon fisheries (sea- lice infestation and breach of containment) given that the nearest fresh water salmon fishery is only 3km away.

Marine Scotland Science acknowledge that adherence to the Industry Code of Good Practice may not necessarily prevent the release of substantial numbers of lice from aquaculture installations. Furthermore, Marine Scotland acknowledge that the genetic integrity of vulnerable salmon populations would be at risk if the spawning population was infiltrated by escaped farmed fish that have matured and been attracted to local rivers to spawn. SNH, the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board and Marine Scotland have stated that the ES Does not adequately address the impacts on sea trout and where it does assess risks to be ‘low’. This categorization of the risk has been queries by three of the statutory consultees and in representations.

• Design of installation and The cages, nets and moorings associated facilities. that the applicants propose to use are, in accordance with the submitted attestations, certified as suitable for use in this specific location. However the wave climate analysis and moorings analysis were prepared post submission of the attestations.

The applicant has stated that it intends to operate the equipment for a winter without fish in the cages to further assess the impact of sea conditions on the infrastructure. This approach while acknowledged as responsible does suggest that the developer, despite attestations and the wave climate and moorings analysis acknowledges that there is an un-quantified risk in farming at this location.

The environmental impacts of a mooring and/or containment failure may be significant.

Further, given the issues raised over the suitability of the site in adverse weather and the proximity to a wild fishery it is not considered that the Environmental Statement or the additional information gives sufficient assurance that the impact on the environment, sea trout, wild fish or escapes) has been adequately addressed.

Given the scale of issues raised in this regard and consultees concerns as to the exposure of the location, the Comhairle’s Planning Service has sought independent consulting engineer advice to carry out a high level review of the technical data submitted. The advice received states that while it is not possible to provide a definite opinion on the mooring design on the basis of the information provided, from approximate analysis the mooring loads appear low and recommends that further detailed information is obtained to allow the design of the moorings to be verified.

Biodiversity is addressed in the response to Structure Plan Policy • biodiversity, landscape and other RM11 and in Policy DM7 above. natural heritage features Landscape impact is addressed in the response to Policy DM7 (1) above.

While there currently is no shore base to serve this development at • access and servicing Brevig, a planning application has considerations; been submitted for the erection of a shore base site comprising office, canteen, shower facilities and office at Brevig harbour. Daily servicing will be from a sea barge adjacent to the site, which will house an office, feedstore and canteen facilities. The applicant has indicated that construction of the shore base will be dependant on approval of the current application. The issue of access to the site and to Brevig harbour particularly in adverse weather has been raised by many making representations. This raises issues of regular removal of mortalities to deter attacks by predators, in particular seals. While the ES proposes that the mortalities will be removed on a daily basis it does not address the issues associated with inability to access the site in adverse conditions. These concerns require to be taken into account when assessing an EIA development.

Pollution and fish disease are regulated by SEPA and Marine • appropriate measures to deal Scotland respectively. with the issues of pollution, disease and In terms of authorizing chemical treatments and discharges SEPA has confirmed that it received and has favourably determined an application to vary a Controlled Activities Regulations licence. ‘Pollution’ levels are therefore considered to be within environmental limits. Marine Scotland in consultation with SEPA has agreed that the method of administration for bath treatments is deemed to be satisfactory for managing sea lice.

Management Areas are published by Marine Scotland Science to help avoid and minimise the impact of Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA). There are no other companies or sites within Broadbay and therefore the risk of disease transmission is low. The proposed site location does not risk the breach of a disease ‘fire- break’.

The Northern Lighthouse Board • navigational considerations; advise that the cage group should appropriate management, be marked by navigation lighting. monitoring and site restoration The Comhairle Harbour Master arrangements; noted that the site is adjacent to a regularly used designated anchorage favoured by commercial traffic and as such will require Cardinal buoy marking detail to be agreed with the Northern Lighthouse Board.

Concerns have been raised re the ability to adequately manage and monitor the site in adverse weather.

Site Restoration is typically addressed by way of condition. • the incremental or cumulative impact of the proposal; There are no fish farms within the Broadbay area and therefore there is no loch specific cumulative impact.

However, the WIDSFB has proposed that in order to lessen the cumulative or incremental impacts of aquaculture on the wild fish interests in the Western Isles, it is necessary to keep some areas free of fish farm development.

Marine Scotland, SNH and the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board acknowledge that there is likely to be a correlation between the decline in certain wild fish in areas of ongoing aquaculture development. They acknowledge that these areas were established long before the links between wild fish and aquaculture were established. Given that the Broadbay area is an area seen by many of those making representations as recovering in terms of wild fish many representations support the view that this should be one of the areas kept fee from development of this type.

The site is relatively remote except from Glen Tolsta where the development will be visible and therefore impact from noise from automated feeding equipment or boats will not have any cumulative or adverse effect on any other residential community in Broadbay. SNH acknowledge that there may be localised impacts on the area of Glen Tolsta.

• the impact of the development on  communities There have been widespread representations from the surrounding communities and local and national angling interests.  tourism In 2009 research was carried out on behalf of the Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum on the impact of fish farming on tourism. The Western Isles were one of three case studies with the findings being that the tourism industry as a whole was not adversely impacted upon by the visual impact or presence of fish farming.  other areas used for recreational purposes. There have been widespread representations on the impact the development may have on local beaches (water cleanliness, debris from site and in worst case environmental dereliction were the farm structures to fail).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 12.1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the term used to describe the process of collecting information and reporting on the environmental effects of a proposed development.

12.2 When an EIA application is before the planning authority for determination, planning permission cannot be granted until an environmental impact assessment has been satisfactorily carried out.

12.3 Statutory consultees and the public are given the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Statement and those comments must be assessed and where relevant taken into account by the planning authority as competent authority when assessing the ES and in determining the planning application. 12.4 As this is EIA development an Environmental Statement has been submitted as required by the EIA Regulations.

12.5 Section 3 of the Environmental Statement provides a general description of the alternative sites considered. 12.6 Section 4 considers briefly in accordance with EIA methodology, all the potential areas of interaction between the development and the environment, regardless of whether or not the impacts are considered to be significant. 12.7 Section 5 considers in detail the potential areas of interaction between the proposed development and the environment identified as having a 'Potentially Significant Impact' and discusses each according to accepted EIA methodology i.e. Baseline, Receptor, Assessment, Mitigation and an Assessment of the magnitude of the impact. In this case these are: • The Interaction with Wild Salmonids • Visual Impact • Benthic Impact • Interaction with Predators 12.8 Section 6 contains a statement on difficulties encountered in preparation of the ES.

12.9 Section 7 comprises a Technical report containing the data required to identify and assess the main effects, which the development is likely to have on the environment.

12.10 Schedule 4 to the EIA Regulations requires that an Environmental Statement should include “a description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment” and “a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.

COMMENT ON CONTENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (ES) - ALTERNATIVE SITES 12.11 The Environmental Statement reveals that the applicants considered sites at Tolsta Head and another site south of Ness, both of which were rejected because of the exposure of these sites to severe weather conditions. 12.12 The Outer Hebrides District Salmon Fisheries Board, a statutory consultee, state that the developer did not consider other areas where aquaculture was already established as an alternative site. The applicant points out that they hold an extant lease from the Crown Estate for the application site. The sites at Tolsta Head and south of Ness were rejected because of the exposure of the site to severe weather conditions. Tolsta Head is located around 6 kilometres from Toa Tolsta and is also considered to be in an exposed location hence the reason it was not developed when the lease was granted. The EIA Regulations require that the ES contains “An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects”. While the ES does contain a brief statement as to the alternatives considered, it does not contain an options appraisal of the comparative environmental effects and thus fails to defend the choice of site as the best option on the basis of environmental considerations.

COMMENT ON CONTENT OF ES - INTERACTION WITH WILD SALMONID 12.13 Sections 4.4 and 5.1 of the Environmental Statement consider the potentially significant impacts on wild salmonids arising from the development.

12.14 Wild salmonids basically comprise two species, the Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout.

12.15 Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L) is a migratory fish found in rivers in the UK. In freshwater only, it is an EU Habitats Directive Annex II species. Spawning takes place in clean rivers and streams where the water flows swiftly. After a period of 1-4 years the young salmon migrate downstream to the sea as 'smolts'. After 1-3 years in the sea, adult Salmon return to spawn in the river of their birth. The homing instinct and behavior of Atlantic salmon has resulted in the formation of genetically distinct stocks peculiar to individual rivers.

12.16 Sea trout are a form of brown trout (Salmo trutta) that have undergone a form of ‘smoltification’ so that like Atlantic salmon it migrates to the sea to feed and grow before returning to fresh water to spawn. However, unlike Atlantic salmon, it does not migrate too far off feeding grounds, but instead utilises coastal areas in the near vicinity of the fresh water river. Sea trout was added to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species List in 2007.

12.17 Baseline – The ES records the baseline as follows: • There may be a potential risk to wild salmonids from salmon farming operations. These may be from disease or sea lice transmission or through escapes competing with the native wild stock. • Sea lice are naturally occurring on many wild fish species and a healthy adult can host several sea lice.

12.18 The baseline should provide a concise summary of the baseline environment, focusing on the particular aspects that are relevant to the presence of potentially sensitive receptors to aquaculture impacts. No explanation of the different species, their life-cycle or migration pattern were identified in the baseline assessment. It failed to acknowledge that sea-trout remain in the coastal area in the vicinity of their home river when at sea, the close proximity of the Gress river system or the state of the fishery in terms of wild fish numbers in the system in recent years. Representations highlight that the Environmental Statement fails to carry out an assessment of the predicted sea lice dispersal from the site, bearing in mind that in spring the weather patterns are often dominated by long periods of north easterly winds which will distribute the larval lice all over the bay thus affecting the whole of Broadbay and all the fisheries it supports. 12.19 Receptors - The ES identifies receptors as follows: • Potential impacts between wild salmon and salmon farming operations which may be from disease or sea lice and may spread from farmed to wild stock; The risk increasing with frequency and proximity of contact. • Populations of salmon and sea trout and returning runs of adults are vulnerable and would potentially be at risk from this fish farm.

12.20 The ES does not distinguish between the different migration pattern of the salmon and sea- trout i.e. that sea-trout remain in the coastal area in the vicinity of their home river when at sea. The ES states that the area has freshwater inflows that carry populations of juvenile salmon and sea trout and returning runs of adults that have increased in recent years and these populations would potentially be at risk from this fish farm development but does not identify the location of these fresh water inflows.

12.21 Mitigation - The mitigation measures proposed in the ES focus on 1) Escape Prevention and 2) Disease Management.

12.22 Escape prevention measure include a) specification of net, cage and mooring for the sea conditions; Regular maintenance checks together with the use of remote AKVA technology to minimize and reduce any handling losses. b) A site specific predator control plan to be put in place and c) a site specific containment and contingency plan to be put in place.

12.23 Disease Management measures stated include those measures that are typically adopted across the industry e.g. early identification, medicine efficacy/availability, stock sourcing, single year class stocking.

