PURPOSE OF REPORT Since this proposal has received more than 3 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 application by Mr Andrew Rodger, North Lamerick, Berneray, North Uist for the development of a new Atlantic salmon fish farming site comprising 20 no. 24 sq metre square cages in two cage groups together with complementary shellfish and seaweed species grown on 6 no. 200m long long-lines sited alongside and within the fish farm mooring system, at a currently undeveloped site between the islands of Groay and Lingay in the Sound of Harris. 2.2 Representations have been submitted in respect of the planning application on the basis of adverse impact on the National Scenic Area, adverse impact upon marine species, primarily otter and common and grey seal populations but also minky whales, basking shark, harbour porpoise, common dolphin, atlantic white sided dolphin; adverse impact on birds including cormorant, shag, divers and waders, corncrake and white tailed eagle; conflict between some of the above as predatory species and the proposed fish farm; risk of escape, lice and disease and resultant impact on wild fisheries; adverse impact on nature tourism arising from disturbance and loss of wildlife as well as adverse visual impact in an otherwise undeveloped area, precedent for further fish farm development in the area; noise, light and waste pollution; incomplete planning procedures, site too shallow, pen type pre-disposed to disease and at higher risk of seal predation; insufficient tidal excursion to firebreak the potential infection between farms and site rendering proposed farm unsustainable. 2.2 In assessing an application for planning permission the Comhairle must base its decision on the statutory Development Plan and Scottish Government Guidance unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal has been assessed against the Development Plan and consideration given to all other material considerations including those highlighted by third party representations. There are no formal objections from statutory or internal consultees. The development has on balance been assessed to comply with Development Plan Policy and while there are relevant material planning considerations it is judged that none either individually or collectively carry sufficient weight to justify refusal of the application. Where unacceptable impacts have been identified, these are proposed for mitigation by way of planning condition. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions shown in Appendix 1 to this report. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that the Comhairle APPROVE the application subject to the conditions shown in Appendix 1. Contact Officer Morag Ferguson Tel: 01870 602425, x 838 Email: mferguson@cne- siar.gov.uk Appendix 1 Schedule of proposed conditions 2 Location plan and charts Background Papers: None ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 9 FEBRUARY 2010 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ATLANTIC SALMON FISH FARMING SITE COMPRISING 20 NO. 24 SQ METRE SQUARE CAGES IN TWO GROUPS AND COMPLEMENTARY SHELLFISH SPECIES ON 6 NO. 200M LONG LONGLINES AT GROAY LINGAY ISLANDS, RUSHGARRY, BERNERAY, ISLE OF NORTH UIST (REF. NO. 09/00627/FFPA) Report by Director of Development
Transcript
PURPOSE OF REPORT Since this proposal has received more than 3 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 application by Mr Andrew Rodger, North Lamerick, Berneray, North Uist for the
development of a new Atlantic salmon fish farming site comprising 20 no. 24 sq metre square cages in two cage groups together with complementary shellfish and seaweed species grown on 6 no. 200m long long-lines sited alongside and within the fish farm mooring system, at a currently undeveloped site between the islands of Groay and Lingay in the Sound of Harris.
2.2 Representations have been submitted in respect of the planning application on the basis of
adverse impact on the National Scenic Area, adverse impact upon marine species, primarily otter and common and grey seal populations but also minky whales, basking shark, harbour porpoise, common dolphin, atlantic white sided dolphin; adverse impact on birds including cormorant, shag, divers and waders, corncrake and white tailed eagle; conflict between some of the above as predatory species and the proposed fish farm; risk of escape, lice and disease and resultant impact on wild fisheries; adverse impact on nature tourism arising from disturbance and loss of wildlife as well as adverse visual impact in an otherwise undeveloped area, precedent for further fish farm development in the area; noise, light and waste pollution; incomplete planning procedures, site too shallow, pen type pre-disposed to disease and at higher risk of seal predation; insufficient tidal excursion to firebreak the potential infection between farms and site rendering proposed farm unsustainable.
2.2 In assessing an application for planning permission the Comhairle must base its decision on the
statutory Development Plan and Scottish Government Guidance unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal has been assessed against the Development Plan and consideration given to all other material considerations including those highlighted by third party representations. There are no formal objections from statutory or internal consultees. The development has on balance been assessed to comply with Development Plan Policy and while there are relevant material planning considerations it is judged that none either individually or collectively carry sufficient weight to justify refusal of the application. Where unacceptable impacts have been identified, these are proposed for mitigation by way of planning condition. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions shown in Appendix 1 to this report.
RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that the Comhairle APPROVE the application subject to the
Appendix 1 Schedule of proposed conditions 2 Location plan and charts Background Papers: None
ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 9 FEBRUARY 2010 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ATLANTIC SALMON FISH FARMING SITE COMPRISING 20 NO. 24 SQ METRE SQUARE CAGES IN TWO GROUPS AND COMPLEMENTARY SHELLFISH SPECIES ON 6 NO. 200M LONG LONGLINES AT GROAY LINGAY ISLANDS, RUSHGARRY, BERNERAY, ISLE OF NORTH UIST (REF. NO. 09/00627/FFPA) Report by Director of Development
REPORT DETAILS
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 4.1 This is an application for detailed planning permission for the development of a new Atlantic
salmon fish farming site comprising 20 no. 24 sq metre square cages in two groups together with complementary shellfish and seaweed species to be co-cultured on 6 no. 200m long longlines. The cages are to be sited in two groups with a feed barge sited between the groups and the longlines parallel to the farm and anchored within the cages’ mooring system. The application site to the limit of the moorings extends to 7.02 ha while the surface area covered by equipment extends to 1.57ha.
4.2 The proposed farm is sited between the islands of Groay and Lingay in the Sound of Harris.
The site is located circa 8.7km due east of the Berneray Harbour, North Uist and 6.9km due south of Leverburgh Harbour, Harris. The closest settlements are Strond and Borrisdale on Harris at approximately 5km (3.1 miles) distance. The site is detailed in the plans attached at Appendix 2.
4.3 The proposed site lies within the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area
(NSA). There are no other natural heritage designations that apply to the proposed location of the development.
4.4 A valid planning application for the proposal was submitted by Mr Andrew Rodger,
North Lamerick, Berneray, North Uist on 14 December 2009.
