Bruce Sandison on Fish Farming

Sadly, we recently lost Bruce Sandison, who for many years was undoubtedly the leading defender of Scotland's wild fish and a gifted writer. In 2011 he gave me permission to publish as a guest post on another site the following article, which had appeared recently in the press.

Farming salmon seemed like a good idea at the time, back in 1965; the perfect adjunct and enhancement to subsistence crofting in remote rural areas of the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland. It was believed that the industry would provide much-needed employment by attracting young families to the area who would then sustain and expand every aspect of community life; new faces and new ideas, a bustling economy and busy shops, more children at local schools, a golden age of growth and prosperity.

Other people were less sanguine and predicted that the end result would most likely be tears and acrimony, pollution on an unprecedented scale and environmental disaster. They claimed that insufficient research had been carried out into the environmental consequences of salmon farming and that to proceed without a sound scientific base upon which to build would be irresponsible

Fifty years down the line the doubters seem to have been right: conflict and acrimony currently surrounds the industry. Many communities in the West Highlands and Islands are mounting furious battles to try to keep the fish farmers out of their back yards; thousands of people sign petitions opposing the expansion of salmon farming into new areas; conservation groups are considering legal action, accusing fish farms of driving distinct populations of wild salmon and sea-trout to the verge of extinction. They allege that the sea lice that breed in their billions in the farmers fish-packed cages attack not only farm salmon, but also wild fish that pass by farm cages.

These allegations have been vigorously denied by the industry who say that there is not enough evidence to suggest that sea lice were responsible for any declines in wild fish stocks. None of these claims and counter-claims is new: for more than twenty years the industry and those concerned about the adverse impact they say salmon farming is having on the marine and freshwater environment have been fighting over this same ground. All of the many attempts at finding common purpose through consultation have failed: meetings, joint committees, discussion papers, aquaculture framework strategies, codes of conduct, et al.

Salmon farming is judged to be one of Scotland's most successful industries and is estimated to be worth upwards of £450 million pounds to the Scottish economy. The industry also supports 6,500 jobs, many of which are in remote rural areas where other employment opportunities are limited. Scottish farmed salmon is one Scotland's biggest export earners, second only to whisky in value, and yet, in spite of this, the Scottish fisheries minister, Stewart Stevenson has now suggested that new legislation planned for later this year might see farms banned from areas that are important for wild fish stocks. The minister also revealed that he is considering forcing fish farmers to publish information about sea lice levels on specific farms; a measure that is already in place in Norway to protect their iconic stocks of wild salmon and sea-trout.

Like many observers of the irresistible rise and rise of salmon farming, I am puzzled by this apparent sea-change in the minister's attitude towards an industry that heretofore has appeared to be beyond reproach; an industry that has benefited mightily from continuous support by governments regardless of their political persuasion. Since the 1980's, when doubts about the environmental impact of salmon farms began to be voiced, many alleged government shielded the industry from any form of meaningful public scrutiny and repeatedly resisted all calls for an independent public inquiry into these murky waters.

At the heart of this dispute are matters of vital importance, now, and to future generations: on the one hand, is a perceived risk to the health and integrity of an irreplaceable part of Scotland's natural heritage, on the other, the economic wealth that the fish farmers say they bring to the nation. With both parties entrenched in intractable positions, finding a solution is not going to be easy. But there has to be a solution and a new initiative by government has been launched in an attempt to bring the warring parties together. An influential Scottish parliament committee appears to be promoting this initiative, led by its Convener, MSP Rob Gibson. The committee is determined to get to the bottom of the bitter argument raging between anglers and the fish farmers and propose to invite interested parties to round-table discussion to address their concerns.

The beauty of the wild lands of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland draw thousands of visitor each year to enjoy the majesty of their mountains, moorlands and myriad lochs and rivers. Visiting yachts anchor in sheltered bays, their crews coming ashore in the evening to local restaurants and hostelries to relish wonderful seafood; scallops, mussels, lobsters crab and prawns, freshly delivered each day. Children splash in crystal-clear shallows and play on white-sand, near-deserted beaches. Local communities rely on income by providing visitors with bed and breakfast accommodation in their homes, self-catering cottages and caravan sites and other services. Guesthouses and hotels also provide accommodation and extensive employment opportunities.

Rod and line sport anglers prized the salmon, sea-trout and brown trout that thrived in pristine, unpolluted waters. But now many lochs and rivers that once supported remarkable numbers of fish are virtually devoid of these species because, it is alleged, of the impact of fish farm sea lice. The Loch Maree Hotel in Wester Ross, where some 2,000 sea-trout could be could caught be each season and which employed eleven gillies to guide anglers to the best fishing spots has closed its doors. Other West Highland and Islands fisheries that enjoyed a world-wide reputation for the quality of sport have suffered a similar fate; such as Stack, More, Shiel and Eilt, and the rivers Dionard, Laxford, Inver, Kirkaig and Ailort.

The late Mrs Pauline Cameron-Head of Inverailort House is credited with bringing the benefits of salmon farming to Scotland. In 1965 she agreed to lease her land for use as a shore-base from which to service a fish farm in Loch Ailort; a sea loch on the famous 'Road the Isles' close to where Bonnie Prince Charlie landed in 1745 to try to reclaim his father's lost kingship of the British Isles. The fish farm company involved in the deal was Marine Harvest, then a wholly-owned subsidiary of the multi-national Unilever organisation, now Norwegian-owned and the largest producer of farm salmon in the world. The company operate a fish farm in Loch Ailort to this day.

Loch Eilt and the River Ailort, which drain into Loch Ailort used to be counted as amongst the most prolific sea-trout systems in Europe that could produce 1,500 sea-trout each season. Now, the numbers of sea-trout caught may be counted on the fingers of one hand, with some fingers to spare. A picture, taken in1941 of Lochan Dubh, an extension of the river, shows just how many sea-trout used to run the system. It was sent to me by Iain Thornber - historian, archaeologist and author from Morvern. He explained that explosives were used to kill the fish in the picture; a criminal offence, hence the soldier with the fishing rod strategically placed to try to suggest that the fish had been caught legally. All of the fish were sea-trout and used to feed Special Operations Executive commandos stationed at nearby Inverailort Castle. Iain remembers Pauline Cameron-Head telling him that the number of sea-trout in the system was so great that the noise they made splashing to upstream spawning grounds could be heard from the castle.