12.24 The baseline, receptors and mitigation is followed by an assessment of the impact on the sensitive receptors. In assessing the magnitude of the impact the ES states that the impact is fully reversible, that frequency of interaction was medium and that the probability of the impact is likely to be low. The independence and accuracy of these statements has been questioned by SNH, Marine Scotland Science, the DSFB and a large volume of those submitting representations. 12.25 Marine Scotland Science while not objecting to the proposal has advised that ‘This area has freshwater inflows that carry populations of juvenile salmon and sea trout and returning runs of adults that have increased in recent years. Broadbay is reputed to be a sea trout feeding area, not only for the rivers Gress and Laxdale but from other rivers along the east coast. These small populations are very vulnerable to factors affecting performance at sea and would potentially be at risk from a fish farm development of this size ‘. They go on to highlight the risks “The proposed site is in a very exposed position and at risk of storm damage and the possibility of escapes” highlight the risk to the spawning population being infiltrated by escaped farmed fish and state “We feel there is justification for a formalised, routine, maintenance and inspection plan and specifically to inspect after periods of high seas and storms” ; “A build up of sea lice copepodids in the area could damage both salmon and sea trout smolts at times of coastal migration. Sea trout spend their marine going life stages feeding inshore and Broadbay is such a feeding area.”; “The hydrographic reports indicate the area around the site to be subject to currents of moderate flow but there is no indication of how these currents relate to the flow in the bay as a whole.” 12.26 The WIDSFB state that ‘Both the WIDSFB and OHFT object to the application to site a fish farm at Toa Tolsta, in Broadbay… The developer does not recognise any other industries that offer employment in the area that may be negatively affected by the proposed development (i.e. angling tourism and inshore fisheries). The recreational, social and economic value of the wild fisheries in the area should be assessed against the current proposal by the developer…. The sea trout catch from the Gress River in 2009 was 249, making it one of the more productive sea trout fisheries in the Western Isles, and one of the few improving sea trout fisheries in the West Coast of Scotland. 12.27 SNH state: “In our original response we raised concerns regarding the exposure of the site and its potential effect on containment and anti-predator entanglement checks. The developer has attempted to allay the concerns regarding containment risk by providing further information on equipment specification and use in other areas (e.g. the Faroes). We believe it is for the Comhairle to determine what weight to attach to that risk.” 12.28 It is acknowledged by the applicant and those making representations that there is a potential interaction with wild fish from salmon farming operations. The application states that there is no change in consented biomass. LHC state that the application is to “change” the equipment on a site that already holds both a Crown Estate lease and SEPA CAR consent. Marine Scotland Science advise that ‘while LHC may hold a lease and a consent there is no farm or equipment to “change”. The site has not been developed yet. They [LHC] state there will be no change in biomass at the site. As there is no biomass at present there is bound to be a change in biomass if the site develops.’ The interaction with and impact upon wild salmonids is an issue of main concern to many of those who made representations. 12.29 It is argued that the magnitude of duration of transmission of disease and parasites to wild fish is underestimated particularly in the weather conditions of the spring months with the scale of risks more likely to be permanent as a result of this development. It is further alleged that the applicants had the worst record of escapees in Scotland in 2009 and if continued would have a detrimental impact on the genetic fitness of wild salmon with the spread of disease significant given the exposed nature of the site. 12.30 It is also proposed by those making representations that the development poses a significant threat to the largest sea trout population in the Western Isles and to the Gress river system which provides a control site for monitoring sea lice through Area Management Agreements. It is suggested that before any application for planning permission is approved a full baseline survey of salmonid numbers in the rivers and lice in Broadbay should be carried out and a moratorium should be placed on fish farm activity in Broadbay until fish tagging research on sea trout movement has been carried out. 12.31 According to one representation, various studies by the Fisheries Research Service at Loch Torridon have concluded that high levels of juvenile lice at the mouths of local salmon rivers coincide with sea lice on farmed fish in the second year of a typical two year salmon cycle. It was concluded that as the east side of Lewis is now contaminated with sea lice, Broadbay should remain free of fish farms to provide a firebreak for parasite infection. 12.32 In the Environmental Statement the applicant indicates that he intends to reduce the risk of transmission of sea lice and disease to wild salmonids through effective management including minimising stock stress, weekly health monitoring and an all-in all-out policy before the fallowing period. However in their response Marine Scotland, the District Salmon Fisheries Board and Scottish Natural Heritage agree that while the interaction with wild salmonids is only likely to occur during migrations the impact on sea trout may be more significant because they spend much of their adult lives feeding in coastal areas. Broadbay is such a feeding ground. Marine Scotland suggests that there is evidence that offshore currents and wind blown surface currents can carry the infective stages of sea lice up to 20 km. While one of those making representation maintained that scientific analysis of the fish revealed that they were coming to Broadbay from areas where they were exposed to intense concentrations of sea lice, SNH concede that there is a lack of information on salmon migratory pathways and sea trout coastal movements, which makes a thorough assessment difficult. 12.33 The ES submitted by the applicant included an escape prevention plan and commitments to adhere to the Industry’s lice treatment, strategies and protocols. However, it should be noted that all regulatory bodies concerned with the treatment of lice agree that adherence to the industry Code of Good Practice may not necessarily prevent the release of substantial number of lice into the environment as its aim is to protect the welfare of the framed fish and not necessarily to prevent significant numbers of larval lice being shed into the environment and posing a risk to wild fish of UK biodiversity list species. While sea trout is not a European protected species there is general agreement that effective management alone will not protect wild fish and that this decline is not all attributable to aquaculture.

12.34 The developers acknowledged the presence of a major seal colony in the vicinity but have assessed the threat from predators as medium. Given that SNH recommend imposition of a condition restricting the use of ADD’s in the summer months (due to potential adverse effects on EPS), it is considered that the ES should re-evaluate this risk to containment. 12.35 In response to the initial representations received, the applicant has acknowledged the concern over sea lice and point out that the proposed location is at an exposed coastal location where it is alleged that a recent study suggests that there is a strong correlation between the faster flow rate of the water and the reduction in the number of lice found on fish as opposed to those within a confined sea loch system. It is the applicant’s view that lice will be dispersed by the faster flow. While this may be the case what is unclear as to the likely direction of spread given that there is limited meteorological or hydro-graphic information in relation to Broadbay. Marine Scotland state that sea lice impacts have been found up to 20 km from cages and contradicts the earlier assumption of the applicant that only the immediate area of the cages are impacted by sea lice. 12.36 The applicant also states that aquaculture exists in other areas alongside wild fisheries and that the Toa Tolsta site is located some 3km from the mouth of the Gress River, considerably further in their view from the river mouth than existing sites in confined lochs. In response, the District Salmon Fisheries Board, a statutory consultee, has stated that there is no evidence in the Environmental Statement to support the view that such a distance from the loch mouth reduces risk and points out that the majority of aquaculture developments were established long before the interaction between the industry and wild salmon was understood. It should also be noted that such developments were established long before planning authorities were the competent authority in determining aquaculture development. 12.37 The Atlantic Salmon Trust has submitted a policy statement in response to the additional information provided by the applicant written by four senior biologists, allegedly experts in this field and this is supported by a scientific paper on sea lice impacts, in which they propose that in order to protect both wild and farmed salmon and sea trout, the government should introduce mandatory fallowing and treatment regimes, officially validated lice monitoring regimes, sea lice pest control strategies on a pilot basis in selected bays, mandatory treatments and harvesting where necessary and investment in research geared towards reducing the impact of sea lice. They state that they are not against aquaculture and are not beholden to local fisheries interests but wish to protect aquatic ecosystems and to maintain objection to the impact of sea lice on wild salmon by, inter alia, advocating a location by location site analysis. 12.38 In the additional information subsequently submitted the applicant has accused many of the biologists of instigating a campaign against all aquaculture development and say that the objections are not specific to this site but to the wider aquaculture industry. Gress Angling Association does not believe that the additional information submitted addresses concerns over containment or sea lice issues. In particular, they consider little value is given in the Environmental Statement to the damage done to sea trout through sea lice. It is proposed that SLICE as a control for sea lice is no longer effective. SLICE is a feed premix containing the avermectin, emamectin benzoate in a 0.2@formulation for the control of sea lice. It is alleged that emamectin benzoate administered to salmonids in feed at a dose rate of 50 ug/kg/day for seven consecutive days kills all parasitic stages of sea lice. SNH also retain concern that effective treatment of sea lice can be untaken on sites this large while remaining within the terms of the CAR license. 12.39 In response to the denial by the developer, it was proposed by one of those making representation that there was a strong correlation between aquaculture and the decline in wild fish and an apposite analogy of the link between smoking and lung cancer was proposed. According to this view, at a time when salmon rivers are recovering this development will cause permanent damage such as is evident in Norway and Iceland. 12.40 Further responses were received from Fish Legal who, it is stated, assisted in co-ordinating a letter to help the Comhairle form a view and avoid the risk of inappropriate siting of fish farms because of the significant effect on wild salmon, particularly sea trout. It was further proposed by one representation that if this was a local company collateral damage to the environment would be more acceptable. 12.41 The proposed site is in a very exposed location and the ability to gain access to the site during adverse weather conditions to allow treatment and monitoring for the removal of mortalities has been challenged by several of those who made representations. 12.42 Given that the development is proposed for an area that has no established history of fish farming and on a site that is extremely exposed especially to northerly and easterly winds, it is the view of those making representations that the applicant has failed to provide evidence that would reassure those opposed to the development that during such conditions the site would be accessible to carry out inspections to the nets, to remove mortalities as necessary and to provide containment measures during a catastrophic event. 12.43 In the Environmental Statement the applicant has argued that as the site uses only a small area of Broadbay there is sufficient area for migration and that therefore the direct impact will be minimal. However as previously mentioned given the lack of information on migratory pathways these claims cannot be substantiated. 12.44 The Predator Control Plan in the ES recognises that predation can impact on farmed stock and list several anti-predation devises to address these concerns. They include a net tensioning system which holds the cages net uniformly taut so that it presents a wall to any underwater predator along with acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) which operate on a trigger basis when a predator is detected within the vicinity of the site. Other devises including effective husbandry to ensure the removal of mortalities and tensioned top nets to reduce the risk of bird entanglement are also proposed. 12.45 The applicants acknowledge in their ES that these anti predation devices may not be effective and may have to be reviewed once the site is in operation. Given that the effect of the new seal conservation status is that Scottish Ministers must not grant a seal licence authorising the killing or taking of seals unless they are satisfied there is no alternative and given the alleged effects of some of the anti predation devises on other wildlife such as porpoises and dolphins, it is considered that the details in the ES are too generic and should be more site specific. The Comhairle’s Planning Service does not consider that the Environmental Statement adequately addresses these points. 12.46 It is considered that other issues raised by the WIDSFB including clarification of Area Management Agreements, treatment of lice and the probability of impact on wild salmon have not been addressed. No response other than the attestations for containment has been received from the developer concerning the duration of the impact, hydro-graphic reports, site specific fish mortality plan and containment when the site is inaccessible. 12.47 The applicant has also acknowledged that farmed salmon may escape from rearing facilities because of operational accidents, structural failure during adverse weather or net damage by predators. 12.48 One representation suggested that consideration should be given to removing salmon farming from the open sea on to cages on land to prevent the risks from sea lice and disease. 12.49 This concern was also raised by Marine Scotland who is anxious about the threat to the genetic integrity of vulnerable wild salmon populations if the spawning population was infiltrated by escaped mature farmed fish. This is considered by many to be a very relevant concern due to the exposed location of the site and the risk of storm damage. It could therefore be argued that in terms of interaction with wild salmonid the development is likely to have significant environmental impacts on both salmon and sea trout in the Broadbay area and the Environmental Statement does not address the concerns nor does the additional information submitted propose actions that would potentially mitigate this.