4.5 In order to aid the reader please note that the report is structured as follows:
Section 5 Representations Section 6 Responses to Consultation Section 7 Comments from applicant Section 8 Planning History Section 9 Western Isles Policy considerations and response Section 10 National Policy considerations and response Section 11 Material Planning Considerations Section 12 Assessment and Conclusions.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Representations have been received from the following: • Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd, Blar Mhor Industrial Estate, Fort William. • Mark Carter, Marine Concern, Tigh-na-Mara, Bonawe, OBAN • Peter Gordon, RSPB Scotland, Etive House, Inverness • Mr & Mrs Douglas Woolf, Killegray House, Isle of Killegray • Mr & Mrs T C R Jourdan, Kyles House, Leverburgh • Mrs Virginia Murray, Ensay House, Isle of Ensay • N P David, Ensay House • Alison Johnson, 1 Strond, Leverburgh • Gary and Tracey Scott – by e-mail • Andrew Jowett, 8 Woodfield Road, Shrwesbury, SY3 8HZ • Alex Pettigrew B.Sc. Drumnadrochit • Gordon Cumming, Borve Lodge Estate, Borve, Harris • N Anderson, 1 Ferry Road, Leverburgh. Harris • Ann Anderson, 1 Ferry Road, Leverburgh. Harris • B nock, 6 Drumtochy Stables, Auchenblae • Andrew Johnson, 1 Strond, Harris • John F. Robins, Secretary to ‘Save Our Seals Fund’ and ‘Animal Concern’, P.O. Box
5178, Dumbarton • Francis MacDermot, by e-mail • David Bines and Claire Newton (X3 stages) by e-mail
• Annick/Annag Merlin, 7 Quidinish, Isle of Harris • Chris J Merlin (x 2 Stages) 7 Quidinish, Isle of Harris • Jeni Parsons and Rob Lawrence-Jones • Lucy Milne by e-mail • Mr A.J.Murfin, St Helier, Jersey • Liz Murfin, St Helier Jersey • Frank Law by e-mail • Mark Scholey, 12 William Square, London • Sam Miller by e-mail • Tom Horne by e-mail • Miss Erin Smith, Leatherhead, Surrey • Christine Hurley, 2 Ferry Road, Leverburgh • David Hall, Barn Cottage, Hawkshead, Ambleside,Cumbria • Christyne Judge Barn Cottage, Hawkshead, Ambleside,Cumbria • Robin & John Goodman, Taigh nam Borgh, Borve • D A MacKenzie, 10 Glen, Leverburgh, Isle of Harris • Anne David, Ensay House
5.2 The full terms of the representations can be read on file at the Development Department. However, they can be summarised as follows: • The proposal is within a National Scenic Area and the siting and navigational lighting
will result in the landscape and scenic value being dramatically reduced, thus effecting tourism and cultural heritage.
• Natural heritage - The recent public hearing held on the Island of Bute covering the Inchmarnock fish farm application was rejected on visual impairment to the National Scenic Area
• Adverse effect of fish farms on seal colonies and their haul-outs; from shooting the seals to direct harassment.
• It is well documented that fin fish farms have problems with predators, particularly seals and diving, fish eating, birds.
• It has also been observed that when a fin fish farm becomes established close to a seal colony that the seals suffer from the experience, either by harassment, which includes actual physical and acoustic disturbance, shooting, entrapment and other related problems.
• Professor Boyd of Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU), St. Andrews SMRU was recently quoted as stating that Common Seals are facing an, “Alarming decline”; the full reasons for this decline are not known. Scotland however has lost nearly 10,000 Common Seals in two years. This amounts to one third of the Scottish population, with only a minimum of around 20,000 Common Seals left throughout the whole of Scottish waters.
• Grey Seals have not been increasing in numbers as some would have you believe; the current population figures for Grey Seals have stabilised or are only increasing slowly.
• The proposed site would be located within extremely close proximity to a traditional breeding seal colony (both Atlantic Grey and Common) and therefore highly pre-disposed to seal predation.
• Even though non lethal methods of anti-predation methods exist shooting is normally the preferred or most regularly practiced (by the fin-fish industry) as it is the cheapest method.
• Acoustic deterrents; are normally found in two differing forms Acoustic Deterrent Device (ADDs) and Acoustic Harassment Devise (AHDs). Proposed use of acoustic deterrents which have mixed accounts on seal anti-predation but are known to severely impact on cetaceans for which this area is renown.
• Gill nets to be deployed, are well documented for their indiscriminate by-catch of marine mammals, from protected otters to cetaceans and seals.
• We object to the siting of any salmon farms in areas where seals haul out or otherwise congregate as the seals will be attracted to the farm which usually results in the farm operators shooting and/or using acoustic scarers to remove the seals from the vicinity.
• Apart from injury and death caused to adult seals there is the very real prospect of nursing mother seals being shot thus leaving dependent pups to suffer a slow and cruel death from starvation. In other areas the siting of salmon farms in the vicinity of seal colonies has caused extinction of those colonies.
• This totally disrupts the local ecology during the whole operating life of the farm and diminishes the tourism value of the area and causes serious financial damage to any wildlife tour operators taking visitors to see the seals and other local wildlife.
• This is the only area of the Sound much used by cetaceans: risso's dolphin and white-sided dolphin regularly, white-beaked and common dolphin occasionally; pilot whale regularly, minke whale occasionally.
• Development will threaten minky whales, basking shark, harbour porpoise, common dolphin, atlantic white sided dolphin that we have personally observed as scuba divers and sailors in this area.
• There is a significant population of otters established and breeding on both Lingay and Groay, as well as regularly occupying the tidal island in-between Lingay and Groay. Otters are of high conservation value and both UK and local priority species and protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
• Otters will suffer from pollution and degradation of aquatic habitat and suffer food contamination from water borne pollutants which are absorbed by the fish they feed on.
• Site is close to cormorant breeding colony colony (second largest in the Western Isles and totals a quarter of the total population); this species is very vulnerable to disturbance whilst nesting and it is likely that activity relating to the salmon farm would cause abandonment of the colony. Loss of colony would be to the detriment of bio-diversity and have an incremental albeit small impact on tourism.
• There is a colony of cormorants nearby which will no doubt be attracted to the fish farm only to be trapped in the predator net as would the pre breeding populations of guiliemot, razor bills and puffins known to congregate in this area. The presence of the fish farm with its anti-fouling/predator and protective netting will be confrontational and endanger the many animal species and have a serious impact on the bird life in this area.
• The feeding barges supplying the fish farms attract mink back to the area contrary to the aims of the Council funded Hebridean Mink Project.
• There is a significant long established breeding colony of cormorants only a few hundred meters away from the proposed site and cormorants are a protected species of national importance and conservation concern.
• Adverse impact on cormorant and heron population. • Breeding eider ducks have increased on Lingay in recent years. They are a major
predator of shellfish farms (particularly mussels). • Corncrakes breed on Lingay. As their breeding site is so close to the proposed fish
farm, the daily activity and disturbance will have an effect on their attraction to and breeding success on Lingay.
• There is currently a pair of white-tailed eagles which are using Lingay and Groay as part of their hunting ground the noise levels and constant activity would drive away the white-tailed eagles.
• Waders including redshank, turnstone, ringed plover, common sandpiper and heron (which is a significant predator of fish farms) use the foreshore of Lingay immediately adjacent to the proposed site. The daily activity and disturbance from the proposed site will significantly reduce the number of these visitors.
• Siting contrary to Scottish Executive guidance as site surrounded by vulnerable wildlife. • Siting is contrary to Code of Practice – Salmon Farming and predatory wildlife in that
new farms should not be established close to concentrations of predators. • It is one of the few anchorages in the location.
• We have discovered what we believe to be significant historical feature on Lingay island. There is a large rock formation in the shape of a crucifix that appears at high tide that has been enhanced by previous inhabitants of Lingay.
• As the (conservation) work on Lingay involves the development of promoting the tourism, this proposal will completely alter the untouched importance of the landscape and its associated high value and NSA status.
• The economic future of (Harris) depends on tourism and there appears to be a lack of judgement shown in considering a proposal in such a location.
• The protection of this location is important for the many visitors coming to the area to observe the wildlife and scenic beauty. Adverse effect on nature tourism.
• The proposed farm will be covering many thousands of square meters. Viewed from the ferry - with its higher viewing point (about 12m) than the photographs presented in the planning application - this will be visually intrusive.
• We are concerned about the affect of this proposed site on the migratory salmon and sea trout through the Sound of Harris (and impact on Obbe fishing system).
• We are concerned about flaws in the evaluation of the current and tidal flow – extract from Sound of Harris Pilot book.