The assumption that fish farming would be initiated and carried out by crofters never materialised; capital costs were high, disease episodes and consequent loss of stock frequent and the expertise required to successfully rear fish to slaughter-weight was woefully absent. This knowledge gap was filled by fishery scientists from government agencies, the Fisheries Research Services, now renamed as Marine Scotland, and by scientists from a number of Universities, including Aberdeen, St Andrews and the Department of Aquaculture at Stirling University. Funding grants to further research programmes into fish farming came from the European Union, UK government and industry bodies.

Within a short time the industry began to consolidate into fewer and fewer farms owned and run by fewer and fewer multi-national companies, the majority of which were Norwegian. In the 1980's when 20,000 tonnes of farmed salmon were being produced annually the industry directly employed in excess of 2,000 people on their farms, fulfilling the claim that they were creating jobs. However, by the mid-1990's when production peaked at nearly 150,000 tonnes, employment figures, because of advances in technology - particularly automatic feeding systems - the number of jobs had fallen to below 1,000. Indirect employment, however, soared, reaching an alleged 7,000 people; but almost 50% of these jobs were taken by immigrants for Europe, the Middle East and Iberia and some 25% of those were illegal entrants to UK.

The industry claims that it is one of the most highly regulated businesses in the world and open to constant scrutiny and control. This is substantially true, but those worried by the fish farmer's actions suggest that such scrutiny is poorly implemented and ineffective; one anomaly being that for most of its existence the Crown Estate had the sole right to issue sea-bed licences to operate fish farms and to issue planning permissions. The Crown Estate benefits to the tune of approximately £2 million a year from fish farming and this suggested a clear conflict of interest. After more than seven years of government promises, the planning role was given to local authorities. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) also has to give their approval for operating cages in the sea and generally did. For instance, during the period 2008 to 2011 SEPA received more than two hundred applications, all but fifteen of which were approved.

The problems for wild salmon and sea-trout from fish farms are, however, vividly illustrated by comparing wild fish numbers in East coast rivers such as Spey, Dee, Tay and Tweed with those in the West Highlands and Islands: whilst there has been a total collapse of wild stocks in many of the later, with few signs of recovery, stocks in the former are currently producing record numbers of fish returning to spawn. There are no fish farms in East coast waters because, when fish farming began, it was decided to adopt a precautionary principal to protect these major rivers, and give the industry free reign to operate amongst the smaller rivers in the West. In substance, this is the core of the present dispute: wild fish that have survived in these waters since the end of the last Ice Age are being sacrificed for the financial benefit of a few, against the express wishes of the many.

There is a way out of this impasse that would, I believe, be of benefit to both sides of the argument: move the industry into closed containment systems by building a solid barrier between the fish in the container, and the sea water in which the container floats. There would be immense financial savings for the industry, including freedom from sea lice attack and other sea-born diseases, reduced expenditure on chemicals and medicines, fewer escapes from these new farms and a more secure work-platform for staff. Water from the containers could be cleaned and recycled back into the sea. Even better, and more secure, is to operate these containers from land-based, onshore sites.

For anglers, wild salmon and sea-trout would have unhindered and safe access to their natal spawning grounds to get on with what they do best, the propagation of their species.  Such systems, tried and tested, already exist and are being introduced in Canada. The Norwegians themselves are also showing great interest. It makes sense; at least it does to me and it offers a realistic opportunity to bring this sad, sorry, costly and unseemly conflict to an end.

This photograph shows Major Donald Gilchrist greeting Mrs Pauline Cameron-Head, who wears the green beret, a privilege extended to her by the Commandos in recognition of either her ability to keep them under control off-duty or her skills at blowing up fish for their dinner with dynamite, I'm not sure which. I also don't know which would have been the more dangerous.

The Joys of Thermolicing

The weird and wonderful monstrous machine above is a Thermolicer, the incredible secret bullet that the fish farming industry has bought to deal with the menace from sea lice. Judging by recent reports there are some problems with it:

Salmon Farm Reveals Impact of Sea Lice

Here are some (Soon to be) 

Frequently asked Questions

The industry may have bought the machine, but who paid for it? 

Perhaps we did!

Here is part of a news release from last October:

The drive to reduce sea lice and increase harvests of Scottish salmon has received a £1.76m boost, following a successful application to the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

Coordinated by the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre (SAIC) on behalf of 11 companies, the award will enable a range of alternative technologies and approaches to be trialled in Scottish waters so that they can be evaluated for their ability to reduce sea lice – a naturally occurring parasite that affects farmed fish, costing the global industry over $1bn each year.

Says SAIC CEO Heather Jones: “The technologies being explored are capital intensive and their outcomes in Scottish waters are as yet unknown, therefore the financial and operational risks to industry are significant. By reducing those risks, this EMFF award will help catalyse trials on a commercial scale as opposed to an ad hoc or local basis.”

It’s not just the companies involved in the supported projects that stand to benefit. As part of the EMFF award, SAIC will commission a research project to capture the lessons learned, and share best practice with the wider sector and supply chain. There is also the potential to develop next generation technology for sale at home and abroad.

Amongst the alternative solutions being trialled is hydrolicer technology which uses low pressure water jets to dislodge sea lice; an innovative ‘bundle’ of technologies that brings best practice approaches into a single system; and a Thermolicer device which capitalises on the parasite’s low tolerance to sudden changes in temperature by briefly bathing fish in warmer water.

Comments Jim Gallagher, Managing Director of Scottish Sea Farms and one of the partners involved in the Thermolicer trials: “Everyone is clear on the real and urgent need to reduce sea lice. However significant capital investment is required to trial new solutions. The EMFF award is contributing additional resources to those invested by industry, enabling Scottish trials on a commercial scale. The new equipment will be accessible by many companies in Scotland’s salmon sector, supporting the industry’s common purpose in accelerating the widespread adoption of effective sea lice controls.”

So, how does the Thermolicer work?

According to the manufacturers Steinsvik

"The Thermolicer is a machine for commercial scale dip or bath treatment of fish. A sudden rise in water temperature is a well-known method of killing lice. We have developed a machine that does this on a commercial scale.