12.50 Representations on the additional information submitted on containment (wave climate analysis and analysis of a mooring system) stress that the assessment by Aquastructures, which states compliance with Norwegian Standards NS9415 2009, is contradictory in that the Environmental Statement also says that measurement is not done according to these standards. The ‘Aqua-structures’ Technical Report’s comments that “it may happen that the nets will be in contact with the seabed” and the DSFB stresses that is very concerning and highlights the risks involved in farming at this location. In their view the applicant has made no effort to refute the points made on the inadequacy of the Environmental Statement and have produced no evidence that the capacity constraint issue has been addressed nor that the possibility of a 1 in 50 year storm could produce 10 or 12 metre wave heights.

12.51 This is an EIA development. It is considered that there is a lack of a robust, independent and accurate assessment of the potential impacts on the wild trout populations in Broadbay from sea-lice dispersal or impact on salmon or trout arising from containment failure (either mooring failure or interaction with predator species). These concerns have been reflected in the consultation responses from SNH and Marine Scotland Science and there is an outstanding clear statement of objection from the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board, a statutory Consultee. In summary there are clear deficiencies in the Environmental Statement that would require to be addressed in order to demonstrate that environmental risks had been properly assessed and mitigated. COMMENT ON CONTENT OF ES - LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT 12.52 The Environmental Statement was required to assess both the Landscape and the Visual Impact of the proposal. Sections 4.7 and 5.2 of the Environmental Statement together with Annex 3 (A visual and landscape character assessment for Toa Tolsta with photomontages and a Map detailing the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI)) set out the approach to this area of assessment. 12.53 The baseline in the ES document states that the assessment of the development in the landscape/seascape should be considered in the context of the cage structure (16 x 20m square cages) identified in the current lease. While the planning authority consider this to be an erroneous representation of the baseline conditions, it is noted that the photo-montages are based on a comparison of the undeveloped seascape and the development as now proposed. 12.54 Receptors are identified as the housing at Back, Gress Point and Glen Tolsta. The annex notes the accessible viewpoints onto Toa Tolsta as being from Gleann Tholastaidh, Back, and Point, which offer views across the loch and of the surrounding area. Photographs and photomontages have been taken from these key viewpoints overlooking the site. 12.55 Mitigation measures include surface equipment and barge in dark grey matt colour and a strict policy of no littering. 12.56 The ES considers that the views from Gleann Tholastaidh are the only views likely to be of any significance, but in analysing the matter further suggest that cages design and landscape character impact are small given that there is an existing consent. The assessment summary in the ES concluded that there would be minor landscape impacts. 12.57 SNH’s Landscape assessment states that the proposal “has potentially significant landscape impacts, with views of the development being visible from a number of properties. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) map accompanying the application does not show the pattern of development from the B859”. They note that the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) map accompanying the application does not show the pattern of potential visibility of the site within the wider coastal area and as such is not entirely comprehensive. They point out that the proposed fish farm would appear as a key focal feature and its industrial character and associated activity and lighting would compromise the sense of tranquility. However, in comment on the additional materials submitted by the applicants, SNH has said “We judge that the proposed development would have some adverse impacts on views along a number of glens oriented towards the fish-farm, including the glen of the Allt a’ Chamair Mhoir and Gleann Tholastaidh.” However they have confirmed that they raise no objection to the development because they can be mitigated by conditions on equipment colour. 12.58 The impact of a development on the landscape is a material planning consideration and several of those making representations expressed concern that the development would be highly visible from local beaches and moorland and that it would result in a detrimental impact on visual amenities leaving few clear vistas to be enjoyed. Concern was also expressed at the number of empty fish cages and associated fish farm debris left lying at the side of island lochs. While one representation objected to the loss of view if the development goes ahead, it should be noted that private interests such as the loss of a view is not a material planning consideration and as such should be ignored. Another respondent asked that this area of outstanding natural beauty should be kept pristine and the views over Gress beach left un-spoilt. In response to the additional information submitted, those making representations said that the Lighthouse Caledonia’s “visual impact assessment is poor”. 12.59 It should be noted that the area has no landscape designations. In summing up, SNH and the Planning Service while noting that the development would have adverse impacts on views along some glens including Glen Tolsta, (which has a number of houses), concludes that the landscape is not designated and despite the limitations of the ES these impacts would be localized, can be controlled by conditions and would not significantly detract from the wider landscape. It is not considered that these impacts are of such significance to justify a refusal of planning permission. COMMENT ON CONTENT OF ES - BENTHIC IMPACTS 12.60 The Environmental Statement was required to assess the Benthic Impact arising from the proposal. Sections 4.1 and 5.3 of the Environmental Statement set out the approach to this area of the assessment. The technical detail is included in a number of Annexes. Annex 6 details the baseline benthic survey, Annex 7 a video survey, Annex 5 the hydrographic Report and Annex 8 the Auto-DEPOMOD modeling technical summary. 12.61 The baseline in the ES document comprises Annex 6 and 7. 12.62 The receptors are identified through the above surveys and the zone of benthic effect set out in Annex 8. It is identified as fairly localized to that below and around the cage groups. 12.63 Mitigation measures include computerized feeding systems incorporating sensors and cameras, Management of food conversion ratio’s, personnel training on the foregoing, continual research into feed, regular monitoring to ensure impacts do not exceed the levels and conditions stipulated in the SEPA licence and fallowing of the site for 2 months after each 22 month production cycle. 12.64 The summary of the assessment of significance is identified by the developer in the ES as minor. 12.65 It has been argued by those making representations that the development will have an adverse impact on the benthic community structure because of feed, treatments and eutrophication of marine waters. The baseline benthic survey submitted with the application showed sparse faunal communities at each sampling station, which was described as not unusual of sandy habitats. No habitats or taxa of particular interest were noted and the extended baseline survey showed no sign of anoxic sediment for the site. Those making representations are now concerned that the approval of a fish farm at this site will significantly degrade the seabed and the benthic community. Benthic species include oysters, scallops, sea stars, crabs, razor fish, lobsters, clams and many species of worms. It is suggested that pollution from the fish farm will damage the razor fish beds and prevent the traditional harvesting of razor fish at low tide by the local community thus undermining the cultural heritage of the local community. Representations cite that there is little in the Environmental Statement to support the view that the proposals will have no impact on the seabed. 12.66 Benthic impacts are regulated by SEPA under the Controlled Activities Regulations (Scotland) 2006 (CAR). The CAR licence consents the use of medicines/chemicals and ensures that discharges and impacts do not exceed the limits specified in the licence. SEPA, in response to the initial consultation advised that as the site had never been used, that a CAR licence was required and warned that the exposed location of the site should be taken into consideration when determining the application. SEPA has however recently confirmed that a CAR licence for the site has now been issued. 12.67 In support of their application the applicants have stated that a hydro-graphic survey was carried out to determine the increase of nutrients from the farm and the likely impact of the level of nutrients from the site and concluded that the impact from nutrient enhancement from the site was low. In order to mitigate impacts it is proposed to have feedback loops in place to monitor feeding response and minimise feed waste and operational staff would have training in feed usage and methods to reduce feed waste.

12.68 Those who made representations asked for an assessment to be made on the effects of wastes and chemicals on shellfish in the area. Other representations allege that SEPA has confirmed that exposure to sea lice treatment chemicals by species such as crabs and lobster may be lethal to such creatures. It is also alleged that faecal matter and chemical feed will decimate the sea bed. SEPA has informally confirmed that the farm will have a detrimental impact on the sea bed below and around the cages but that that impact will be localised. 12.69 One representation questioned the claim that the fallowing in Loch Roag in 2009 cured the problem of sea lice and another suggested that if the Comhairle was minded to approve the application, then a condition requiring that all chemical treatment be carried out in well boats and that no chemicals be added to the water. It has also been suggested that conditions relating to clearing up derelict equipment and monitoring biodiversity before and after development should be required. In response to the additional information submitted SEPA raised no objections but again asked that the issue of exposure be considered by the planning authority. 12.70 Representations were received alleging that the impacts on the Water Column were not included in the assessment of potentially significant negative effects in the Environmental Statement accompanying the application and the mitigation measures proposed were generic and did not answer specifically the concerns raised by those making representations. Annex 9 of the Environmental Statement addresses the impacts on the Water Column and it is considered that these fall within environmental limits.

COMMENT ON CONTENT OF ES - INTERACTION WITH PREDATORS 12.71 Section 4.3 and 5.4 of the Environmental Statement consider the 'Potentially Significant Impact' on the Environment arising from the ‘interaction of predators’ with the proposed development. 12.72 Baseline - The predator Species identified by the Baseline study in the ES are: • A large population of common seals within the Broadbay Area that frequently haul-out within 3 KM of the site. • Seabirds in particular – Long tailed duck, Great Northern Diver, Slavonian Grebe and Eider Duck. 12.73 No data as to the location of haul outs relative to the site were provided in the ES. 12.74 Receptors - The ES identifies receptors (direct and in-direct) as: Common and grey Seals, Cetaceans, diving Birds and other wildlife species such as otter. Other potential effects were identified as physical disturbance and entanglement in net and rope debris. 12.75 Mitigation - Birds – The mitigation measures proposed in the ES and the ‘Site Specific Predator Control Plan’ are ‘Top Nets’ with a 2” mesh, highly tensioned and coloured black with a bright green central patch to minimise the risk of bird entanglement and further identifies cage net tensioning to hold the cage net uniformly taut, as a means of eliminating the need for secondary nets and thereby reducing the risk of entanglement for diving birds. 12.76 Mitigation – Seals – The use of a net tensioning system to hold cage nets uniformly taut so that it presents a ‘wall’ to underwater predators is proposed as the primary defence and best practice in terms of seal predator control. The ES also proposes to use an efficient mortality removal system to reduce the number of predators attracted to the cages while ensuring that management and waste management procedures are in place to remove any entanglement risks. 12.77 Further deterrent measures proposed are the use of ADD’s if seal predation becomes an issue. No comment is made on the potential impact of ADD’s on the seal populations. The ES does however acknowledge ADD’s as having a potential effect on local cetacean populations, in particular harbour porpoise, through exclusion from areas surrounding the cages by up to 300m and displacement up to 3km from the cages. The ES and Site Specific Plan identify the period of most likely use as January to March (but also potentially in May to October) and state the type proposed for use as operating on a ‘trigger’ basis, with a site log to be kept as to attacks, timing and duration of ADD activation. 12.78 The effect of the likely impact is assessed as being a minor negative impact with the statement. “The use of ADD’s have the potential to impact upon cetacean species however, the use of ADD’s at the proposed development will be risk based and fully monitored and recorded. The impact upon species or habitats of conservation concern is considered low”.