• The scale and nature of the development. • The visual impact on the landscape. • The effect on the natural heritage and the environment. • The impact on wild recreational fisheries. • The impact on fishing and navigation. • The impact of access and infrastructure on the local environment. • The methods of operation....lighting and noise. i.e. high visibility beacons flashing 24
hours per day visible from at least two miles. • Visual impact assessment is inaccurate – does not reflect navigation lighting or view
from passenger accommodation on passing ferry • The cumulative and socio-economic impact. • Resulting pollution with regard the effluent and movement of tides and currents. • Untreated waste from the fish will be flushed from the cages into the surrounding
environment, spoiling a previously pristine sea bed. The vicinity is also used by scallop divers. Fish farms have been associated with shell fish poisoning and resultant harvesting bans in other areas.
• Cross transfer of sea-lice from farmed fish to wild salmonids: Sea lice from salmon farms are thought to have a negative impact on fisheries up to 20 miles away. There are several important wild fisheries within this range - the Obbe Fishings in South Harris; and Borve Lodge Estate fisheries - which maintain jobs and attracts many visitors to the islands.
• The farming of fish in this way is spreading illness etc to the wild fish. Reference to genetic effect of escaped farmed salmon on wild fish populations.
• Risk of Escapes: The site chosen is surrounded by important haul-out/breeding sites used by common and grey seals which are well known for the damage they can cause to fish farm nets and are often associated with escapes. – resultant risk that escaped fish will interbreed with wild stocks. The behaviour of wild fish is highly influenced by their genetics and is tailored to meet the demands of the individual fisheries. It has been shown that cross breeding with alien salmon reduces the survival rates of wild fish.
• The noise from the automatic feeder would affect the tranquillity of this unspoilt area. • the area is world renowned for marine and bird life and any development in this area will
damage those fragile eco systems • the visual impact on the landscape will be pronounced, in particular the proposals for
lighting. • The scale and nature of the development is too large and can only impede tourism, • The proposed site is at the point where the deep Minch meets the shallow Sound of
Harris, causing an upwelling of nutrient-rich waters that make it superlatively rich in
terms of wildlife. It is used for breeding or feeding by many species which are rare or protected to varying degrees (for example IUCN Red List species).
• The site is not deep enough, maximum depth of 15m against recommended 30-50m, sited over a ‘hollow’ and will lead build up of chemicals, faeces and waste feedstuffs and poor dispersion and lack of water exchange will have a cumulative effect.
• The site is located in shallow water and as such the applicant has chosen square pens. There is evidence showing that square pens are more pre-disposed to Pancreas Disease than circles. Shallow, high energy sites, such as this one, are more prone to Pancreatic Disease infection than deeper, lower energy sites.
• The toxic effect on the receiving eco-system will be high and this will affect the biodiversity within the vicinity of the surrounding site.
• I graze sheep on Groay in winter. The grazing is enhanced by seaweed which will be contaminated by fish farm waste and in turn absorbed by sheep and find its way into food-chain.
• Noise from anti-predator devices will scare sheep away from seaweed fertile grazing on sheltered side of island and make it more difficult to get them onto landing craft.
• The area is also highly pre-disposed to seal predation and .......... the only suitable cage type is plastic circles with sinker tube technology which allow for highly tensioned nets to be deployed.
• It is understood that the intention is to dispose of this site to another operator who we understand has different stocking/fallowing regime (to existing operator in Management area) and therefore it is our view that the synchronisation can therefore only happen during the first year of this new farm. The potential risk to all other farming operations in this area were this site to be run without synchronisation would be disastrous.
• In terms of sealice it is our view that the tidal excursion is not enough to firebreak the potential infection between farms. MHS holds a wealth of epidemiological data showing effects of sealice pressure in Scotland and it can be shown that lice travel mainly by wind driven and general currents as opposed to simple tidal excursion.
• Site is not sustainable due to siting directly adjacent to or within high concentration of predators and its location in Centre of the Sound.
• Knowing the sound of Harris, there will be days even weeks where they will be unable to gain access to the fish cages and operators would be powerless to recapture escapees.
• This is not an accessible site in bad weather. There is no sign of practical contingency plans in bad weather
• Failing in Bio-diversity Duty • It is also of concern that such a potentially controversial proposal has not had prior
consultation with any adjoining neighbours and owners affected by the proposal. • Having studied the application more fully, I am appalled to see that the applicant, having
sought a Screening Opinion as to whether he required an Environmental Impact Assessment, was told he did not. The Government's Policy Guidance Note clearly states that EIA should be expected for farms over 0.1ha: this one covers 5.4ha. The Policy Guidance Note allows some discretion to Planning Authorities in giving a Screening Opinion. However, this is under the overriding generality that 'stringent criteria should be met before consent might be given'. Discretion does not imply wilful ignorance, still less the gross irresponsibility shown in this case.
• No one outside Uist appears to have known about this proposal although the owners of the adjacent islands live in Harris and Lewis, not Uist and what happens in the Sound affects Harris waters more than any other.
• Part of the biodiversity strategy includes proximity and minimum distances from know seal haul-outs to fish farm installations. SNH minimum is 500m; the latest recommendations given by the Seals Protection Groups is 2 miles. In areas such as the Sound of Harris, Marine Concern would suggest that the minimum, taking account of local economies, one mile, but this is subject to scientific research. The proposal will be within 300-400m of two official recorded breeding areas for grey seals.
• The Western Isles are also leaders in Scotland for the championing of coastal and marine National Parks, siting of a salmon farm in such as sensitive are is hardly conductive to proving the local aspirations of achieving park status.
• There is no detail of colour of equipment provided. • How does the developer hope to get insurance for his salmon stock when it is so close
to seal haul outs. • Any economic benefits to the area of the fish farm would be outweighed by the
negative impact on wildlife and on tourism. • Before considering the application further CNES, should undertake, at applicants
expense a full ecological survey of an area no less than 8 miles radius of the proposed site.
• The proposal is contrary to the Development Plan. • The proposal would impact on the cultural heritage. • The development will cause light pollution.
RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 6.1 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.
SEPA 6.2 ‘We have no objection to this planning application. As advised at screening and scoping
stage, we had already assessed the hydrographic and modelling data as part of the CAR application process and the required changes we highlighted to the operator have now been made. The CAR licence covering the finfish aspect of this development has been prepared and it is anticipated this will be issued shortly’.
SNH
6.3 Initial response: “SNH has no objection to this proposal based on the information provided……. The scale, location and design of the proposed development are such that it will not have a significant negative effect on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. The landscape is currently characterised by a pattern of open water with low lying islands and exposed rocks……….The structure of the proposed fish farm is low to the water surface and does not create a significant visual obstruction and will be partially screened by a backdrop of rocky outcrops. Considering this the development will merge well with the current character of the landscape. Therefore this development will not have any affect on the integrity of the NSA…….On the basis of further information previously provided by the applicants, SNH considers there are unlikely to be, within the vicinity of the site, marine species or habitats of particular conservation importance that will be affected by the proposed change in cage configuration
6.4 Further Advice: “Our overall position remains unchanged and is that we do not object to this proposal.” 6.5 Grey seals: The Grey Seal population in the Western Isles is stable, producing in the region
of between 11,000 and 13,000 pups annually since 1992. Grey seals are present within the Sound of Harris area all year. We were aware that a small number of grey seals pupped on the small islands in the Sound of Harris but we weren’t aware of the numbers or specific locations until recently. … when we received the data from the Seal Mammal Research Unit (SMRU). They confirm that they do not survey these areas annually and only take one set of photos when they do, but from the last two counts in 2005 and 2008 there were: 158 and 83 pups respectively on Groay; and 86 and 64 pups on Lingay.