The fish are crowded and pumped into the machine where it passes through the processing loop in 25–30 seconds. Treatment water holds 30–34 degrees depending on ambient sea temperature. The treatment water is filtered, aerated, oxygenated and reused in the system. This simple and environmentally friendly treatment has an effect that goes beyond the expected in traditional treatment agents like chemicals and medicines."

If it's so terribly good, why did it kill the fish?

You will see from the BBC report reference to the fish suffering from Amoebic Gill Disease. The Thermolicer is of course not a treatment for AGD, so it seems likely that the fish had the disease and were also infested with sea lice. This is fairly common, because AGD, a sort of fish breathing disease weakens its victims and makes them more likely to be compromised by sea lice. Correspondingly, sea lice infested fish are bound to be weaker and more susceptible to disease.

34 degrees is the temperature at which sealice die, but it seems to have been simply too hot for its patients.

What is the maximum temperature which a salmon can endure?

Like most “cold-blooded” animals, salmon have little ability to regulate their internal temperature, so their body temperature is usually very close to that of the surrounding environment.

Research a few years ago Steinhousen et al and Eliason et al showed that salmon acclimatised to European water temperatures of a maximum of about 12 degrees began to show cardiac issues at temperatures above 21 degrees. Ambient water temperature in Scotland is rarely much above 8 degrees, so one can only guess the impact of a sudden increase to four times that. It seems likely that even healthy fish would be at risk of being compromised.

Does anybody care about whether or not the salmon suffer, being heated to four times what they're used to?

Seemingly not!

Passing the Buck (Yet again)

Free feeding for the caged salmon!

This week has seen a further encroachment by industrial fish farming in an area entitled to special protection in terms of Argyll & Bute Council's published planning guidelines, with the Council's planning department approving the relocation of the fish farm at Port na Cro into the middle of Shuna Sound. As usual the application did not go before a planning committee and was signed off by officials under their delegated powers.

At the end of this post we have reproduced the Council's "Report of Handling" in its entirety, because the guiding principle of saveseilsound from our inception in 2011 has been total accuracy at all times.  We are sorry that this makes for heavy reading at times, but it is the only way we will retain the respect that we have been earning from a growing contingent of politicians and journalists, as well of course local residents, environmentalists and those concerned with the adverse impacts of this industry on other, often fragile, businesses that form the local micro economy in this part of mid-Argyll.

The Report speaks of "3 or 4 jobs" and later refers to them as FTE (Full Time Equivalent). This seems excessive for what they describe as a "relatively small" site with automatic feeding systems. Of course servicing is from outwith the area, so none of these jobs is on Seil, Shuna or Luing.

And it's a sad commentary that "relatively small" refers to a capacity of 1000 tonnes, equal to a resident population of a quarter of a million mature salmon!

"relatively small" refers to a capacity of 1000 tonnes, ... a quarter of a million mature salmon!"

Port na Cro is the small bay located at the top end of Shuna Sound on the North West corner of the Isle of Shuna. For many years there has been a fish farm here, with a huge concrete feeding barge powered by diesel generators running night and day, the constant, low density, throbbing noise annoying the residents of Toberonochy and the South end of Seil less than two kilometres away. 

In the Report you will see reference to the mysterious "APQ SG LDP ENV 13". Let us explain what this refers to:

SG LDP ENV 13 ‐ Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs)

The aim of this policy is to provide panoramically important landscapes in Argyll and Bute, with adequate protection against damaging development that would diminish their very high scenic value. The Council has identified Areas of Panoramic Quality and these are shown on the main Proposals Maps. These APQs are important not only for their physical landforms and scenic value, but also for the environmental assets that they represent. These qualities could easily be destroyed or damaged by even a relatively small, insensitive development. They therefore must be protected.

The Report helpfully explains that the actual site is not actually listed, perhaps because it is the surface of the sea. Only the land immediately adjoining is! Accordingly allowing an industrial development here does not breach planning policy.

Turning to the meat of the Report we can see that, as is usual, the buck is passed very neatly among various government departments and other organisations without ever coming to a stop.

In 1998, when there was a government consultation on transferring regulation of fish farming from the Crown Estate to the local authorities, some of us responded by suggesting that a special planning unit should be established to advise those authorities with fish farms on all aspects, in order that there  could be economy of effort and a holistic approach. This could have been centrally funded and staffed by suitable specialist scientific advisers. After all, industrial fish farms are exempt from paying  local rates, so councils re effectively putting in a lot of effort for no ongoing return. Needless to say, this was not adopted.

"industrial fish farms are exempt from paying  local rates"

As a result Argyll & Bute Council are able to limit their focus to planning matters. Scottish Natural Heritage "look after" heritage and scenic interests, Marine Scotland Science do the science and SEPA do the dirty work of deciding how much pollution is to be allowed. These bodies are very close to government, in fact MSS are main stream civil servants.

Accordingly there is a heavy onus on these bodies to protect our environment. How have they performed in this case? Our comments are in bold.

Marine Scotland Science

"No record of sea lice issues at this site, although some recent history of elevated sea lice levels in the wider FMA."

What? Last year the industry collectively poured over one million litres of hydrogen peroxide into Shuna Sound, specifically to kill sea lice. The sound was the subject of the SARF PAMP 2 report, accessible here:

Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum

Scottish Environment Protection Agency

"Subject to modelling being approved no issues foreseen in consenting this."

Once again the computer will know best. SEPA have confirmed to us that there has never been a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment, as required in terms of the Directive. Individual computer modelling on a site by site basis is all that is required.

Scottish Natural Heritage

"having been supplied by the applicant with an ADD Deployment Strategy that in SNH’s view the proposal will be unlikely to have a significant effect, either directly or indirectly, on SAC qualifying interests. Confirmation provided that a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ will not be required in this case, and confirmation of maintenance of this advice despite the contributions of a third party objectors."

ADDs are "screechers" that lost off random or sometimes regular loud noises intended to scare off seals. unfortunately they also have the effect of deafening any nearby porpoises, dolphins or whales.

Argyll & District Salmon Fishery Board

"No objection ...in the absence of any assessment of wild fish impacts …"

Except for the immature local wild fish, that will be attracted through the mesh into the cages to be gobbled up by the salmon trapped inside. See the image at the top of this post!