12.79 In terms of baseline information, SNH has advised that: • The proposed site lies within 3km of a harbour seal haul out which is used for pupping during the summer months. The Sea Mammal Research Unit survey from August 2008 records between 50 and 100 harbour seals using those skerries. • Broadbay is also used by various predatory seabird species such as terns, cormorants, shags and divers. • Broadbay is frequently used by cetaceans including Risso’s dolphin, white-beaked dolphin, minke whale, porpoise and orca (all European Protected Species). Surveys of Risso’s dolphins suggest that the area is of international importance as a nursery for this species. All cetacean species could be disturbed by the operation of acoustic deterrent devices (ADD) and other noise, the use of an ADD at Toa Tolsta is considered in the ES as deployable only where other anti-predator measures have been shown to be ineffective. • Broadbay is of significance for its numbers of wintering bird species (including diver, seaduck and grebe species) and has been surveyed by JNCC over recent years to establish its relative importance in European and national terms. No data has yet been published from those surveys however. The largest Arctic tern colony in the Western Isles is at Tong, the birds from which use Broadbay as a feeding area. 12.80 In terms of potential impacts SNH advise that: • they have concerns about the use of ADDs at this site - It is illegal to ‘Deliberately or recklessly kill, injure, disturb or capture/take European Protected Species of animal or deliberately or recklessly harass any cetacean’. The operation of an Acoustic Deterrent Device (ADD) has the potential to elicit aversion responses in cetacean species up to several kilometres from the source. Habitat exclusion, particularly in areas that may be of international importance for Risso’s dolphins is of concern to SNH. • they recommend that boat movements to service the site should not pass closer than 500m to any known haul-out of harbour (or grey) seals to minimise disturbance. • the Marine Act will require a specific licence to shoot seals at any time of the year, will introduce a statutory requirement to report all shooting of seals, and that it will be an offence to harass seals at their haul outs. This has considerable potential to impact the ways in which fish farms manage predator interaction in the future. • they have concerns over the ability to service top nets and release entangled birds daily given the very exposed nature of the site. • the impact on the Arctic tern colony at Tong is likely to be low given the scale of the development relative to Broadbay. The impacts on wintering wildfowl are also likely to be low again due to the scale of the development within the wider context of the area.

12.81 In terms of mitigation measures SNH advise that: • Broadbay is of particular importance for Risso’s dolphins between May and the end of September (although it used all year round by some species such as harbour porpoise). (Both are identified as EPS) and suggest that a condition be put in place excluding ADD use over these summer months (1 May to 30 September). • If the Comhairle is minded to approve this application without this condition a licence from the Scottish Government will be required by the applicant before proceeding. You should ensure, prior to any approval, that all tests for a licence (under Regulation 44) are likely to be met. If the tests are not likely to be met, there is a risk that the developer would not be able to make practical use of the planning permission if a licence is not forthcoming. • They understand that there are ADDs being developed, which do not disturb cetaceans (not audible to those species), should that technology become available we would welcome a reconsideration of the proposed condition. 12.82 SNH and a large number of those making representations highlight cetaceans including Risso dolphin, White-beaked Dolphin, Minke whale, Porpoise and Orca all European Protected Species, as frequenting the Broadbay area. SNH specifically highlight that surveys of Risso’s dolphins suggest that the area is of international importance as a nursery for this species. 12.83 Many submitting representations have specifically raised concerns over the use of Accoustic Deterrent Devices, which they consider would impact negatively on the porpoise and dolphin colonies in Broadbay. 12.84 Both common and Grey seals are Annex II species under the EC Habitats Directive. The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 (the Act) will replace the outdated Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and will provide improved protection for seals and a new comprehensive licence system to ensure appropriate management. Until the new seal licensing system goes live in early 2011, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 remains in effect. 12.85 Using provisions under Section 118 and 119 of the Marine Scotland Act 2010, the Scottish Government has announced that the whole of the Western Isles will be designated a ‘Seal Conservation Area’ for Harbour/Common Seals due to on-going concerns re the decline in their population. 12.86 The effect of seal conservation area status is that Scottish Ministers must not grant a seal licence authorising the killing or taking of seals in a seal conservation area unless they are satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative way of achieving the purpose for which the licence is granted and that the killing or taking will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of any species of seal at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (within the meaning of Article 19e of the Habitats Directive). 12.87 The designation of the Western Isles as a ‘Seal Conservation Area’ means that licences to kill seals will be strictly controlled with a limited number of seals allowed to be killed in the Western Isles each year. Developers will be required to report any seals killed by a system of returns. The new measures will hopefully drive the aquaculture industry towards the research, development and use of alternative non-lethal predator control means. 12.88 While acknowledging the provision of the Marine Scotland Act of 2010 the applicant does not clarify the likely effect of the proposed new designation for the Western Isles on their predator control measures. 12.89 Many of these making representations are anxious that seals will develop a tolerance for ADD’s and attack the farm with catastrophic consequences for the surrounding environment. Concern has been raised that workers at the fish farm will not be trained to recognise the impact of ADD on wildlife and that it will result in further deaths and disturbance to cetaceans and seals. It has also been proposed that the deterrent measures are not proven to be effective to stop harm to seals as a result of interaction between the farm and the seals and the new designation will make shooting licences more difficult to acquire. Current research from the Sea Mammal Research Unit is also suggesting that there may be a correlation between acoustic deterrent devises and the decline in porpoise populations. The siting of a fish farm in the proposed new Area of Conservation for common seals is seen by some as contrary to the aims of the Marine Conservation Area Designation. 12.90 Many representations note that Broadbay is of importance for its numbers of wintering bird species including diver, sea duck and grebe species with the largest Arctic Tern colony in the Western Isles using Broadbay as a feeding area. One representation cited the recent surveys which he claims to show the bay to be of national and international importance for long-tailed ducks and great northern divers, the number of the latter counted (C 300) being of major significance. Important wintering populations of Slavonian grebes and eiders and others has made Broadbay an Area of Search for a Marine Protection Area for its aggregation of water birds. However SNH has confirmed that although these surveys were carried out, no designations have been confirmed. 12.91 As has been noted earlier on in the Report, given that the development is proposed for an area that has no past history of fish farming and on a site that is extremely exposed especially to northerly and easterly winds the applicant has failed to provide evidence that would reassure those opposed to the development that during such conditions the site would be accessible to carry out inspections to the nets, and to remove entangled birds and mortalities as stated in their ES. 12.92 Furthermore, the effect of Seal Conservation Area status is that Scottish Ministers must not grant a seal licence authorising the killing or taking of seals in a Seal Conservation Area unless they are satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative way of achieving the purpose for which the licence is granted and that the killing or taking will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of any species of seal at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. In recent correspondence SNH has confirmed the potential biological removal for common seals in the Outer Hebrides to be 54 while the grey seals number is 408 reflecting the decrease in common seal numbers. SNH has also confirmed that the number of licences for shooting common seals has correspondingly been reduced. SNH also confirmed that no licence has been granted for the Broadbay site despite the implication in the text of the anti-predator plan of the ES that if the proposed methods such as tensioned nets are ineffective the applicants intend to take “the appropriate actions to remedy the situation”. 12.93 The use of ADD (Acoustic Deterrent Devises) is proposed to deter seals from the farm. However, as these may disturb cetaceans their use may also require a licence, which can only be issued if the applicants can demonstrate that they were necessary to prevent serious damage and that their use would not affect the favourable conservation status of the species in question. The ES states that these devises will be reviewed once the site is in operation and this course of action recognise the implications of a negative outcome from these proposed actions. While it is very difficult to predict the level of interaction at the site, SNH advise a separation of 500 metres to avoid direct disturbance at the haul out. 12.94 The ES assumes that any effect is reversible; however it has been noted that habitats have an intrinsic value beyond economic usefulness and the removal of the equipment following a catastrophic event does not address remediation and reversal of the damage done to the habitat. 12.95 The receptor and mitigation details provided in the general statements at paragraph in Section 4.3 in the ES were not carried forward systematically for detailed consideration in Section 5.3 in the ES – in particular impacts on Risso Dolphin as opposed to just Harbour porpoise and the full extent of mitigation measures proposed such as seal blinds and the possible need to shoot rogue seals within the provisions of the Marine (Scotland) Bill. 12.96 In the circumstance the Comhairle’s planning service is of the opinion that elements of the Environmental statement focusing on ‘Interaction with Predators’ lacks the robustness expected by the EIA process. The Environmental Statement is considered to take a generic approach to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations as it is not site specific and in particular does not take account of the proposed new designation of the Western Isles as a Seal Conservation Area with its restrictions on licences to kill seals strictly controlled. It is considered that the ES makes assumptions, which are unacceptable in the absence of site specific evidence. It is therefore not considered that this is an adequate response in terms of the Environmental Statement. GENERAL COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 12.97 Many representations state that the Environmental Statement accompanying the planning application is inadequate citing issues such as lack of scientific support for the site, no environmental risk assessment, no acknowledgement of the potential threat to the sea trout population, an omission of the assessment of the predicted sea lice dispersal from the site in north easterly winds and insufficient information on hydrological and meteorological data on which to base a determination. It is further alleged that the data on salmonid interaction is inaccurate and that the reversibility of the development is questionable. Furthermore, it is considered by some making representations that the Environmental Statement is neither objective nor impartial and that it should be assessed by an independent consultant. Several of the statutory consultees also raised concerns over the adequacy of the Environmental Statement. 12.98 In their submission based on the additional information submitted, No Fish Farms in Broadbay Campaign has stated that the additional information does not address the issues raised. 12.99 The representations received on the adequacy of the Environmental Statement are material in that they raise question as to the ability of the Comhairle to determine an application in light of the competence of the environmental information submitted with the application. Along with the DSFB, SEPA and SNH raised questions on the suitability of the location chosen for the fish farm and SEPA again make reference to the site location in their response to the additional information while acknowledging that this is something for the planning authority to assess when determining the planning application. SNH, in their original response raised concerns over the exposure of the site and its potential effect for containment and anti-predator entanglement checks. With regard to the additional information submitted by the applicants SNH consider that the response only covers site exposure and equipment specification along with details of the progression towards a CAR licence. The Comhairle’s planning service have now considered the submitted the Environmental Statement and having taken the views of all those making representation into consideration believe that the ES is not comprehensive or robust and does not adequately cover the assessment of environmental effect and in these circumstances, limits the ability of the planning authority to assess the development fully.

MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

OVERVIEW 13.1 The planning authority is required to make their determination in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. While there is no strict definition of material considerations, it is accepted that to be ‘material’, a consideration must be related to planning and related to the use and development of land. The plan led system supports a presumption in favour of development, which accords with the provisions of the Development Plan and accepts that the principle of development should be taken as established unless there are material considerations that over-ride the Plan. Scottish Planning Policy and representations, which raise valid planning issues, are material considerations. It is the duty of the planning authority to identify and analyse these material considerations and decide if they are of such weight as to indicate that the Development Plan should not be accorded priority.

SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY 13.2 The Scottish Government published a consolidated Scottish Planning Policy document on 4 February 2010. The consolidated Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) states that the planning system has a crucial balancing role to play when competing interests emerge in the consideration of future development. It recognises that planning issues by their very nature will often bring differing interests into opposition with the result that the resolution of these issues inevitably disappoints some parties. It also reinforces that conditions imposed on the grant of planning permission can enable development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to withhold planning permission. It is important to note that the planning system operates in the long-term public interest and does not exist to protect the interests of one person or business against the activities of another. 13.3 In terms of aquaculture, which is recognised as a nationally important industry particularly for coastal and island communities where it provides jobs, many of which are in remote locations the SPP looks to local authorities to support the development of new and modified fish farms in appropriate locations. When determining these planning applications the planning authorities should take into account the direct and cumulative impacts of the development on the environment including economic benefits, carrying capacity, visual impact, sea bed impacts, impacts on the environment and the needs of local communities along with the requirements of other regulatory controls. The planning authority while not seeking to duplicate other regulatory regimes has engaged with other regulators in the course of assessing this application.