6.6 As the fishfarm will be situated between these two colonies and will be extremely close
(estimated at less than a few hundred metres) there is potential for the seals to be disturbed by fishfarm activity. Our view is that they will probably become accustomed to the boat traffic, depending on how the boats approach the fishfarm, particularly as they are used to fishing boats in the area. If the worst case happens and they do abandon the colony then there are other alternative habitats for them to use within the Sound of Harris.
6.7 We would suggest that the fishfarm should be set up some time before the grey seals start to breed to allow them to become accustomed to the activity. Situating a fishfarm in this particular location so close to know concentrations of grey seals will result in inevitable damage - the applicant has stated that they will only shoot rogue seals but siting a fish farm so close to predators will make it far more likely for there to be interactions. This type of predator management may be restricted in the future as there are likely to be licence procedures for shooting rogue seals as part of the Marine (Scotland) Act. In the meantime, we would recommend that appropriate non lethal scaring methods are employed.
6.8 Common Seals: The common seal population is continuing to decline and any impact on them
is of greater concern. Significant numbers are present in the area throughout the year and although there is no data confirming whether common seals pup in that specific location, SMRU have confirmed counts of several hundred within 5km of the proposed site – see table below. Any increased lethal control of common seals could have a more significant impact on the population which is why we’re recommending that appropriate non lethal scaring methods are employed.
Common Seal counts within 5km of the proposed fishfarm
Cetaceans are also specially protected as European Protected Species (EPS) and it is an offence to deliberately disturb them. It has been brought to our attention that cetaceans have been observed using the area of deeper water adjacent to the proposed fishfarm. When passing through this area they could be disturbed by the acoustic scarers – this could be minimised through the design and deployment of these devices.
6.10 Cormorants
From the seabird 2000 data, there was a colony of 112 apparently occupied nests on Lingay, on the south east of the island. In this location, they are approx 700m from the proposed fishfarm but are out of site of the cages so are less likely to be disturbed by any activity. We are aware from reported observations that they have also used another location on Lingay to the north (much closer to the proposed fishfarm) which is more vulnerable to disturbance but have also used alternative sites further away, including Sgarabhaigh. Therefore if they do abandon the colony closest to the fishfarm, they do have other alternative sites.
6.11 Otters
We are aware from reported sightings, that otters are resident on both Groay and Lingay. Otters are afforded extra protection by virtue of being a EPS. From observations of otter activity in other areas where there are fishfarms we are of the opinion that they are unlikely to be significantly disturbed by the activity of the fishfarm, particularly as they have become accustomed to human activity on the island.
6.12 Polyculture issues
The applicant mentions their intention to polyculture various species. All but one species is found locally – Paracentrous lividus has not been recorded from the Western Isles, as far as we are aware, and introducing such a species may have consequences for the environment. Therefore if the applicant intends to proceed with this we would suggest that they should carry out monitoring to ensure that they are not displacing native species or having any other adverse environmental effect. The applicant states that all stock will be either produced locally or sourced from certified disease free non-native stocks. The use of non-native stock poses a risk to the genetic integrity of the local stock and as a result we would recommend that only locally sourced stock is used in polyculture. The applicant mentions the use of Saccorhiza polyschides (kelp) which is native to the Western Isles. The applicant should probably consider the potential for this annual kelp to displace one of the other native kelps, Laminaria hyperborea – this particular kelp harbours a rich and varied fauna, is perennial, and offers much greater wave resistance, so has an important role in helping to protect the coastline.
6.13 Marine habitats It has been mentioned that the fishfarm is located in relatively shallow water enclosed by even
shallower areas, effectively forming a basin and that this could prevent detritus from being swept away. The hydrographic report states a well flushed site with residual currents heading SSE which should alleviate concerns of accumulation but we would defer to the modelling experts – SEPA and Marine Scotland to comment on this aspect. We are not aware of any species or habitats of conservation importance present within the area of the proposed location of the fishfarm and none are recorded from the underwater video survey.
6.14 Mitigation
Given the numbers of both species of seals already in the area and the close proximity of the grey seal breeding colony, we suggest that the applicant should be asked to provide an anti predator protocol taking account of the following: • We recommend that shooting is not used as the likely high number of interactions would
allow large numbers of “rogue” seals to be shot, including common seals which are in serious decline.
• We recommend the use of properly tensioned and maintained anti-predator nets. These
may still present a hazard to grey seal pups which can get caught up in them and therefore regular maintenance will be an issue.
• Acoustic scaring devices have been proposed by the applicant but these have the potential
to have an impact on cetaceans and non target wildlife depending on the type, their deployment and frequency. It is possible to source designs which reduce this - we recommend that the applicant considers this risk and submits a plan for their deployment, to reduce the impact on other wildlife in the area but particularly cetaceans using the adjacent deeper water.
WESTERN ISLES SALMON FISHERIES BOARD
6.15 ‘We welcome the location of this fish farm outside of sea lochs and away from migratory salmonid systems. We therefore have no objections to the proposed development. We support the developer's commitment to adhering to the North Uist AMA and the industry standard Code of Good Practice, most importantly including the synchronisation of stocking, fallowing and treatments with the other sites in the Cheesebay area’.
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT – MARINE SCOTLAND
6.16 ‘Fish Health and Welfare: Stocking Density - From the information given in the application, the operation of the sites will be at an acceptable stocking density level of below 20kg/m3, given a minimum net depth of 8.25m for use of 16 square cages or 7m if all 20 cages are in use’
6.17 ‘Fish Health and Welfare: Sea lice - Given that consent is granted, for the chemicals and
treatments listed in the draft CAR licence, to be used on site to manage sea lice this proposal is deemed satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen. Operations and records on site with regard to sea lice control and containment, must meet the requirements of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007, The Fish Farming Businesses (Record Keeping) (Scotland) Order 2008 and ‘A Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture’. Compliance with this will be inspected during routine visits.’
6.18 ‘Fish Health and Welfare: Other fish health issues: The resubmission of the application in
conjunction with additional information received from the applicant on 25/01/10 is satisfactory in filling the requirements of what is necessary for the FHI’s evaluation of an aquaculture planning application. The information provided on the areas below is satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen, provided that the proposed plans for assessing and operating the site are put into action by the applicant.
Husbandry – mortality removal and disposal; Containment – contingency planning for escapes, suitability of equipment;
Location – maintaining stock security and access in an exposed location; Production of secondary species – fallow period simultaneous with primary species
(salmon), disease free sources, and no movements to other sites.’ 6.19 Environmental Issues: MSS are satisfied that all the residual environmental issues that we
required additional environmental information for have been addressed adequately and we have no further concerns or requirements for environmental information’
6.20 ‘Wild Fisheries: The new site is in a position remote from any of the major Atlantic salmon
and Sea trout fisheries in the Western Isles. It is situated where there is likely to be good flushing and the prevailing winds would tend to drift any infective stages of lice that may be produced by the site away from the coastline. The operator has indicated that they are going to run the farm adhering to the CoGP at all times throughout the production cycle and will participate within the Uist area management agreement; this meets our earlier request.’
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT – CLIMATE CHANGE
6.21 ‘This response relates to Scottish Ministers' responsibilities for water supply, water protection, sewerage, flood prevention, coastal protection, waste disposal, soils, air quality and noise. 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 Fish Farm Planning Application.’