Council’s Marine and Coastal Manager

"no objections in terms of water column impacts, interaction with predators and wild salmonids, or conflict with navigation/fisheries."

Really?

Northern Lighthouse Board

"no objection'

Understandable, as they don't concern themselves with the welfare of kayakers and small boat people.

Royal Yachting Association

"no comments to make"

This reflects badly on the RYA, who have been trying to encourage subscriptions from small boat enthusiasts.

There were no responses from West Highland Anchorages and Moorings Association, Clyde Fishermen’s Association or South West Inshore Fisheries Group.

There follows the Report of Handling

Report of Handling

Argyll & Bute Council

Development Services

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

Reference No: Planning Hierarchy: Applicant: Proposal:

Site Address: DECISION ROUTE

16/03407/MFF Local Development

Marine Harvest (Scotland) Limited

Re-equipment of marine fish farm from 8 no. 24 x 24m square pens to 4 No. 120m circumference cages, relocation of feed barge and enlarged mooring area.

Port Na Cro Fish Farm, Shuna Sound

Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

Installation of 4 No. 120m circumference cages and associated moorings;

• Relocation of feed barge;
• Increase in extent of seabed mooring area. Other specified operations

Removal of 8 No. 24 x 24m square pens and associated moorings.

• (B)  RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons listed in the report.

• (C)  CONSULTATIONS:

Marine Scotland Science (31.01.17) – no objections relative to Locational Guidelines, maintenance of current biomass, disease management, husbandry or stocking density. No record of sea lice issues at this site, although some recent history of elevated sea lice levels in the wider FMA. The current FMS/FMAg should be submitted to MSS to demonstrate the intended sea lice management strategy for the site along with chemical modelling to satisfy SEPA under CAR.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (30.01.17 and 23.03.17) – initial holding objection on the grounds of unrepresentative hydrographic information. Application for CAR licence variation received by SEPA. Subject to modelling being approved no issues foreseen in consenting this. Subsequent response removing holding objection following receipt by them of the requested data.

Scottish Natural Heritage (09.02.17, 08.03.17 and 16.03.07) – initial holding objection regarding lack of information about intended use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices, sufficient to enable the provision of advice regarding likely impacts on the Inner Hebrides and Minches candidate SAC (Harbour porpoise). Further response, having been supplied by the applicant with an ADD Deployment Strategy that in SNH’s view the proposal will be unlikely to have a significant effect, either directly or indirectly, on SAC qualifying interests. Confirmation provided that a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ will not be required in this case, and confirmation of maintenance of this advice despite the contributions of a third party objectors.

Argyll & District Salmon Fishery Board (26.01.17) – No objection subject to recommended condition to limit the re- equipped site to the current consented biomass, in the absence of any assessment of wild fish impacts which might arise from any such increase.

Council’s Marine and Coastal Manager (25th January 2017) – no objections in terms of water column impacts, interaction with predators and wild salmonids, or conflict with navigation/fisheries. In terms of landscape and visual impacts surface area is to reduce but the length of the cage group will more than double. Relocation of the feed barge from north to south will be advantageous visually. The type of top nets proposed should be conditioned to ensure that they are not unnecessarily intrusive.

Northern Lighthouse Board (16.01.17) – no objection but advice given as to navigation marking and lighting requirements.

Royal Yachting Association (03.02.17) – no comments to make.

West Highland Anchorages and Moorings Association - no response.

Clyde Fishermen’s Association – no response South West Inshore Fisheries Group – no response

(D)  HISTORY:

96/01050/MFF – modification to fish farm, no objection to CE lease consent 23.09.1996.

FF/ABC/037 – Scottish Government Audit and Review – consent granted by means of Review for 8 No. 24m square cages.

• (E)  PUBLICITY:

The proposal has been advertised in the local newspaper with the publicity periods having expired on 09.02.2017

• (F)  REPRESENTATIONS:

Five objections have been received from Mr E Kennedy, (address not given but expressed to be a local resident and secretary of the saveseilsound campaign group) (12.02.17 and 13.02.17), Mr D and Mrs J Ainsley, Dunaverty, Easdale (14.03.17), Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Chippenham, Wiltshire (24.03.17) and Scottish Environment Link, Grosvenor House, Perth (24.03.17) The summarised grounds are:

a) Unacceptable use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices, to the detriment of the welfare of marine mammals.

Comment: ADD’s are employed at fish farm sites to deter persistent predators which pose a threat to the containment of farmed fish. The deployment of ADD’s has been considered by SNH both in terms of the type of equipment to be used and the circumstances in which it will be operated. This is because unrestricted use of ADD’s could prove to be a deterrent to the passage of marine mammals along the Sound. Further to information provided by the applicants to SNH about the particular type of ADD to be employed, no objections are raised by SNH in this regard. SNH has had sight of third party representations on this matter which have not led them to alter their adopted position. It should be borne in mind that ADD’s have been used at this site in the past and that there is no restriction upon their use in connection worth the existing equipment

b) The use of ADD’s will disturb porpoise within a candidate SAC which has been designated for that species. The applicants also plan to shoot seals. Both could be avoided by the use of tensioned double nets for predator exclusion purposes. Consenting of a project disturbing a protected species will be in breach of the Habitats Directive. The view expressed by SNH in the matter is disputed. Planning permission for a fish farm elsewhere in Shuna Sound 14/00676/MFF has set a precedent by conditioning out any use of ADD’s. Deterrence of porpoises would be both harmful to the species and to the tourism economy. Any consent should preclude the use of ADD’s and the shooting of seals.

Comment: SNH are the statutory consultee charged with the responsibility of advising the Planning Authority in respect of the acceptability of developments in terms of their effect on nature conservation interests including protected species and the qualifying interests of designated areas. They are also the promoters of the candidate SAC in question. They have had sight of the representation regarding the intended use of ADD’s but nonetheless maintain their original advice. They are satisfied that the low intensity model of ADD proposed for use in this case will not prejudice porpoise or other species and that, in the absence of significant effects, maintain their advice that a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ will not be required in this case. A condition regarding the deployment of ADD’s is attached to this permission. In terms of seal shooting this is a matter licensed by the Scottish Government and is not a material planning consideration.

c) Benthic deposition and pollution from the farm will adversely affect crustaceans and benthic invertebrates supporting common skate.