LOCATION AND CONTAINMENT 13.4 The location of the site and the ability to ensure containment as far as can reasonably be predicted are matters that inter-relate with impacts that were considered to be ‘potentially significant’ namely, the Interaction with wild salmonids, and ‘Interaction with Predators’. These issues are also arguably related to potential impacts arising from waste management and risks of pollution. 13.5 The site is located approximately 6km south of Tolsta Head and 4km north west of Tiumpan Head within the confines of a historic lease from the Crown Estate. It is therefore located within the outer part of Broadbay and therefore exposed to weather running in from the North East, East and South East. 13.6 Other key issues of relevance to the location are a)The site would be serviced from Brevig Harbour further in the bay and from an on-site feed barge b) There are fresh water rivers entering Broadbay which contain both Atlantic Salmon and Trout c) The bay hosts predator species in particular seals d)The bay is considered to be a nursery area for Risso Dolphin – a European Protected Species and e) The coast of Broadbay has some steep rocky coast but also a number of recreational beaches. 13.7 Many of those making representations cite that an accident in severe weather conditions particularly with the barge carrying ensiled fish, feed and chemicals would cause severe pollution to the local marine environment. They argue that to moor such a vessel less than 300 metres from a rocky shore would be foolhardy. 13.8 Several have remarked that there is insufficient information in the Environmental Statement regarding potential cage damage and fish escape risks during the winter months. Fish escape would have the potential for farmed fish to enter the wild fish system and infiltrate the gene pool of wild fish weakening the wild fish and damaging the genetic integrity of the species. No worse case scenario in terms of infrastructure and component durability has been undertaken for conditions such as a severe northerly gale with high seas and a heavy swell nor has the issue of access to Brevig Harbour in such conditions. 13.9 Representations also state that that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that other sites in Scotland with similar sea conditions have operated successfully and that the applicants should produce a detailed wave model of the site to compare with the specification to allow the Comhairle to assess the risk. 13.10 The initial application contained attestations for the equipment as follows: • Cages - ‘Based on the correct mooring arrangement and specifications; Fusion Marine Ltd can confirm that the design and construction of this specific cage is of the highest standard required by the Scottish Fish and International Fish Farming industry and that the Triton T400 x 120mt Fish Cage is more than suitable to endure the environmental conditions at the proposed site, namely Broadbay, North Lewis’. • Barge – ‘This is to confirm that Gael Force Aqua Seamate barges are manufactured from certified components and constructed by fully trained Gael Force employees. Based on the environmental conditions supplied for the Broadbay site Gael Force can confirm that the design and construction of the barge which conforms to NS9415 would be of the highest standard required by the Scottish and International Fish Farming Industry and that the barge which we would supply for this site would be more than suitable to endure the environmental conditions at Broadbay off Lewis in the Western Isles. • Moorings - This is to confirm that Gael Force Aqua mooring equipment is manufactured from certified components and constructed by fully trained Gael Force employees. Based on the environmental conditions supplied for the Broadbay site Gael Force can confirm that the design and construction of the mooring system would be of the highest standard required by the Scottish and International Fish Farming Industry and that the mooring system which we would supply for this site would be more than suitable to endure the environmental conditions at Broadbay off Lewis in the Western Isles.

13.11 In response to the statutory consultation process concerns were raised by SEPA, SNH, the Comhairle’s Harbour Master and the Comhairle’s Fisheries Officer at the lack of site specific data that demonstrated the suitably of the cages, food barge and mooring system for the location. They also challenged the assertion in the Environmental Statement that comparison with a similar site in the Faroe Islands was adequate to make a judgement on the suitability of the proposed site particularly in adverse weather conditions. 13.12 In response, the applicant has submitted further information, principally a wave climate analysis and an analysis of the moorings required to moor the cages and barge. The wave climate analysis concluded that the ‘site is relatively exposed and it is recommended that the moorings and cages be designed to withstand the predicted 1:50 year storm conditions with spectral significant wave heights of up to 6.26m with mean wave period of 13.5 seconds.’ 13.13 While Marine Scotland raised no further objections to the proposal, it was noted by the Comhairle’s Harbour Master on receipt of the initial mooring details that mooring of all offshore structures within the Offshore Industry almost without exception were closely monitored to ensure integrity. It is therefore considered that where the aquaculture industry moves into similar locations it would be inappropriate for the Comhairle to approve applications without clear demonstrations that the design is in accordance with recognised standards. He subsequently confirmed that in his view the amended mooring plans were acceptable subject to a condition requiring the annual inspection of moorings. 13.14 Gress Angling Association considers the wave climate assessment to be inadequate and stress that unanswered questions remain about the veracity of the 6m height of the predicted wave, which the equipment is designed to withstand. The group considers a 12m high theoretical wave more likely with similarly catastrophic impact on the moorings system. They have challenged the calculations of the wave climate assessment for the area and consider that the desktop data is inadequate and should be replaced with a verifiable site specific plan. Many of those making representations have argued that the development is not welcome in the community because of the exposure of the site and its vulnerability to extreme weather conditions. Despite saying that the equipment has been tested off the coast of Norway, there is no evidence submitted to show that similar conditions prevail or how the site will be serviced from Brevig in bad weather. 13.15 According to one representation, the applicant has demonstrated serious doubts about the relevance of comparing sites in the Faroes and Spain and this evidence should therefore be discarded. While many making representation note that the objection is seen by the applicants as being against fish farming in general, it is proposed that this is not the case; rather it is concern that the submitted data does not take account of freak weather conditions or the views of marine biologists and as such the precautionary principle should be applied. This is considered by some to be especially relevant because of the proximity of the site to improving west coast fisheries. 13.16 Several of those responding to the additional information were concerned at the strength of the equipment particularly in view of the potential freak weather conditions, which are not easily replicated in computerised modelling data. The data submitted by the applicants has also been challenged because it is alleged to relate to an area east of Ness in deeper waters meaning that wave height will be significantly higher than that proposed in the data. Furthermore it is suggested that a new wave programme Wave 111 has recently been introduced but has not been used by the applicant. It is argued that the data submitted by the applicant shows that greater swells are shown to be generated by lesser wind speeds and similar compass directions and is suggested that such data should not be relied on to be accurate. It has been argued by those opposed to the development that the location of the site justifies a site specific meteorological survey to be carried out during winter months as the survey from the west coast carried out during the summer months to support the application does not reflect local conditions. It has also been argued that the cage, feed barge, mooring equipment and net attestations were not supported by a site-specific conditions survey. 13.17 Furthermore, SNH stated “In order to provide assurances, several attestations from the equipment’s manufacturers are provided, however there is no independent assessment of the equipment’s ability to withstand those conditions. Should equipment failure lead to a high volume of escapes, there appears to be little that can be done in terms of containment given the open nature of Broadbay” 13.18 The Environmental Statement has acknowledged that when the site was originally granted a lease in 1996 (renewed in 2006) from the Crown Estate, the site was considered so exposed that equipment was unlikely to withstand the extreme conditions and so was not developed. The applicant has also indicated that he is willing to put the empty cages on site over a winter to assess climatic conditions. This demonstrates that the applicant still has concerns about the performance of moorings and equipment at this site and this view is reflected by others who stress that this site was not developed when the lease was acquired due to fears over the survivability of the feed barge and the fear of cages bottoming out in storm conditions, a fact alluded to in the Technical Report from Aqua-structures and quoted by the WIDSFB in their letter or representation. “Serious concern has been expressed that there will be a mass escape given that the bottom of the site is approximately 25 metres deep and that when a wave goes through, the nets will be in contact with the sea-bed.” 13.19 This is an EIA development and in this case the integrity of the moorings for the barge, cages, and grid is paramount to ensure the survival of the structures in adverse weather conditions in the interests of protecting the environment; primarily the wild fish interests. The attestations submitted pre-date the submission of the wave climate analysis and report “Analysis of a 14 cage mooring system and one 400t barge” was not conclusive in its findings.

13.20 Given the reservations expressed by three statutory consultees and the numerous objections calling into question the technical detail submitted, the Comhairle’s Planning Service engaged the services of Consultant Engineers – W A Fairhurst and Partners to carry out an independent high level review of both the wave climate analysis and the moorings analysis in order to better advise the service in this specialist area. This independent review looked at three aspects: the wave climate assessment, the moorings analysis and the risk of the cages bottoming out.

13.21 In terms of the wave climate assessment the independent review concluded the methodology and conclusions of the RPS wave climate report (submitted by the applicants) to be acceptable and stated that the results appear to be conservative in some respects. Representations highlighted that the 1 in 50 year return period wave height in the RPS report was underestimated but the independent review does not support this assertion. It notes that the maximum wave height in a 1 in 50 year return period event would be much higher than the significant wave height that is output by the study. The significant wave height is defined as the mean height of the highest third of the waves. The mean height of the highest 1% of waves would be expected to be about 10.5m in the same return period event.

13.22 In terms of the moorings analysis the independent review states that it is not possible to provide a definite opinion on the mooring design on the basis of the limited information provided and that a rough model was used to check the mooring line loads, based on the assumption that the cages were solid and then applying a solidity ratio. They advise that while this analysis is simplistic and does not represent the flexible nature of the structure, it tends to indicate that the mooring line loads predicted for the cage grid may be too low.

13.23 The summary of their findings in respect of the moorings were that: • This structure is flexible and so the calculation of loads in a seaway is highly non-linear. • The software AquaSim used to predict the loads is not described in any detail, and there is no verification or benchmarking of the results. • There is no description of the method used to calculate the loads. • There is no description of how the sea was modelled and what the maximum loads refer to. • The mooring spread shown has some of the anchors too close together; the geometry of the mooring spread needs to be reconsidered. • The barge mooring line loads predicted by AquaSim appear to be conservative. • The barge mooring spread could be optimised for the maximum wave energy direction.

13.24 In conclusion, on the moorings analysis they state that it is not possible to provide a definite opinion on the mooring design on the basis of the limited information provided, but from approximate analysis the mooring loads appear low and recommend that further detailed information is obtained to allow the design of the moorings to be verified.

13.25 In terms of the representatations that the nets may bottom out the independent report advises that the predicted 1 in 50 year significant wave height at the site with MLWS sea level is 5.55m. The expected maximum wave height in this event is of the order of 10m. The minimum wave trough level if the 1 in 50 year event coincided with LAT could be about 5m below Chart Datum. This coincidence of events has a low probability, but could result in the net bottom reaching a level of 17m below Chart Datum. There is a depth of 17.1m a short distance to the north-east of the proposed cage site and while there appears to be a small risk of the net bottoming-out if the water depth were 17.1m this may have little significance if the bed is sandy, but could pose a risk to the nets if the bed is uneven and rocky.

13.26 In conclusion, on the nets bottoming out a full bathymetric survey of the area covered by the cages and moorings and information on the nature of the seabed were recommended. However, this recommendation is made in the context of low probability of this risk occurring.

13.27 While representations on wave climate at the site appear to be unfounded and the probability of risk to nets bottoming out being low, there is still an un-quantified risk of moorings and in turn containment failure which could have a significant effect on the environment in particular wild fish interests. It is therefore the view of the Comhairle’s planning service that one of the deficiencies in the Environmental Statement that requires to be addressed is the risk of containment failure in the context of a robust, independent and accurate assessment of the potential impacts on the wild trout populations in Broadbay.