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT – HISTORIC SCOTLAND
6.22 ‘Having checked the content of the application against our records, we can confirm that there are none of the above types of site (scheduled monuments and their settings, category A listed buildings and their settings, gardens and designed landscapes appearing in the Inventory, and designated wreck sites (Protection of Wrecks Act 1973)) in the vicinity of the proposed development. In light of this, we consider that the proposed development as described in the application and accompanying CD is unlikely to have a significant impact on any nationally important cultural heritage features.’
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT - TRANSPORT SCOTLAND
6.23 ‘The proposed development is likely to cause minimal environmental impact on the trunk road network, based on this we have no comment to make.’
H M COASTGUARD
6.24 ‘There was no response from this consultee at the time of report preparation. ‘
ROYAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) 6.25 ‘I write to confirm that we have no objections to the above application.’
NORTHERN LIGHTHOUSE BOARD
6.26 ‘We recommend that this site should be marked by means of a lit yellow pole, flashing group four yellow every twelve seconds, (Fl(4) Y 12s) and fitted with a yellow multiplication cross topmark. The pole should be positioned at the most Northerly corner of the group of cages. The pole 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.Any 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 nominal range of the light should be 2 nautical miles. The use of trip ropes and mooring buoys to indicate the seabed extremity anchors should be prohibited on the Northerly and Westerly side of the site but at the most South-westerly corner we recommend the anchors are marked with 50cm high visibility orange buoys to give indication to any vessels using the safe anchorage where these anchors are placed. ‘
HARBOUR MASTER
6.27 ‘No objection provided NLB guidelines complied with. I would strongly advise that site be marked as soon as construction commenced, in order that vessels anchor clear of the anchor pattern’.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
6.28 ‘No Environmental Health observations.’
FISHERIES OFFICER - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SECTION 6.29 ‘From an economic development perspective I have no objections to this application subject
to the applicant operating the site as part of an Area Management Agreement.’
BIODIVERSITY OFFICER 6.30 ‘The proposed site is outwith the Loch nam Madadh European Marine Site (EMS) and is not
likely to have a significant effect on the EMS. The applicant is a participant in the Uist AMA Group and this is supported. …………Planning is a statutory function of the Comhairle and I am of the view that the Comhairle would not be furthering the conservation of biodiversity in approving this planning application. It is likely that the proposed development will have a negative effect on seals and otters in this area. I am not able to make an assessment of whether this is a significant negative effect however it will not ensure that the "conservation of biodiversity is encouraged and advanced" as is expected by the biodiversity duty on public bodies.’
VIEWS OF APPLICANT 7.1 The full terms of the views of the applicant can be read can be read on file at the
Development Department. However, they can be summarised as follows: 7.2 Choice of square pens – square pens are specified in the planning application, reflecting
the applicant’s preferred mode of production for the site. A CAR licence, which permits the use of square or circular cages at the site is to be issued on the 22 January 2010. The site will however be developed to use square cages, further to planning consent and issuing of Crown lease. Modification to circular cage configuration, subject to planning consent, will remain an option for the future.
7.3 Pancreatic Disease (PD) - Within the scientific literature epidemiology studies have not
indicated that fish reared in square pens are more susceptible to PD than those in circles, and in those studies where the pen type has been used as a risk factor, it has not emerged as significant ……The objector’s point on the presence of ‘type 2’ PD in fish farms adjacent to the Sound of Harris is not clear…….., however, the management and husbandry of the fish are the most significant factors in determining the impact of any viral challenge
7.4 Seal predation - Seal predation is an issue on many sites in the Western Isles and it is
anticipated that the Groay-Lingay site will experience its share of the problem. Measures are described in the planning application to combat seal predation but until the site is operational, the scale of the issue cannot be evaluated. …….. Please find attached a proposed seal management plan.
7.5 Cormorants - The data recorded in the Seabird 2000 survey which is relevant to the
proposed fish farm, highlights a nesting area for cormorant on the SE edge of Lingay NG 016 790, recorded on 10/06/02…The survey location illustrates the straight line distance been the nesting site and the closest cage edge as being 700 m. Cormorants may nest more widely on the island than the survey point, and indeed the owner of Lingay states in his objection that nests are within 450 m of the fish farm. The start and finish point of cormorant nesting on the island will vary with year, but can be assumed to start around the end of April, which chicks having fledged by early July, when they will vacate the area. The majority of boat traffic to the fish farm site will approach from the channel to the NW of the fish farm site, ……and if farm vessels do require to use of the SE approach, a wide berth, using reduced engine revolutions and hence noise, can be taken to avoid disturbance during the nesting season. ……The fish farm will operate with use of highly tensioned top nets to stop access to the caged fish by birds or other predators.
7.6 Site disposal and management - The applicant has submitted the application as the
developer of the proposed new fish farming site at Groay-Lingay. …... Experience of the
site and growth of the business, as well as activities of other fish farm operators in the vicinity, will be major factors in determining subsequent stocking timing.
7.7 Impact on economy - Development of new businesses while safeguarding existing ones is
important to the Western Isles economy. The proposed development….aims to generate new employment opportunities. The use of underutilised harbour facilities (Berneray and Otternish) will bring spin-off benefits to the immediate local community.
7.8 Fire-break - The Marine Scotland Management Area Maps are such a measure and the
context of the Area 5C and the proposed development was discussed with Marine Scotland during the EIA screening phase. The model used to generate the data for the maps inevitably has its limitations, as all models do, but given the complexity of water movement in the Sound of Harris, it is likely the conclusions of the tidal excursion model offers some degree of precaution, given the water mass moving from Uist to Harris is being redirected and mixed with Atlantic source inputs…
7.9 Sea-lice - The proposed fish farm will follow the Code of Good Practice as outlined in the
planning application, which has strict measures in place to monitor and manage sealice. 7.10 Pollution - The Control of Authorised Activities (CAR) licence was issued on 22/01/10,
Reference CAR/L/1040427 7.11 Confirmation of colours and heights of equipment -height of barge ……Afloat without feed,
the maximum height will be 6 m. It will for the majority of time be loaded with feed and also act as a store, which will reduce the height. Operationally it will always be below 6m. Cages deck with nets will sit approximately 0.5 m from water surface and hand rails will lie 1.1m above this. On each cage corner a heavy steel post 2 m above deck will be used to suspend top nets, which will quickly fall to around 1.5 m height from cage deck. Cage steelwork will be light grey, galvanised steel. Cage floats and mooring cushion floats will be dark grey.Feed barge will be light grey, or any colour requested.Shellfish floats will be dark grey with green blue rope between at water surface and below
7.12 See attached information submitted to Marine Scotland on operational issues; Location,
access to site, remote technology, vessels, husbandry, containment, suitability of equipment and production of secondary species.
DECISIONS AFFECTING THE SITE
8.1 There are no previous Comhairle planning decisions or Crown Estates Development consents relating to this site.
THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 9.1 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.
9.2 Western Isles Structure Plan
PLAN REF
RELEVANT TERMS IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS CASE
ED7 Marine and Freshwater Aquaculture Development In conjunction with interested parties, the Comhairle will prepare a strategy to enable the sustainable development of aquaculture in the Western Isles. In line with the policies
Local Plan Policy ED4 (See below) is the more recent policy on Marine Aquaculture Development. It incorporates the criteria stated in this policy together with additional criteria and the response to it can be found
of this Plan, consideration will be given to the following: i) location of sites suitable development; ii) design of associated facilities; iii) biodiversity landscape and other parts of the natural heritage; iv) access and servicing considerations; v) appropriate measures to deal with the issues of pollution, disease and navigational considerations; vi) appropriate management, monitoring and site restoration arrangements.
below.