Comment: No objection has been raised to this proposal by either SEPA or SNH who are responsible for pollution control and the safeguarding of nature conservation interests respectively. The issue raised about the implications of the development for the conservation objectives of the Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura Marine Protected Area have been discussed with SNH, who consider that significant effects upon the conservation objectives of this designation would be unlikely given the scale of the farm footprint compared to the much larger scale of the MPA.

d) Unacceptable use of underwater lighting, which will attract salmonids into the cages where they will be predated by farmed fish.

Comment: Underwater maturation lighting is routinely used at fin fish farms in Scotland. There are no circumstances which are particular to the site in question which would indicate that there are site-specific reasons why it should not be employed in this case. The issue raised would apply equally to all sites across the industry so raises a matter of principle rather than something which is material to the acceptability of the equipment proposed for this site.

e) The contribution of fish farming to the rural economy is outweighed by impacts upon tourism and leisure producing a net deficit in local employment.

Comment: Again this is matter directed to the acceptability of the fish farming sector as a whole rather than the circumstances of the case in hand. Direct and indirect economic effects are material considerations which weigh in favour of the proposal in the planning balance, but they would not offset environmental shortcomings identified as being of such significant adverse effect as to warrant refusal of any application.

f) Fish farming affects the setting of historic environment assets which is detrimental culturally and economically.

Comment: The presence of fish farms in marine waters necessarily poses threats to landscape, historic environment and nature conservation interests, which in turn could have some affect upon the enjoyment of the area as a whole by recreational and tourist interests. Where a proposal would have significant adverse effects on a designated marine cultural site or the setting of a scheduled monument careful consideration would be required as to the extent of those effects and whether they would point to the need to withhold consent. In this case there are no historic environment assets which would be significantly prejudiced by the re-equipment of this site.

g) The reconfiguration of the site will be to the detriment of other marine users, particularly kayakers.

Comment: Fish farms can deter kayakers who wish to avoid navigation close to equipment and it can pose problems for the less experienced when it is sited such that it deflects kayakers away from sheltered water along the shore and into more open or exposed water. In this case although the surface equipment is extending it is doing so lengthways and parallel to the shore and will not impose a serious constraint on navigation in what is already a relatively sheltered stretch of water. Navigation interests will be addressed separately by means of Marine Licensing.

h) Copy representation to SEPA re CAR licence application for another site at Pol na Gile has been supplied, which contests the status of the water as being ‘uncategorised’ in terms of MS Locational Guidelines and which contends that Seil/Shuna/Melfort should be regarded in the same manner as a sea loch.

Comment: Matters concerning pollution control and the definition of the content of Locational Guidelines are for SEPA and Marine Scotland respectively and are not material planning considerations.

i) A comprehensive EIA of this area is warranted as it would capture the combined effects of fish farms and the many other terrestrial and marine sources of pollution.

Comment: Again, pollution control is the subject of a separate statutory regulatory regime discharged by SEPA and is not a material planning consideration. To what extent the cumulative impacts of multiple sites should be taken into account by SEPA in the assessment of the pollution consequences of the proposal is a matter for them to determine. The proposal has been screened by the Council as Planning Authority and it has been determined that EIA is not required in this case.

j) The use of large volumes of hydrogen peroxide poses a significant threat to the marine environment.

Comment: Hydrogen peroxide is routinely administered at fish farms as topical anti- parasitic bath treatment. Its use at this site is licenced by SEPA under CAR and there is no limit defined in the current Permitted Substances Working Plan, and it is therefore approved for use under manufacturer’s instructions. Its use is not a matter regulated by the Planning Authority and is not a material consideration in this case.

k) Seal shooting is objected to on welfare grounds and should not be permitted at all in favour of the use of passive controls.

Comment. The shooting of seals at fish farms is licensed by the Scottish Government and is not a material planning consideration. Although farm operators may hold shooting licences, the shooting of seals is a last resort after other non-lethal methods have proven to be ineffective. SG published records show that 5 common and 3 grey seals were shot on the west coast of Scotland as a whole in 2016 which gives an indication of the relative scale of this issue.

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i)  Environmental Statement: No. Screening request accompanied the application and screening opinion appended to this report.

(ii)  An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No, SNH advice received which considers that a Habitats Regulations appropriate assessment will not be required in this case.

(iii)  A designor design /access statement: No

(iv)  A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport; Yes: Supporting Statement

AUTODEPOMOD Report

Containment and Contingency Escapes Plan Equipment attestations

ADD Deployment Strategy

Underwater lighting details

Viewpoint analysis

impact , noise impact , flood risk, drainage impact etc:

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

Is a Section 75 agreement required:

No

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

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

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

Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (2015)

LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development

LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones

LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment

LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy

LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design

Supplementary Guidance (2016)

SG LDP AQUA 1 – Aquaculture Development

SG LDP ENV 1 – Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity SG LDP ENV 2 – Impact on European Sites

SG LDP ENV 13 Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality

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

Scotland’s National Marine Plan (2015) Scottish Planning Policy (2014)

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

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

Scottish Executive – ‘Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish

Farms in Scottish Waters’ (2003 and updated June 2009 and December 2012)

‘A Fresh Start – the Renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture’

(Scottish Government 2009)

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

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

‘Argyll & Firth Of Clyde Landscape Character Assessment’ (SNH 1996) ‘‘Argyll & Bute Local Biodiversity Action Plan’ (Argyll & Bute Council)

‘Argyll and Bute Economic Development Action Plan’ 2013 -18 (Argyll and Bute Council)

(K)  Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: Yes - Negative screening opinion appended to this report

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

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

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

(O)  Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): None

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

This application relates to a long-standing but relatively small marine fish farm on the east coast of Shuna Sound off the north-west coast of the Isle of Shuna. The site currently comprises 8 no. 24 x 24m square pens with a circular feed barge at the north end of the site. The current equipment was approved by Marine Scotland under the Audit and Review process associated with marine fish farms being brought under planning control. The site was one which was acquired by (rather than having been equipped by) the applicants and the square pens do not conform to their current practice of equipping site with more modern circular pens. The current SEPA consented maximum biomass for the site is 1,000 tonnes at a maximum stocking density of15kg/m2, with a 22.5 month production cycle and a minimum 6 week fallowing period between cycles. The site is serviced by boat from Craobh Haven and currently supports 3 to 4 jobs.