SOCÌO ECONOMIC ACCESS AND RECREATION 13.28 Socio-economic impact may be a material consideration in determining planning applications. 13.29 Scottish Planning Policy points to the potential for conflict between fish farming and local fishing interests and advises that the effects of fish farm development on traditional fishing grounds and angling interests should be considered. 13.30 The applicant has proposed that approval of the development will result in the creation of four full time jobs at the site. They propose that fish farming can provide a positive impact on socioeconomics by providing job creation, inward investment, social benefits and the promotion of an area. The applicant argues that the potential volume harvested from this site would secure all year round production and support the development of the proposed processing plant at Arnish. 13.31 The economic case presented by the developer is supported by the latest figures from the Scottish Government (Scottish Fish Farm Production Survey 2008, 2009,) and confirm that employment in the Outer Hebrides from smolt production and salmon farming has increased from 141fte in 2008 to 189fte in 2009 with the trend still upwards. This in turn supports processing activity employment of over 100fte, which includes 77fte, employed at the Scottish Salmon Company (formerly Lighthouse Caledonia) factory at Marybank. Furthermore, a recent survey by the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO) indicates that in the Outer Hebrides activity by SSPO members in 2009 supported wages of almost £4.5M accounting for £20.5M expenditure in local communities after taking multiplier effects into account. 13.32 Notwithstanding the above many representations argue that this position does not reflect the potential adverse impacts and potential job losses in competing industries, primarily, commercial fishing and tourism with the revenues generated from fresh water fishery and sea-angling tourism as well as nature, activity and general tourism. 13.33 The alternative view gains some support from a report prepared for the Western Isles Fisheries Trust in 2000 (Assessing the Economic Value and Realising the Potential of Recreational Fresh Fisheries in the Western Isles M A James PhD). It reports that the direct expenditure of visiting anglers account for at least 185fte which amounts to 1.9% of the working population. The Report claims that indirect and induced impacts on the island’s economy suggest that angling is worth £5.6M and accounts for at least 260fte. In terms of the issues raised by those opposed to the application for socio-economic reasons the above does not take account of any potential impact on commercial fishing and tourism. 13.34 Many of those making representations argue that the approval of this development will result in significantly more job losses than four to the local economy as a result of competing interests for the same scarce resources. It is argued by those opposed to the development that the increase in size of fish farm operations and the increasing mechanisation of the process with larger feed barges and increasingly larger cage sites will lead to declining employment levels in the industry. Furthermore, it is alleged that the applicant has not submitted adequate site-specific climate data, considered necessary because of the potentially risky conditions at Brevig Pier in stormy weather and as such suitable insurance cover should be provided to cover a catastrophic event. 13.35 It is also argued in some of the letters received that the development will affect the livelihood of skippers and boat owners working out of Brevig harbour and that of those who provide accommodation for tourists to the beaches at Tolsta, Gress and Coll as well as visiting anglers. This is because it is believed that the development will inhibit users of the beaches from surfing and swimming for fear of degradation of the waters. 13.36 It is feared that the acoustic deterrents proposed to scare seals will negatively impact on whales, dolphins and porpoises with a corresponding impact on tourism. It has also been suggested that the decision of an American food retailer to stop selling farmed salmon may be a harbinger of changing times which may make a decision to approve this development short sighted. The view that several famous sea trout fisheries such as Loch Maree have been almost completely wiped out through the introduction of fish farming in the area is proposed as grounds for the downturn in the local tourist economy. It was also suggested that as there was no formal consultation between the Community Council and the community, their views, which did not object to the application, should be ignored. 13.37 It is further argued by those making representations that Broadbay provides economic prosperity by making prime fishing locations available to visitors at low cost. According to those making representations ‘Broadbay provides economic prosperity through tourism by making available to visitors prime fishing locations at low cost”. It is alleged that ticket numbers have risen over 500% since 2008 and will continue to rise as species thrive making Broadbay a vital spawning area that, provided it remains pristine, will provide a useful comparison in the future to other developed areas. It is considered unlikely that, given the demographics of local employment, that the proposal will generate local employment. 13.38 It is further asserted that the worldwide appeal of the coastline around the islands would justify leaving certain areas free of aquaculture development and its associated pollution. Those making representations also raised the issue of the public money used to set up the factories at Scalpay and Marybank and the subsequent loss of jobs and suggested that, provided the environment is protected, tourism is more beneficial. They also questioned the ethics of an industry to which an 8% loss of stock annually is acceptable and point to the increasing mechanisation of aquaculture with fewer staff living in barges remote from the community. As such they are angered that the “pattern of local need and the loss of a high number of local jobs is threatened by a large company to create only four new jobs.” It is argued by some that only one year ago the company formally stated at a public meeting that the development was not central to their plans for Arnish and this now appears to be a cynical attempt at manipulating the community. 13.39 The District Salmon Fisheries Board, a statutory consultee, stress that the recreational, social and economic value of wild fisheries is not recognised but should be assessed against the current proposals. The view proposed by the applicant that the online petition and responses from objectors was generalised against fish farming has been denied and those making representations have confirmed that the objection was very site specific. They confirmed that the campaign was not against fish farming in the Western Isles but that the objections were “directed at the site by many visitors who would not come if the development was approved and despite the allegations of the developers to the contrary no attempt was made to mislead the community”. 13.40 The planning authority must take into account representations, which raise planning considerations and each case must be considered on its merits. The applicant has requested that the application be approved on the basis that it is required to allow the development of a processing factory at Arnish to proceed. It is proposed by the developer that the socio economic benefits that will be achieved at Arnish will justify any negative impacts of the development. The law regarding the extent to which planning benefits are permissible and therefore become material considerations are clear. Benefits that have nothing to do with the development clearly are not material considerations but regard must be had to those that have a connection to the development. Therefore, although the proposed development at Arnish may be a material consideration, the weight to be given to it in terms of the socio economic impact of the development must be weighed against the other social and economic impacts and this is a matter for the judgement of the decision maker - the planning authority. 13.41 It is considered that in terms of socio-economic impact both arguments have been set out in that the statistics released by Scottish Government on the benefits of fish farm development in the Western Isles and the report prepared for the Western Isles Fisheries Trust both point to significant socio-economic benefits. The statistics presented in this Report were not included in the Environmental Statement but were acquired by the Comhairle’s Development Department, as was the Report prepared for the Western Isles Fisheries Trust. Both the reports indicate that in terms of socio - economic benefits, on balance, there is little to choose between the two arguments presented. WASTE MANAGEMENT 13.42 Planning authorities are required to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health or harming the environment. Pollution and contamination are therefore material considerations. 13.43 The baseline in the ES identifies waste categories as fish mortalities, redundant equipment such as nets and cages and domestic waste such as oils and fuels. The Environmental Statement states that there is potential for fish farms to either accidentally discharge non-fish waste into the environment or fail to adequately dispose of waste. 13.44 The possibility of experiencing adverse weather conditions that may result in pollution and contamination in Broadbay is accepted by the applicant. However in the ES they propose standard mitigation measures: On-site waste securely stored, waste accidently released retrieved, spill kits kept on site, waste recycled or disposed of to authorised sites and ensiling of fish waste and transportation to shore in sealed containers for disposal by an approved contractor. 13.45 In addition to the above, representations cite uneaten feed and faecal matter, storm damaged cages and mass mortality of fish in the event of jellyfish attack as further risks of waste and contamination. 13.46 Representations express concern the company’s fish mortality plan does not appear to be feasible because the site will not always be accessible in bad weather to allow the removal of what is anticipated to be a significantly higher figure of mortalities than quoted in the Predator Control Plans. This would risk leaving rotting fish carcasses lying in the cages, causing contamination to the environment of Broadbay and increasing the likelihood of seal attacks. Concern has also been expressed at the adverse impact of the development on water quality in Broadbay shortly after Scottish Water completing works to improve water quality and clean up sewerage discharges to Broadbay. Residents also cited concerns over lack of details on the proposals for the storage of dead fish fuel spills, and chemicals. 13.47 Marine Scotland agree that this is a very exposed site and potentially at risk of storm damage. The wave data included with the EIA indicates that a height of over seven metres has been recorded and Marine Scotland acknowledge that this would indicate a need for a high degree of routine maintenance and a rigorous inspection regime of the cages and moorings to mitigate the risk of pollution in Broadbay. They are of the opinion that there is justification for a requirement for a formalised, routine maintenance and inspection plan. 13.48 The mitigation measures proposed namely the secure storage of on-site waste, retrieval of waste accidently released, spill kits kept on site, waste recycled or disposed of to authorised sites and ensiling of fish waste and transportation to shore in sealed containers for disposal by an approved contractor are standard and reasonable mitigation measures, the only query being the ability to implement these measures in adverse weather following a severe storm. 13.49 Feed will be stored on the barge with some on the shore base. The applicant proposes to use a computer controlled feeding system supported by underwater monitoring cameras, to allow greater control of feed and thus less feed wastage. Most grading and harvesting is likely to be carried out by well boat with some on site harvesting on purpose built barges. 13.50 A planning application should not be determined on the basis of the worst case scenario without first assessing to determine the likelihood of that situation occurring. Scottish Government Policy gives guidance on how to deal with the overlap between planning and pollution and advices that the planning system should focus on whether the development is an acceptable use of land rather than control the processes involved and determine the application accordingly. Given the exposed nature of the site the probabilities of waste and pollution arising as a result of failure of the moorings is a concern that should be risk assessed. NOISE AND LIGHT NUISANCE 13.51 It is alleged by some of those making representations that the development will cause noise, light and waste nuisance to neighbouring properties along with pollution from these factors. The applicant has indicated in their Environmental Statement that lights will be restricted to essential periods for the purposes of navigation and safety and underwater lighting will only be used from the period of January to June in the second year the fish are at sea. This is generally controlled by conditions on any planning permission at fish farm sites requiring that measures are in place to prevent detriment to the residential amenities of properties likely to be affected by the development as are issues of noise generated by the development and associated operations. Although the site may be visible from the coastline particularly at night it is considered that noise and light impacts are likely to be localised and are adequately addressed in the ES and as such can be controlled by condition. The impact is therefore not likely to be significant.