RM15 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other Scheduled sites. The Comhairle will support proposals that seek to protect, enhance and interpret Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other archaeological sites. Development proposals affecting nationally important remains (whether scheduled or not) and their settings will normally not be permitted.
Where development is likely to affect an archaeological monument, site or possible remains:
i) early discussion with development control officers and the regional archaeologist is encouraged;….
Both Historic Scotland and the Comhairle Archaeologist have been consulted on the application. Historic Scotland advise that the proposed development has no impact on any Monuments of archaeological importance. The Comhairle Archaeologist has record of only one archaeological site on Lingay and has advised that neither this nor the possible archaeological feature identified by the owner of Lingay would lead to a recommendation for resfusal on historic environment grounds.
RM9 National Natural Heritage Designations The Comhairle will only permit development which would affect a designated area of national importance, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Scenic Areas where; i) the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised; or ii) any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly out-weighed by social
The Sound of Harris falls within the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area (NSA). The NSA Citation states “The scatter of islands in the Sound of Harris acts as a visual link between South Harris and North Uist, as well as creating a seascape of scenic beauty”. The SNH Landscape assessment categorises the landscape of the Groay/Lingay island group as ‘Rocky Moorland’ The application site falls within the NSA. The application advises that the site was designed having regard to SNH guidance on the siting of marine fish-farms in the landscape. The site sits between the islands of Groay and Lingay which are distant from the
mainland shore. The site also secures a level of screening and shelter from the island of Scaravay to the south and Gilsay to its north east. The proposed farm when viewed when viewed from boats in the Minch or the navigable routes through the Sound is therefore either partly obscured by landform and/or sited against the backdrop of the land-form of nearby islands and rocks and skerries thereby minimising its visual impact. The applicant has submitted a visual assessment of the proposal and subsequently clarified colours and scale of cages, equipment and bouys and height of barge. SNH has been consulted and has advised that the scale, location and design of the proposed development are such that it will not have a significant negative effect on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. As it is considered that the proposal will not have an effect on the integrity of the NSA. It is considered that there is no other evidence available that would suggest other than that of the advice of SNH
RM11 Habitats and Species
The Comhairle will not normally grant consent for developments on land or water that would have a significant adverse effects upon habitats or species listed under the EC Habitats Directive*, the EC Wild Birds Directive** or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)***. The Comhairle will encourage the appropriate management and enhancement of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild flora and fauna. In the event of a proposed development having an adverse impact on breeding or resting places used by these species, it should only proceed if: i) action must be to preserve
public health or safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature; and
ii) there is no satisfactory alternative; and
The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 has created a duty on public bodies “in exercising any functions, to further the conservation of biodiversity so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions”. Under EIA regulations, the proposal was screened and the conclusion was that the development was unlikely to have a ‘significant impact’ on species. The planning process however highlighted that there were species of conservation concern in the vicinty of the proposal and therefore further advice was sought from SNH. The key bio-diversity considerations relevant to the consideration of the application are commented on by SNH in their further advice detailed at Section 6.3 to 6.14 above. In summary the species are Otter and Cetaceans (European Protected Species), the Grey and Common Seals (Annex II Species) and Cormorants, a
iii) there will be no adverse impacts on the species as a whole.
protected species of conservation concern. SNH has considered the significance of impact on these species and recommended mitigation measures in relation to seals and cetaceans. In response the applicant has submitted a ‘Seal management plan’. It is proposed that the requirement to comply with the actions in Seal management plan be addressed by way of condition. SNH has advised that it does not consider that there will be a significant effect on either otters or cormorants as otters are known to co-exist with fish farms and adapt to boat traffic and are likely to have become accustomed to human activity on Lingay. They also advise that the cormorants nesting sites being 700m distant and out of site of the farm would be unlikely to be disturbed by boat traffic and if they were that there are sufficient alternative habitats nearby. SNH has therefore advised of mitigation measures for species that may be impacted upon and maintained their position that in their opinion the subject to mitigation measures being implemented, the impact is not significant.
9.3 Western Isles Local Plan PLAN REF RELEVANT TERMS IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS CASE LP/ED4 Aquaculture and Marine Planning
Powers In assessing development proposals the following considerations will be taken into account: • location
Historically, fish farming in the Western Isles was concentrated in inner sea lochs. However in recent years industry consolidation and evolving practice has resulted in farms of a larger scale located in sites in outer sea lochs or in coastal locations benefitting from the shelter of island or island groups. 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. In carrying out an assessment the cumulative impacts of farms are taken into consideration.
The application site (in common with three existing fish farms (Vaccasay, Grotay and Grey Horse Channel.) sited in the south east of the Sound of Harris) (1) falls outwith any category area defined in the Locational Guidance for the authorisation of marine fish farms in Scottish Water and (2) falls within the Marine Scotland defined Management Area 5c (East North Uist). The Locational guidelines produced by the Scottish Government – Marine Directorate are based on existing levels of nutrient loading and associated benthic impact from finfish developments and therefore focus on sea-lochs where there are existing (and possibly multiple fin-fish farms). However the fact that the site is outwith the areas for which Locational Guidelines are produced does not preclude the location. Management Areas are published by Marine Scotland to help avoid and minimise the impact of Infectious Salmon Anaemia. Farms within the same Management Area are recommended to follow a synchronised stocking, fallowing and medicine treatment regime. In terms of flushing of waste and consenting of medicine treatments SEPA has been satisfied that based on modelling, the site will not lead to unacceptable nutrient enhancement of the water or benthic impacts on the seabed and granted a CAR licence on 12 January 2010. SNH has been consulted and has advised that the scale, location and design of the proposed development are such that it will not have a significant negative effect on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area and will not have an effect on the integrity of the NSA. The site being remote from sea-lochs and wild fishery systems is unlikely to have an adverse effect on wild fish interests. The site is remote from housing and therefore visual impact or any noise from automated feeding equipment or boats will not have an adverse effect on any residential community. The site does not conflict with marine user groups in terms of local fishing interests, sailing, navigation or moorings. It is therefore concluded that in terms of planning policy considerations the location
• design of installations and
associated facilities; • biodiversity, landscape and
other natural heritage features; • access and servicing
considerations;
is acceptable. No new shore facilities are detailed in the present application. The proposed main and secondary shorebases exist and have existing marine related developments ashore. Cage steelwork will be light grey, galvanised steel. Cage floats and mooring cushion floats will be dark grey. The feed barge will be light grey in colour and its height out of the water is 7.5m of which 1 meter is a hopper. When floating and loaded with feed the barge will sit below 6m in height Cages deck with nets will sit approximately 0.5 m from water surface and hand rails will lie 1.1m above this. On each cage corner a heavy steel post 2 m above deck will be used to suspend top nets, which will quickly fall to around 1.5 m height from cage deck Shellfish floats will be dark grey with green blue rope between at water surface and below. The cage group and barge will require Navigation lighting in the interests of navigation safety. However the Harbour Master confirms that all the buoys and other navigation aids in the Sound of Harris are lit and therefore when viewed in the context of the Sound of Harris environment as a whole the navigation warning light at the proposed farm will have no greater impact than the existing navigation lighting on buoyed and charted navigation routes. At the 2 mile range stated its impact is minimal if at all at the point of the nearest settlement on mainland Harris. Bio-diversity, landscape and other natural features are addressed in the response to Structure Plan Policies RM9 and RM11 above. The site is to be serviced from an existing shore-base at the old ferry pier at Otternish or the existing harbour facilities at Berneray, North Uist. No new facilities are detailed in the current application. The applicant has advised of three naviagble routes to the site. However this is considered to be primarily an operational matter and not a significant matter for planning to concern itself with.