The proposal is to re-equip the site which will involve, removal of the square pens, the installation of new round cages and top nets, repositioning of the feed barge from the north to the south end of the site, and an extension of the seabed mooring area.

The eight square pens are currently formed into a four by two configuration and currently occupy a compact surface area of 55m by 106m. The proposed cages will be accommodated in a linear mooring grid of four cells measuring 65m by 260m in area, with each cell accommodating a 100m circumference (38m diameter) circular cage. Each cage will be separated from the next in the row by a spacing of 27m, and the circular C-cap feed barge will be relocated approx. 55m to the south of the southernmost cage. Overall, the surface equipment aggregate area will decrease from 0.58 to 0.46ha, although due to the linear layout proposed and the spacing between cages, the overall length of the farm will more than double, with the northernmost and southernmost cages both lying beyond the area currently occupied by the more compact grouping of square pens. The proposed mooring area will be extended from 10.6 to 13.2 hectares, primarily to the north (by 65m) and south (by 60m) beyond the limits of the existing seabed mooring area, with only a marginal increase (10m) to the west. The maximum biomass for the site will remain unaltered from that currently consented by SEPA at 1,000 tonnes.

The nearest fin fish farm site lies just over 2km to the south off the south-west coast of Shuna, and there are two further farms related the Shuna off the opposite (east) coast of the island. Beyond that the next nearest site is at Ardmaddy South in Seil Sound some 4km to the north of the application site. The site lies in waters which are unclassified in terms of Marine Scotland’s Locational Guidelines, which indicate better prospects of satisfying environmental requirements.

This site is primarily experienced from the water by those transiting Shuna Sound where close quarter views of the equipment would be attained in navigating past the farm. There are no roads or habitation close to the site on either Shuna or on Luing, although the site can be viewed from an elevated footpath on Luing at about 1km. The closest regularly frequented vantage point would be the area around Toberonochy pier approximately 1.3km to the south-west, where end-on views of the cage group with the barge in the foreground would be attainable.

The site lies within the wide scale Inner Hebrides and Minches candidate SAC (qualifying interest Harbour porpoise) and the Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura Marine Protected Area (designated for Common skate and its glaciated channels and troughs). Land adjoining the site (both Shuna and Luing) is designated as ‘sensitive countryside’ by the Council’s Local Development Plan and falls within a wider Area of Panoramic Quality in view of its scenic qualities.

The site is currently the subject of a variation to its existing CAR licence although to date this has not yet been determined by SEPA. SEPA have regulatory responsibility for pollution control including deposition related to biomass, administration of chemical treatments, medicines and so on. The acceptability of the development in terms of pollution control is a matter for SEPA under a separate regulatory regime, and therefore having regard to government advice which requires planning authorities not to seek to duplicate the responsibilities of other regulators, the effects of the development in that regard do not constitute a material planning consideration.

The following Local Development Plan provisions are applicable to this development:

Policy LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development supports the presumption in favour of sustainable economic development established by Scottish Planning policy and lends weight to aquaculture developments unless there are environmental considerations which outweigh this presumption.

Policy LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones – Land to the east of the site is designated as ‘countryside’ zone within which there are only limited prospects of terrestrial development in compliance with policy. Policy LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment – seeks to control development in a manner which protects, conserves or where possible enhances the built, human and natural environment. The coast is identified as APQ where particular care is required not to undermine scenic qualities of the landscape/seascape (SG LDP ENV 13 refers).

Policy LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy – requires regard to be had to economic benefit and the spatial needs and locational requirements of business sectors. Along with other west coast islands Luing is identified in the LDP as an Economically Fragile Area where additional support is given for proposals which contribute to sustainable economic development (SG LDP BUS 5 refers). Shuna is not so designated given its private ownership.

Policy LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design – requires that regard should be had to the setting of developments, the sensitivity of the receiving environment and the need to secure appropriate forms of scale, design and appearance.

Supplementary Guidance SG LDP AQUA 1 – Aquaculture Development stems from Policy LDP 5 which identifies aquaculture as a key economic sector in Argyll & Bute. It sets out criteria against which the locational and operational characteristics of a development require to be assessed. Proposals are to be supported if direct, indirect or cumulative significant effects are avoided, or adverse effects can be minimised or mitigated by operational measures. Of those criteria identified, the following are most relevant in this case: landscape/seascape and visual amenity, priority habitats and species, ecological status of water bodies and carrying capacity, commercial and recreational activity, and economic impact.

Beyond development plan considerations, in determining the application regard has to be had to government economic and sectoral policy which is to seek to expand the finfish sector substantially to meet internal and export demands and to help sustain direct and indirect employment in rural areas. The National Marine Plan and Scottish Planning Policy both support the expansion of marine fish farming where it can take place in environmental sustainable locations, where it does not exceed the carrying capacity of the water body within which it is to be located, and where it does not give rise to significant adverse effects upon nature conservation, wild fish, historic environment or other commercial or recreational water users.

Landscape/Seascape and Visual

The application site is not itself subject to any landscape designation, although the land on either side of Shuna Sound from where the site can be appreciated is designated by the LDP as ‘Area of Panoramic Quality’ in view of its scenic value at regional level. In terms of SNH’s Landscape Assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde the Isle of Shuna lies within the ‘Craggy Upland’ Landscape Character type and the Isle of Luing falls within the ‘Slate Islands’ LCT. The former is characterised by rocky moorland with woodland and sparse settlement and the latter by undulating low moorland rocky offshore islands and a lack of tree cover. Shuna Sound is a relatively narrow (up to 1km) north-south aligned channel between the islands. Aquaculture is already a characteristic of the area given the presence of the equipment to be replaced, other sites around Shuna and Ardmaddy further north in Seil Sound. The area surrounding the site is largely devoid of terrestrial development so the proposal would either be generally experienced from on land at some distance, or at necessarily close quarters by boat traffic, some of which, dependant on their transits, could be exposed to the presence of sequential fin fish sites.