OPERATIONAL ISSUES 13.52 The operational issues relating to the use of the site for a fish farm raises the issue of compatibility with existing uses and is a material consideration. This is particularly relevant if the proposed use has a negative environmental impact that can cause damage to existing uses. While planning powers may not be used to protect commercial interests it is legitimate to consider the impact on existing uses. Policy DM7 of the Western Isles Structure Plan supports development that ensures no undue harm to neighbouring uses. Those making representations have raised the issue of commercial fishermen operating out of Brevig who practise a clean water policy on which keep netting of live catches depends. They are concerned that his cannot be controlled in northerly wind conditions if the debris and waste from the proposed fish farm is swept into the harbour waters. 13.53 Furthermore the applicants acknowledge that a mass mortality event such as that caused by a jelly fish attack would bring salmon oil and guts on to the beaches causing severe pollution and smells. One response stated that the applicant has proposed adherence to the Aquaculture Code of Guidance but that there is insufficient evidence that this mitigates against risks. It was also stated that the Comhairle has no duty to comply with the response of Marine Scotland and it is requested that the Comhairle examine the weight of evidence submitted by marine biologists. Marine Scotland is a statutory consultee and as such their views must be taken into consideration when determining a EIA planning application. 13.54 The regulatory bodies concerned with the treatment of sea-lice agree that adherence to the industry Code of Good Practice may not necessarily prevent the release of substantial number of lice into the environment as its aim is to protect the welfare of the framed fish and not necessarily to protect wild fish. SNH in their initial response maintain that given the exposure of the site “which may limit the frequency at which operatives can access the cage there must be some doubt as to whether the treatment of sea lice can be effective and the 0.5 lice/fish target (detailed in the industry’s Co GP) assured”. Neither the Environmental Statement not the additional information provides enough reassurance to tackle such concerns on an undeveloped site in a part of the island that has no history of fish farming activity. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT 13.55 One representation stressed that the need for a land based shore facility has not been adequately addressed and had concerns that the additional traffic from the shore base to the Cal-Mac ferry at the time of harvest would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the residents of this area of Back. A planning application has now been submitted for the erection of a shore base at Brevig pier. Scottish Planning Policy notes that fish farms are likely to require land based facilities and suggests that where possible these should be considered at the same time as the fish farm development. The Environmental Statement suggests that much of the harvesting at the site will be carried out by well boats transferring the live fish from the site but have identified another option of on site harvesting. The impact of lighting noise and disturbance from these activities are generally controlled by conditions on any planning permission granted. It is therefore not considered that the objections to traffic and transport issues raised by those making representations are sufficient to justify the refusal of the application. NAVIGATION ANCHORAGE COMMERICAL FISHERIES 13.56 The main issue of concern relates to the impact of the development on the movement of commercial fisheries particularly in adverse weather conditions when it may be difficult to gain access to the harbour. It has also been pointed out that the proposed fish farm would impede the progress of small boats coming round the headland at Gress forcing them further offshore and away from the shelter of the coastline. The applicants acknowledge that marine fish farms can have an impact on navigation and on other users of the sea area in which they are located as well as maritime and land based traffic and transport. This can be through disruption of navigation routes or by depriving other commercial and non- commercial users of access to the area. 13.57 The applicants have stated that the site is located above a sandy seabed, which they allege is not used as fishing ground because most fishermen fish for lobster, and crab whose habitat is rocky shores. The Western Isles Fishermens’s Association has not objected. The Comhairle’s Harbour Master states that the site is adjacent to a regularly used designated anchorage favoured by commercial traffic and as such will require a Cardinal buoy marking details to be agreed with the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB). The NLB require the site to be marked and this can be covered by condition.

PLANNING & EIA PROCEDURES 13.58 It is of concern to some that comments submitted through the on-line public access system are limited to 6000 characters and that some other comments are not available to review which in their view raises questions about the openness and transparency of the process. While comments on public access are limited to 6000 characters, there is no restriction on what may be submitted in other formats. All representations and responses to consultations are available for viewing at the Comhairle offices. 13.59 One response to the additional information suggested that the west and north anchoring of the moorings are outwith the Crown Estate lease and there is no evidence that there has been a variation in lease size. The Comhairle was asked to clarify this position and to defer determination of the application until this was resolved. It should be noted that an applicant seeking planning permission is not required to own or control the site of the proposed development nor obtain the consent of the owner but he must notify the owner that an application for the development is being submitted. Planning permission attaches to the land rather than the applicant who will be unable to commence the development without obtaining the necessary property law rights from the landowner. In their application Lighthouse Caledonia certified that the Crown Estate as owner of the seabed was notified on 22 February 2010. 13.60 One representation questioned whether Planning Officers place too much reliance on the response from Marine Scotland Science who may well be under pressure as a government agency not to undermine government policy to expand the aquaculture industry in Scotland. It should be noted that Marine Scotland Science is a statutory consultee in terms of Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 and as such is one of the consultation bodies identified in these regulations. A planning authority must take account of the contents of any Environmental Statement submitted with the application but these comments can only influence its decision as far as they amount to planning considerations. The Comhairle has no reason to doubt the independence or competence of the advice it receives from Marine Scotland Science. 13.61 Recent representations ask that determination of the planning application be suspended until after the May elections pending consideration by the new Scottish Parliament of a petition to protect wild salmon and sea trout. Members will be aware that the planning authority must make their decision based on planning considerations. The outcome of future elections to the Scottish Parliament or the potential for a petition to be considered and discussed does not constitute a material planning consideration. PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE 13.62 Many of those making representation consider that the proposed development does not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan. They consider that the development is contrary to the aspirations of the Western Isles Structure Plan Focus and Key Aims in terms of promoting sustainable communities and in particular to Policy SC9 relating to the protection of biodiversity and ecological interests. 13.63 It is proposed by many making representations that the development does not address the issues of incremental and cumulative impacts, mitigation against pollution, impact on local communities or tourism as required by both the local and Structure Plan. It has also been noted by those making representations that that the Main Issues Report in the Outer Hebrides Local Plan is promoting a spatial strategy for aquaculture and as such approval of this application may be premature and prejudice the outcome of the process. 13.64 It is further alleged that Comhairle has failed to produce a Coastal Zone Management Plan or a strategy with which to inform decision-making in aquaculture development and that the developer has failed to provide enough information with the application to assess the application against Scottish Planning Policy SPP22, Planning for Fish Farming which, in their view, focuses on three general principles and requires that the impact of fish farming on local communities, traditional fishing grounds and local angling interests should be taken into account. In the circumstances the Comhairle is asked to apply the precautionary principle set out in the SPP in line with the key aims and objectives of the Structure Plan relating to prudent stewardship of natural resources to maximise their economic potential in a sustainable manner, thus reducing the risk to wild fish. 13.65 It is emphasised that the SPP states that the precautionary principle should be invoked where there is insufficient scientific evidence to make a decision that the development will not cause significant irreversible damage to natural heritage interests such as Atlantic Salmon. This is considered by some to be particularly relevant to Broadbay because there is no history of fish farm activity in the area. It is considered by those making representations that approval of this scheme would also be premature in advance of the preparation of a Coastal Zone Management Plan, which may adopt the strategy to keep Broadbay free of fish farms. 13.66 It was noted that Policy ED7 proposes a strategy that will enable the sustainable development of aquaculture based on the following four criteria; location of sites, design of associated facilities, biodiversity and landscape, pollution and monitoring. Many expressed concern that the application and Environmental Statement did not adequately cover the issues mentioned above and in particular did not include a sufficiently robust assessment of operational arrangements such as containment, the risk of damage by high seas and better control of seals as proposed by Fresh Start, the renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture. 13.67 As earlier acknowledged, when determining planning applications, the planning authority is required to make their determination in accordance with the provision of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Many of those making representation consider that the proposed development does not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan. They consider that the development is contrary to the aspirations of the Western Isles Structure Plan, its key aims and to those of the Western Isles Local Plan in terms of promoting sustainable communities and approving proposals that can be absorbed without damage to the local social or environmental characteristics of the area. 13.68 It is accepted that the sustainable development of aquaculture is encouraged in the Western Isles and is supported in both the existing and the emerging Development Plan. Policy DM7 of the Structure Plan and Policy LP/ED4 of the Local Plan supports the sustainable development of aquaculture. Furthermore following consultation at the Main Issues Report stage of the new Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan, distinct supplementary (planning) guidance for aquaculture is currently being drafted. The guidance will consider developments in the marine environment for fin and shellfish aquaculture, and include a spatial strategy supported by a suite of development policies. The initial gathering of spatial data and engagement with stakeholders and industry is informing the draft guidance (spatial strategy and policies). EXISTING CONSENTS 13.69 The history of a site may be a material consideration and this raises the issue of the lease at Toa Tolsta granted by the Crown Estate. One of those making representations noted that at the time of approval of the renewal of the lease, concerns were expressed to the Crown Estate regarding the exposure of the site.

13.70 As the responsibility for determining fish farm development decisions has now passed to the local planning authorities, concern has also been expressed at the development potential of existing Crown Estate leases that are unlikely to come before the Comhairle for determination. It has also been stated that the potential to develop these leases is no longer acceptable. As noted earlier in this report, the site in Broadbay was initially granted a lease from the Crown Estate in 1996. This pre-dated both the EIA Regulations, The Interim Scheme (when Planning Authorities became consultees on the granting of Development Consents) and the introduction of Marine Fish Farming to planning control. A COPA (Control of Pollution Act) Discharge licence was granted for the lease site in 1996 for a maximum biomass of 2240 tonnes farmed in 16 x 20 square steel cages. While the Crown Estate lease was renewed in 2006 the terms upon which it was granted has not been subject to the ‘Review’ in line with requirements to satisfy EIA. The applicant acknowledges that the equipment upon which the lease and COPA consent were granted in 1996 was not capable of withstanding conditions at the site and therefore while a lease exists it is a development that was not implemented.

LETTERS OF SUPPORT 13.71 Two letters have been received in support of the application. One supplier of cages supported the application as an important step towards open sea salmon farming vital for the future of the whole industry. In his view the support of Lighthouse Caledonia has generated at least two new jobs with his company this year. A further supporter rejects what he terms riparian concerns and wild fish interests and cites a similar application in Argyll and Bute which the council approved on the basis that they considered that fish farming contributed more to the local economy than angling. In his view the demise of river salmon came about as a result of uncontrolled seal populations, netting and local anglers. It was also considered that the applicants have taken great strides to reduce sea lice in Loch Roag.

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION 14.1 When determining planning applications the planning authority is required to make their determination in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. These provisions support a presumption in favour of development. It is for the planning authority to decide if there are material considerations of such weight as to indicate that the provisions of the Plan should not be given priority. In the case of EIA development, planning permission cannot be granted until an Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out. This is an EIA development requiring the assessment of environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation strategies to be presented in the form of an Environmental Statement.

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 14.2 An Environmental Statement was submitted in support of the Planning Application and following receipt of representations and advice from statutory consultees, additional environmental information was requested and some submitted. While the additional information addressed some of the issues that had been raised as concerns, it is considered that there are still clear deficiencies in the Environmental Statement that would require to be addressed in order to demonstrate that environmental risks identified as potentially significant have been properly assessed and mitigated.

14.3 Accepted EIA methodology is to identify clearly, the baseline environmental conditions, identify receptors, carry out an assessment of the impact of the development on those receptors, propose mitigation measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment and conclude with an assessment of the magnitude of that impact.

14.4 Therefore, where potentially significant effects have been identified, the developer requires to carry out a robust, independent and accurate assessment of the potential impacts of a development on the environment and present their findings in the form of an ES. The key issues considered relevant in this case are summarised below.

POTENTIAL FOR ADVERSE IMPACT ON WILD SALMONIDS 14.5 In this case the potential impact on wild salmon and trout populations was identified as potentially significant. Marine Scotland Science, SNH and the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board all identify that there is potential risk to wild salmonid populations from escapes and infestation with sea lice arising from the proposed fish farm site. The Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board, a statutory consultee, maintain a clear objection to the proposal.

14.6 Potential risk to wild salmonid populations from escapes and infestation with sea lice is raised in response to proposals for many fish farms but in this particular case it was considered to be a significant risk due to the proposal being the siting of a new fish-farm with a large bio-mass in a very exposed location in close proximity to an improving salmon and trout fishery system and at the entrance to a wide bay where trout are reputed to feed all year round and where in the event of containment failure and fish escape there appears to be little that can be done in terms of containment given the open nature of Broadbay. In addition, the bay is open to north easterly and easterly winds, where there is concern that infective sea-lice may be driven by wind and currents into the bay towards the fishery. Furthermore, given the location and wave climate at the site, there were concerns that containment failure arising from either mooring failure or net damage could result in large numbers of farmed fish escaping and inter-breeding with the wild fish, weakening the gene pool and damaging the genetic integrity of the wild fish stock.

14.7 It is considered that the ES fails to carry out a robust, independent and accurate assessment of the impacts and the mitigation measures that would allow the planning authority to have confidence that environmental risks were either not significant or that the mitigation measures would be in place to control and reduce the adverse impact.