• appropriate measures to deal
with the issues of pollution, disease and
• navigational considerations;
appropriate management, monitoring and site restoration arrangements;
• the incremental or cumulative
impact of the proposal;
Pollution and fish disease are regulated by SEPA and Marine Scotland respectively. SEPA has no objections on pollution grounds and has granted the CAR Licence authorising chemical treatments and discharges for the development. Marine Scotland has advised that given that consent is granted, for the chemicals and treatments listed in the draft CAR licence, to be used on site to manage sea lice, this proposal is deemed satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen. CnES Harbour Master and the NLB advise that the cage group should be marked by navigation lighting ideally at commencement of site establishment. This matter can be covered by planning condition. Site restoration can be covered by condition. There are three existing fish farms in the wider area known as the Sound of Harris namely Vaccasay, Grotay and Grey Horse Channel. These sea farms all lie to the south of Cope’s Passage, are serviced from a shorebase at Cheesebay, North Uist and fall within the same Natural Heritage designation and Landscape Character type ‘Rocky Moorland’ as the application site. These existing sites are set against a backdrop of low lying islands of broadly similar landform and topography to those which are sited around the application site. The sites to the south of the sound are 4-5km south south west of the site and the seascape between is interspersed with rocks and skerries. The distance and landscape is such that it is considered that there is no adverse cumulative visual impact arising from the development. In terms of water depth and flushing of waste SEPA has granted a CAR licence confirming that they are satisfied that the site will not lead to unacceptable nutrient enhancement and benthic impacts on the seabed. SEPA take the cumulative impacts of discharges into account in assessing the CAR licence. The site is withing the Scottish Government defined Management Area 5c – East North Uist .
• the impact of development upon
areas used for recreational purposes.
The applicant has advised of a his intention to participate in the North Uist AMA and a number of consultees have stated the need for this. Marine Scotland has advised that the information provided on the areas below is satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen, provided that the proposed plans for assessing and operating the site are put into action by the applicant. Husbandry – mortality removal and
disposal Containment – contingency planning for
escapes, suitability of equipment Location – maintaining stock security
and access in an exposed location Production of secondary species –
fallow period simultaneous with primary species (salmon), disease free sources, and no movements to other sites.
These matters are operational ones regulated by Marine Scotland. For the avoidance of doubt the requirement for participation in the AMA is advised by way of informative. The site is remote from housing and therefore visual impact and any noise from automated feeding equipment or boats will not have any cumalitive or adverse effect on any community. The Sound of Harris is a large seascape interspersed with numerous islands and skerries offering one of only two navigable routes from minch to the atlantic through the Western Isles. The area is home to a wide range of wildlife, used by fishing boats, pleasure and some commercial craft. In the summer months in particular the area will be frequented by small groups of residents and visitors who wish to experience the landscape and wildlife in the Sound on local boat trips or independently in small boats or canoes. The Sound is also dived by recreational scuba divers and by some commercial scallop divers. It is acknowledged that the presence of any form of development in the Sound will be unacceptable to some but it is considered that the development of the proposed fish farm occupying a relatively small area by comparison to the area of the Sound as a whole is unlikely to have a significant or lasting adverse impact on the recreational uses as a whole.
10. SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
‘SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY’- OVERVIEW 10.1 Scottish Planning Policy is a statement of Scottish Government policy on land use planning.
The Planning Acts require decisions to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations are those that relate to the development and use of land. It also confirms 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. 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.
10.2 The Scottish Government published a consolidated Scottish Planning Policy document on 4
February 2010. Its publication revokes individual policy documents including the following which had been considered relevant to the assessment of this application: NPPG14 – Natural Heritage; SPP 15 Planning for Rural Development and SPP 22 Planning for Fish Farming. The new consolidated SPP is more succinct and focused but carries forward the core guidance from each of the superseded documents. In the interests of completeness the former Planning Policy documents is referenced in tandem with the full range of paragraphs in the consolidated document. Policy extracts are cited and responded to below.
SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY FISH FARMING [PARA 104 – 109] (SUPERSEDE SPP 22 - PLANNING FOR FISH FARMING)
10.3 The consolidated Scottish Planning Policy states that ‘Aquaculture is a nationally important industry, particularly for coastal and island communities, making an important contribution to the rural economy and providing a significant number of jobs, many in remote locations where alternative employment opportunities are limited.’
10.4 The socio economic benefits of the application are detailed in the application as being 7
direct jobs comprising 6 farm staff and 1 administrative post with the development being serviced from under-utilised Comhairle owned harbour at Berneray and the former ferry pier at Otternish, North Uist. Direct employment is also expected to result in indirect spend in the local economy. However some concern has been raised as to the risk of the development adversely impacting on tourism. In April 2009 the Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum published the findings of a case study on the impact of fish farming on tourism. The research carried out in three areas including the Western Isles found that tourism was not adversely impacted upon by the presence of fish farms.
10.5 The policy guidance goes on to state that ‘When determining planning applications,
authorities should take into account the direct and cumulative effects of the proposed development on the environment, including carrying capacity, visual impact and the effects on the landscape, marine historic environment and the sea or loch bed. The needs of local communities and other interests should also be taken into account alongside the economic benefits of the sustainable development of the fish farming industry and the operational needs of fish farms. The capacity of an area to accommodate fish farm development can be considered on a loch or voe wide basis. Where adverse cumulative impacts are significant and cannot be mitigated, planning permission should not be granted. Fish farms can be fitted into their surroundings to avoid or minimise visual intrusion and mitigation strategies should be incorporated into development proposals.’
10.6 The assessment of cumulative impact of the development is addressed under the comment on the Western Isles Local Plan Policy ED4 above. In summary the only other marine fish farms sites in the Sound of Harris lie to the South of Copes Passage into the South East of the Sound. These are sited approximately 4-5km away from the application site and screened by a different group of islands of similar landscape character, topography and elevation. The development is therefore not considered to have adverse cumulative impacts on the landscape.
10.7 At a distance of 4.55km from the nearest house at Strond on mainland Harris, the location of this proposed fish farm is remote from any established settlement. At this distance and with it’s proposed siting within a small group of islands where the landform rises to approximately 25m AOD, it is unlikely that the proposed farm would be visible to the naked eye when viewed from mainland Harris or North Uist. As such no residential community will suffer adverse neighbour impacts be they visual, lighting or noise. The only lighting proposed at the site will be in the form of required navigational warning lighting. When viewed in the context of existing navigation buoys and lighting in the Sound of Harris, this additional lighting is not considered to have significant additional or adverse cumulative impact. The cumulative impact on Water quality and benthos has been addressed by SEPA in the process of granting a CAR licence. Historic Scotland has been consulted on the application and confirms that there are no monuments, category A listed buildings or their settings, gardens and designed landscapes or designated wreck sites (Protection of Wrecks Act 1973)) in the vicinity of the proposed development and in light of this the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on any nationally important cultural heritage features. The Comhairle’s archaeologist has also been consulted and has no objection to the proposal. The wild fisheries interest has been consulted through the Outer Hebrides, District Salmon Fisheries Board and it has offered its support for the farm’s location away from sea-loch and entrance to wild fish river systems.