The applicants have prepared photomontages in respect of four representative viewpoints agreed in advance with the Council, which comprise Toberonochy (the closest on-land location from which most receptors could be expected to appreciate the site) and then four nominal locations within the Sound itself, approx. half a kilometre to the north, the west and the east of the site, in order to demonstrate how the equipment might be typically appreciated from the water. These indicate that from Toberonochy the equipment will be visible but not dominant in this mid-range view with the barge in the foreground and the mooring gird almost end on to this viewpoint. The equipment is situated with higher ground to either side and with visibility beyond the site stretching into the distance towards what appears to be more lower lying land in the distance in the direction of Seil Sound. The equipment including the feed barge would be back-dropped at this distance.

On the approach to the site by water from the south the barge would begin to skyline attracting attention to the presence of the farm, although the low-lying and dark colour of the cages themselves would not be imposing other than at close quarters. The western viewpoint represents the closest quarter view of the equipment as it would be appreciated from boat traffic passing the site. At the distance involved the equipment would all be readily visible although due to its inshore location it would benefit from the backdrop of the coast of Shuna. The northern viewpoint indicates that on the approach to the farm from the north the cages will appear inshore and aligned with the coast and the rising backdrop of Shuna, although the fed barge at the far end of the site will skyline against the open backdrop of the Sound to the south beyond the site. All the latter locations represent short-term transient views, although given the mobile nature of the receptor cumulative effects will be experienced where a passage involves transit past other fish farm sites in the surrounding area, so to that extent, regardless of the individual impact of the proposal, it will undoubtedly make a contribution towards sequential impacts imposed by the presence of multiple aquaculture sites. Given that this is a re-equipment of an established site the proposal has to be judged in the context of the relative impacts of the equipment occupying the existing farm and that proposed for the re-equipped farm. Both layouts would be served by a feed barge which is the most significant structure above the water and its relocation from one end of the site to the other would not lead to any significant worsening of the situation from a visual point of view, and would lead to some marginal benefit in views from Toberonochy given that it would benefit from better back-dropping than is afforded in its current location. The nature of the pens themselves would result in different impacts as the site becomes elongated with more internal spacing and perimeter supported top nets are introduced, despite the aggregate surface equipment area being reduced. The location of the site close inshore, the single row of cages and the orientation parallel to the coast are compliant with SNH siting and design guidance. Given the height of the top net when supported externally (as opposed to internally from within the cage by a horizontal ‘hamster wheel’) it will be important to control net gauge, mesh size and colour so that the above cage structure secures as lightweight a form as possible. Overall, having regard to the long-standing nature of the location as a fin fish farm, the marginal change between the existing and proposed equipment and the effect of recommended conditions, it is considered that the re-equipment on the scale and in the manner proposed will be within acceptable limits in landscape and visual terms, and that it will not intrude unreasonably on other surrounding locations from which the farm is likely to be routinely experienced.

Beyond visual amenity, the operation of a fish farm poses some consequences for the amenity of its surroundings in terms of any adverse operational effects associated with noise, odour, light and waste. In this case there is an absence of habitation or other sensitive receptors close by and therefore the operation of an expanded installation would not pose any unacceptable impacts upon residential amenity.

Priority Habitats and Species

The extension of the site will expose an enlarged area to the depositional footprint of the fish farm and the smothering effect of food waste and faeces. Although this will be of consequence within SEPA’s identified Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE), it will be localised. Changes in the benthic footprint and the level of deposition from the farm will be considered by SEPA as part of the CAR licence process.

The site does not have a history of predation problems and although covered by a government seal shooting licence for a suite of sites, there has not been a requirement to control seals at this site. Indeed government records show only one incidence of licensed seal shooting at fish farms in all of Argyll and Bute in 2016.

Although control over biomass is exercised by SEPA via the car licensing process, their pollution control remit does not extend to interaction between wild and farmed salmon, which government policy identifies as a material planning consideration. Farming of fish in the marine environment can give rise to well-known consequences for wild fish as a result of disease transmission, sea lice propagation and escapes, which can lead to competition and inter-breeding, with consequences for the genetic dilution of native wild stocks. The potential for escapes (as with predator control) can be reduced by having an equipment specification determined by site specific wave and climate analysis so as to ensure that it is fit for purpose. An associated inspection and maintenance regime is then required to ensure on- going containment integrity. Predator control plans, and escapes contingency plans, as submitted by the applicant, are also important elements in risk management. Although containment risks can be managed, they cannot however be eradicated and there remains a residual risk that an unforeseen event can propagate escaped farmed fish in large numbers into the uncontrolled marine environment. Escapes of farmed stock are generally low, but can occur through equipment failure, predation, operator error, severe weather or foul play.

Normally, the most intractable issue influencing the interaction between farmed fish and wild fish species is that of sea lice transmission. Farmed fish are routinely hosts to parasitic sea lice, the numbers of which require to be controlled in order to assure the health of farmed fish and to avoid lice propagation into surrounding waters. Wild salmon can be exposed to sea lice from fish farms close to salmon rivers during their migration periods, whilst sea trout tend to remain in coastal waters throughout the year, so are potentially at greater risk.

Given the applicant’s stated intention not to increase biomass as a consequence of this re-equipment of the site, the threat posed to wild salmonids will remain neutral or may well be reduced as a result of the introduction of more modern equipment and innovatory forms of control such as the use of wrass or lumpsuckers as cleaner fish. Modern equipment to satisfy Scottish Technical Standards and adherence to the SSPO ‘Code of Good Practice Guidelines’ will minimise risk of loss of containment as far as is practicable. In terms of sea lice control modelling outputs for chemical treatments indicate that sufficient amounts of in-feed and bath treatments to provide efficacious treatment are consentable by SEPA (a CAR licence variation is currently under consideration by them). Given the applicant’s stated intention to maintain maximum standing biomass at the currently consented level of 1,000 tonnes it will be appropriate to limit this by means of condition, as the implications of additional interactions with wild fish have not been considered at this stage, and SEPA who otherwise are otherwise responsible for the regulation of biomass and could consent an increase, have no remit within their regime to consider wild fish interactions.