14.8 The baseline conditions in the ES should provide a concise summary of the baseline environment, focusing on the particular aspects that are relevant to the presence of potentially sensitive receptors to aquaculture impacts. i.e. the nature of the bay, current flow at the site and within the bay as a whole, the meterological conditions prevalent at the site, the location of the fresh water inputs. Having done so it should then identify the different receptors, i.e. salmon and sea trout, their different migration cycle and migration patterns.

14.9 The baseline assessment fails to acknowledge that sea-trout when in marine waters remain and feed all year in coastal waters close to their home river (while salmon migrate over long distances within days of leaving fresh water and entering the marine environment), fails to identify the close proximity of the Gress river system or the improving state of the fishery in terms of wild fish numbers in the system in recent years and does not present the tidal or meterological conditions that may impact on sea lice dispersal from the farm within the bay. In terms of sea lice there are concerns about impacts on salmon and trout but considerably greater concerns over the potential impact on sea-trout.

14.10 Marine Scotland Science has stated that this area has freshwater inflows that carry populations of juvenile salmon and sea trout and that returning runs of adults have increased in recent years. Broadbay is reputed to be a sea trout feeding area, not only for the rivers Gress and Laxdale but from other rivers along the east coast of Lewis. Marine Scotland Science has stated that these small populations are very vulnerable to factors affecting performance at sea and would potentially be at risk from a fish farm development of this size. They also note that while the applicant is of the opinion that the frequency and probability of wild salmonids being in the vicinity of the site will be confined to migration periods, that sea trout feeding in Broadbay has not been mentioned in the ES assessment.

14.11 Marine Scotland Science has stated that a build up of sea lice copepodids in the area could damage both salmon and sea trout smolts at times of coastal migration. Sea trout spend their marine going life stages feeding inshore and Broadbay is such a feeding area. Heavy lice infestations can compromise the growth and survival of these fish.

14.12 Marine Scotland Science has also stated “The hydrographic reports indicate the area around the site to be subject to currents of moderate flow but there is no indication of how these currents relate to the flow in the bay as a whole. It appears that the range of effect of lice is at least 14km from farm source. This range will depend on both movements of lice and trout, which are not well understood. There is no published evidence of an effect of lice on trout at a population level; however, such an effect would be expected in view of the high infestation intensities observed near farms in the second years of salmon production cycles.”

14.13 The risk of sea lice infestation and therefore significance of effect is likely to be greater for sea trout which are acknowledged as present and feeding in this area.

14.14 The view of Marine Scotland Science is supported by SNH who has also raised concerns over the lack of information on sea trout in the Environmental Statement. SNH note that while Atlantic Salmon migrate to sea, sea trout spend much of their adult lives in coastal areas.

14.15 In terms of sea lice mitigation the applicant states that they intend to adhere to the industry’s Code of Good Practice for lice treatment, management strategies and protocols. However Marine Scotland Science advise that adherence to the industry Code of Good Practice may not on sites with large bio-mass necessarily prevent the release of substantial number of lice into the environment and posing a risk to wild fish. SEPA has granted a licence for the use of a range of medicines. It is concluded that the Environmental Statement fails to carry out an assessment of the predicted sea lice dispersal from the site, bearing in mind that in spring the weather patterns are often dominated by long periods of north easterly winds which could potentially distribute the larval lice all over the bay thus affecting the whole of Broadbay and the fisheries it supports.

14.16 The ES acknowledges that that the area has freshwater inflows that carry populations of juvenile salmon and sea trout and that these populations would potentially be at risk but it does not identify the location of these fresh water inflows. The baseline environmental conditions, the detail of receptor migration pattern and cycle, assessment of impact, mitigation measures and magnitude of impact are considered deficient and require to be re- evaluated in order to demonstrate that this potentially significant environmental risk have been properly assessed and mitigated.

14.17 Escape prevention is the second strand of mitigation and relates to the mitigation of risk of containment failure and subsequent impact on the genetic integrity of salmon populations if the spawning population was infiltrated by escaped farmed fish that have matured and been attracted to local rivers to spawn.

14.18 Containment failure could arise from either net damage (by either predators or net snagging/chaffing on the seabed) or mooring failure.

14.19 The proposed site is in a very exposed position and there has been significant concern expressed by SNH, Marine Scotland Science and the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board as statutory consultees and by the public over the risk of storm damage and in turn the possibility of escapes with impact on wild fish populations.

14.20 The Atlantic Salmon is an EU Annex II species in fresh water only. An adverse impact on the species could arise if there was a containment failure, which resulted in farmed fish travelling upstream, inter-breeding and potentially weakening the gene pool of the fish in the fresh water environment.

14.21 In response to concerns the applicants submitted an assessment of the wave climate at the site and an analysis of a mooring system, both technical documents. However, these failed to satisfy the concerns of many submitting representations and to aid it in its deliberations the Comhairle’s Planning Service obtained an independent high level desk-top review of the wave climate assessment and technical analysis of the moorings from consulting engineers. The independent review concluded that the methodology and conclusions of the wave climate report are acceptable and potentially conservative. However in terms of the moorings the review while limited by information availability considered the mooring loads to be potentially low (under specified). The review states that further detailed information would be required in order to verify or otherwise the design and specification of the moorings. A failure of moorings would have consequences for large scale fish escape and as SNH highlight, “Should equipment failure lead to a high volume of escapes, there appears to be little that can be done in terms of containment given the open nature of Broadbay”.

14.22 The breaching of nets by either the nets bottoming out or snagging was also considered in the independent review and while it was acknowledged as a risk, were extreme wave and climatic factors to coincide, the risk was deemed low and capable of being risked out by the provision of a slightly more detailed bathymetric survey and/or identification of the seabed conditions (unlikely to present a risk if the sea-bed were sandy at the shallower points as opposed to rocky).

14.23 The other aspect to net breach is the risk of damage by predators in this case seals. SNH proposed that a condition be imposed preventing the use of ADD’s during the summer months, thereby reducing one of the deterrents from seal attack. The ES does not reflect this change to predator interaction management and requires to be updated to reflect this position.

14.24 The ES claims that the impacts on wild fish are fully reversible and that cessation of farming activities would result in the removal of impact. It therefore assesses the potential magnitude of impact a low, a view disputed by SNH: “… in our view much depends on the scale of impact. If a fish population is lost, then it cannot be recoverable. The key is therefore to ensure that all impacts are minimised and to do this the ES should also properly recognise that sea trout may be impacted (as well as Atlantic salmon), which the ES fails to do”. 14.25 The summary of the Assessment of Significant Effect on this issue is stated in the ES as ‘Minor impact’ but given the deficiencies highlighted above it is considered that the Environmental Statement fails to provide a robust, independent and accurate assessment of the potential impacts on the wild trout populations in Broadbay from sea-lice dispersal or on salmon and trout populations arising from containment failure (arising from either mooring failure or interaction with predator species). These concerns have been reflected in the consultation responses from SNH and Marine Scotland Science and there is an outstanding clear statement of objection from the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board, a statutory Consultee.

14.26 The deficiencies of the ES on this aspect alone justify the refusal of this application.

LANDSCAPE 14.27 On the issue of landscape the ES was required to assess both the landscape and visual impact of the proposal. The baseline was to be considered in the context of the current Crown Estate lease with the receptors identified as Back, Gress, Point and Glen Tolsta. However although SNH initially considered that the proposal has “potentially significant landscape impacts” SNH, on review of the ES accepted that despite the limitations of the ES and because there are no landscape designations it is not considered that the development would result in a landscape or visual impact of significance.

BENTHIC IMPACT 14.28 The benthic impact is identified in the ES as being localised to that below and around the cage group in common with all other fish farms. Annex 9 of the ES addresses the impacts on the water column and is considered that these fall within environmental limits.

INTERACTION WITH PREDATORS 14.29 In terms of interactions with predators the ES identified a large population of common seals that frequently haul out within 3km of the site. The receptors were identified as common and grey seals, and other wildlife species such as otter. The ES does not provide adequate baseline information; fails to address the restrictions on mitigation measures arising from SNH requiring that any planning permission be subject to a condition excluding the use of ADDs over the summer months. The mitigation options in the ES are therefore reduced and it therefore requires that the consequential impacts of interaction of predators arising from ADD’s not being available for use in the summer months be re-evaluated. In the absence of such a condition, an EPS license from Scottish Government would be required and the assessment of the planning application would require to take into consideration the planning implications of obtaining a license or not.

14.30 Further, the ES does not address the implications of the recent designation of the Western Isles as a Seal Conservation Area. The designation of the Western Isles as a ‘Seal Conservation Area’ means that licences to kill seals will be strictly controlled with a limited number of seals allowed to be killed in the Western Isles each year.

14.31 The EIA Regulations require that the ES contains “An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects”. While the ES does contain a brief statement as to the alternatives considered (sites at Tolsta Head and another site south of Ness), it does not contain an options appraisal of the comparative environmental effects and thus fails to defend the choice of site as the best option on the basis of environmental considerations.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 14.32 Other planning considerations including socio-economic issues, waste management, noise and light nuisance, operational issues, navigation, traffic and transport and planning policy were raised by those making representations. Furthermore, the applicants themselves in their Environmental Statement have acknowledged that when the lease for the site was renewed in 2006 by the Crown Estate, it was considered so exposed that equipment available at that time was unlikely to withstand the extreme conditions and so the site was not developed. Despite the wave climate assessment and analysis of moorings system, the applicants have indicated that they are willing to put the empty cages on site over a winter to assess climatic conditions. While this gesture is welcomed, it does highlight that even the applicants have some degree of reservation over the exposure of the site. 14.33 While these are material considerations in the determination of a planning application, the main issue to be considered in this case is that the development is EIA development and as such it is not competent for the planning authority to approve the application until environmental impact assessment has been satisfactorily carried out. CONCLUSION 14.34 In summary, this is an EIA development and it is considered that there are clear deficiencies in the Environmental Statement that would require to be addressed in order to demonstrate that environmental risks had been assessed and mitigated. 14.35 These deficiencies are the lack of a robust, independent and accurate assessment of the potential impacts on the wild trout populations in Broadbay from sea-lice dispersal and on salmon and trout populations arising from containment failure. The risks of containment failure arise from the potential of mooring failure or adverse interaction with predator species. The ES also fails to provide an adequate appraisal of the main alternative sites studied and fails to defend the choice of site on the basis of environmental considerations. Furthermore there is an outstanding clear statement of objection from the Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board, a statutory consultee. Their concerns have also been reflected in the responses from SNH and Marine Scotland Science. 14.36 While the sustainable development of aquaculture is supported in the Western Isles and the proposals broadly accord with the provisions of the Development Plan, it is considered that the deficiencies in the Environmental Statement justify the refusal of the current application. For this reason it is considered that the application should be REFUSED. Such refusal would not prejudice the consideration of a future application provided the environmental risks were adequately addressed

APPENDIX 1

SCHEDULE OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar has refused the application for the following reasons:

Reason 1 The Environmental Statement is considered to be deficient of a robust, independent and accurate assessment of the potential impacts on the wild trout populations in Broadbay from sea-lice dispersal and on salmon and trout populations arising from containment failure (mooring failure or interaction with predator species).

Reason 2 It is considered that the moorings analysis in the Environmental Statement is not sufficient to allow the design and specification of the mooring system to be verified, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason 3 The Environmental Statement fails to provide an adequate appraisal of the main alternative sites studied and therefore to defend the choice of site on an environmental basis. APPENDIX 2