The site lies within the Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura Marine Protected Area designated for Common Skate and its glaciated channels and troughs, and also the Inner Hebrides and Minches candidate Special Area of Conservation designated for its Harbour porpoise interest. This means that the requirements of the Habitats Regulations apply and that the Council in its capacity as ‘competent authority’ has an obligation to undertake an ‘appropriate assessment’ in circumstances where significant effects are likely to be experienced by qualifying interests, either directly or indirectly as a result of the proposal. The primary implication for porpoise would be in terms of effects arising from the deployment of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADD’s) within the contained waters of the Sound, which might present a barrier to, or otherwise lead to a significantly detrimental effect upon, Harbour porpoise. The applicants have indicated that they do not intend to use ADD’s routinely or on a continuous basis to deter seal predation, but they would wish an ability to deploy a low intensity model on a triggered basis should seal problems arise. SNH’s view is that provided that use of ADD’s is limited to short-range low intensity models then their use on a managed (rather than continuous) basis will be acceptable in terms of the likely effects upon qualifying interests. In the absence of any anticipated significant effects SNH’s advice to the Council is that a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ will not be required in this instance.

This position has been disputed by third parties who conclude that the deployment of any ADD’s at the site will be prejudicial to nature conservation interests, and that the stance taken in this case could set a precedent for the future response to the intended use of ADD’s elsewhere within the cSAC. SNH has been alerted to the content of these representations but nonetheless maintains the view that the equipment proposed will not acoustically block Shuna Sound to the passage of porpoise, nor that it will disturb or displace the species to a point where the use of all forms of ADD should be precluded. It remains of the view that that an ‘appropriate assessment’ is not required in this case. The Council is obliged to have regard to SNH’s consultation advice given their role in the process as a statutory consultee and also their position as the organisation having promoted the cSAC. With that in mind a condition is proposed which limits the deployment of ADD’s to low intensity models and which requires a management plan to ensure that their usage is minimised to that necessary to prevent determined predation attempts by seals. It should be recognised that ADD’s have been used in the past at the existing farm and that there is currently no restriction on the type of ADD which can be deployed or their method of use. The intended condition does therefore represent additional control being exercised over the use of ADD’s in consultation with SNH.

Ecological Status of Water Bodies and Carrying Capacity

A CAR licence variation has been submitted to SEPA in parallel with this planning application, which will consider the implications of the re-equipment of the site and any additional implications for benthic conditions and water quality. Nutrient enrichment calculations indicate that the operation of the site at the intended biomass and stocking density will only be a small percentage of the UKTAG background level and well within acceptable limits in terms of the carrying capacity of the water body. SEPA initially raised an objection to this application on the grounds of inadequate information but have withdrawn this following submission of the requested data. SEPA has indicated that it does not envisage an impediment to a CAR licence variation being granted by them.

Commercial and Recreational Maritime Activity

Inshore fishing can be expected to take place relatively close to aquaculture developments if necessary, as despite the extent of seabed mooring areas, mooring lines are arranged to minimise the area where navigation is restricted and to afford access for work boats and well boats. The proposal in effect results in the extension of the existing site northwards and southwards parallel to the shore with only a marginal increase in the projection of the moorings out into the Sound. No objections have been received from commercial fishing interests or industry organisations or recreational interests. The proposal does not give rise to adverse navigation issues subject to navigational marking to satisfy Northern Lighthouse Board requirements. Neither the NLB nor the Royal Yachting Association have raised objections to the proposal.

Economic Impact

It is necessary to have regard to net economic impacts, taking account of any negative effects imposed upon existing businesses, as well as economic benefits accrued by the applicants and any indirect benefits to the manufacturing/service sector. The expansion of the aquaculture sector is being actively encouraged by government policy in view of the contribution it makes to the national and export economy, and in view of the employment it sustains. It is supported by development plan policy unless there are locally significant adverse effects which cannot be avoided, reduced or mitigated to an extent which renders development acceptable. The Council’s Economic Development Strategy identifies the food and drink sector as being one of the areas key sustainable economic assets helping to retain and create jobs in remote, fragile rural coastal and island communities.

This proposal will help to sustain 3 to 4 FTE jobs related to the operation of the site and production will contribute to the economic prospects of the company, will help sustain processing related employment and also support indirect employment associated with the supply of equipment, goods and services. There has been a suggestion by third parties that the presence of marine fish farms reduces the attractiveness of the area to visitors and that impacts upon wildlife could impact upon wildlife tour operators. However, there is no reliable evidence to demonstrate that the impact of fish farms located under the auspices of the current planning regime is such as to deter repeat visits by tourists and other recreational users. That position could of course change were fish farms to become sited with less care or in increased numbers, but it is unlikely that the re-equipping of a long- standing site is likely to make a significant impact upon the decisions of those considering a repeat visit to this area, and there would be no credible case for resisting this proposal in the interests of protecting other sectoral interests.

Conclusion

This is a proposal to re-equip a long-standing marine fish farm with equipment to modern standards without increasing maximum biomass. The reconfigured equipment will have some implications for the visual impact of the farm but its effects in this regard will not increase to a point which would prompt the withholding of consent. The primary issue in this case is the extent to which the operation of the site would pose an enhanced threat to the conservation objectives of marine designations and to protected species. In particular, concerns have been expressed that it would be inappropriate to deploy acoustic deterrent devices at this location as a means of avoiding seal predation attempts, as these could prove harmful to porpoises and to cetaceans in the Sound of Shuna. The Council has taken advice from SNH in this regard who have advised that a Habitats Regulations ‘appropriate assessment’ will not be required in this case and that the potential deployment of ADD’s can be appropriately addressed by condition as a means of avoiding harmful effects upon protected species. There are no other considerations stemming from the criteria to be assessed in terms of Policy LP SG AQUA 1 or other relevant development plan policy which would indicate the need to withhold planning permission in this case, subject to the imposition of identified conditions.

• (Q)  Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes
• (R)  Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted:

The re-equipment of this site satisfies the criteria set out in Policy SG AQUA 1 and other relevant policies of the Council’s Local Development Plan and there are no material considerations, including views expressed by third parties, which would indicate that the provisions of the development plan ought not to prevail.

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

Not applicable

(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland:

No

Author of Report:

Richard Kerr

Date: 29st March 2017

Angus Gilmour

Head of Planning and Regulatory Services