. 10.8 In order to clarify the roles of the different regulators and the industry the planning policy
guidance advises that ‘There are a number of regulatory controls covering fish farming in addition to planning ......... The planning system should not duplicate other control regimes such as controlled activities regulation licences from SEPA or fish health, sea lice and containment regulation by Marine Scotland. Planning authorities and applicants should engage with other regulators to improve understanding of relevant requirements. Voluntary Codes of Good Practice have been produced by fish farming stakeholders which address a range of issues outwith planning control such as cage and equipment design, security, management and operational practices. These codes provide the basis for certification of standards and practices put forward in support of planning applications for fish farms.’
10.9 The planning authority while not seeking to duplicate other regulatory regimes has engaged
with other regulators in the course of assessing this application. SEPA has issued a CAR licence and Marine Scotland has assessed operational plans including requirements in terms of Access and stock security at a remote site, (vessel and use of remote technologies), containment plans, (Contingency planning for escapes and suitability of equipment), Husbandry and protocols for production of secondary species. Marine Scotland has advised that the information provided on the access to a remotely located site is satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen, provided that the proposed plans for operating the site are put into action by the applicant.
10.10 The policy guidance highlights that ‘There is potential for conflict between fish farming and
local fishing interests, including commercial inshore fishing and recreational fishing. The effects of fish farm development on traditional fishing grounds, salmon netting stations and angling interests should be considered. Other uses of the inshore area, such as recreational use, should also be taken into account when identifying potential development areas and sensitive areas in development plans and when determining planning applications’
10.11 The community of interest in the marine environment in the sound of Harris include, fishermen, sailing boats, the inter-island car ferry, marine traffic passing east or west through the Sound and those who use the area for recreation, primarily although not exclusively in the summer months. The siting of the farm has had regard to the need to keep the charted anchorage clear and the Royal Yachting Association has been consulted and has no objections. The Western Isles Fisherman’s association was consulted at an early stage and does not have any objections. The Harbourmaster and NLB have made recommendation re navigation markers that can be addressed by way of condition. The development is to be serviced from a disused slipway and under-utilised existing harbour and will not adversely affect inshore access for recreational uses.
10.12 This policy guidance states ‘Scotland’s landscape and natural heritage are internationally renowned and important, underpinning significant industries such as the food, drink and tourism industries, and are a key component of the high environmental quality which makes Scotland an attractive place in which to live, do business and invest. Improving the natural environment and the sustainable use and enjoyment of it is one of the Government’s national outcomes. Planning authorities should therefore support opportunities for enjoyment and understanding of the natural heritage All public bodies, including planning authorities, have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, and this should be reflected in development plans and development management decisions. Biodiversity is important because it provides natural services and products that we rely on, is an important element of sustainable development and makes an essential contribution to Scotland’s economy and cultural heritage. Landscapes and the natural heritage are sensitive to inappropriate development and planning authorities should ensure that potential effects, including the cumulative effect of incremental changes, are considered when preparing development plans and deciding planning application………
10.13 ….International designations – Sites classified as Special Protection Areas (SPA) under the
Birds Directive19 and designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive20 form an EU-wide network of protected areas known as Natura 2000. The application site is not covered by any International natural heritage designations.
10.14 …..National Designations - A National Scenic Areas (NSA) is an area which is nationally
important for its scenic quality. Development that affects a NSA, should only be permitted where it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated, or any such adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance.’
10.15 The application site is within a National Scenic Area but as detailed in the response to
Development Plan Policy, regard has been had to the siting of the farm within a group of islands and against the backdrop of islands and skerries resulting in it being partially screened when viewed from any direction. SNH has also assessed the application and in their opinion the development does not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated.
10.16 The policy guidance states ‘Protected Species - Many species are legally protected and
their presence or potential presence is an important consideration in decisions on planning applications. Although their presence rarely imposes an absolute block on development, mitigation measures are often needed and the layout, design and timing of works may be affected. If there is evidence to suggest that a protected species is present on site or may be affected by a proposed development, their presence must be established, the requirements of the species factored into the planning and design of the development and any likely impact on the species fully considered prior to the determination of the planning application…
10.17 …Planning permission must not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a European protected species unless the planning authority is satisfied that: there is no satisfactory alternative, and the development is required for preserving public health or public safety or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment. In no circumstances can development be approved which would be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a European protected species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range.’
10.18 The key species of conservation concern relevant to this application are the common and
grey sea, cetaceans, otter and cormorant. SNH has provided advice (See Para 6.3 above). and concluded that the development while potentially impacting on seals and cetaceans is unlikely to have a significant effect on these species and has provided mitigation advice as follows; “Given the numbers of both species of seals already in the area and the close proximity of the grey seal breeding colony, we suggest that the applicant should be asked to provide an anti predator protocol taking account of the following: • We recommend that shooting is not used as the likely high number of interactions would
allow large numbers of “rogue” seals to be shot, including common seals which are in serious decline.
• We recommend the use of properly tensioned and maintained anti-predator nets. These may still present a hazard to grey seal pups which can get caught up in them and therefore regular maintenance will be an issue.
• Acoustic scaring devices have been proposed by the applicant but these have the potential to have an impact on cetaceans and non target wildlife depending on the type, their deployment and frequency. It is possible to source designs which reduce this - we recommend that the applicant considers this risk and submits a plan for their deployment, to reduce the impact on other wildlife in the area but particularly cetaceans using the adjacent deeper water.
10.19 In response the applicant has prepared and submitted a seal management plan which sets
out how it is proposed to implement the mitigation measures on seals and in turn cetaceans. It is proposed that the actions in the management plan be addressed by way of condition on the grant of any planning permission.
10.20 The otter is a European Protected Species and SNH has advised that in their opinion the
development will not have a significant impact on this species. They advise that from their observations of otter activity in other areas where there are fishfarms they are of the opinion that they are unlikely to be significantly disturbed by the activity of the fishfarm, particularly as they have become accustomed to human activity on the island
10.21 SNH has also provided advice on Polyculture and the need to be aware of impacts on non-
native species and displacement of species. In the interests of bio-diversity duty, this information has been advised to the applicant and can be detailed as a point of information on any planning permission.
10.22 The impact of the proposed development on marine habitats has also been considered.
SEPA have a responsibility for monitoring this matter. The CAR licence application was advertised in the local press in October 2009, and granted in January 2010. In granting the licence SEPA will have assessed the benthic and water column impacts and satisfied itself, based on the hydrographic and data modelling, that there will be no significant impact.
10.23 The consolidated Scottish Planning Policy on Rural Development states that ‘The planning system has a significant role in supporting sustainable economic growth in rural areas. By taking a positive approach to new development, planning authorities can help to create the right conditions for rural businesses and communities to flourish. The aim should be to enable development in all rural areas which supports prosperous and sustainable communities whilst protecting and enhancing environmental quality’.
10.24 This proposed development introduces the cultivation of complementary shellfish and
seaweed species alongside the proposed rearing of salmon. Research by the applicant and others indicate that a development of this nature is likely to have a lesser impact on the environment than a single species fin fish farm. The applicant states that the secondary species will generate an income stream when the fin-fish element of the farm is fallow. The diversity of the proposal increases its sustainability and is expected to lessen the effects on the environment.
11 MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDING COMMENT ON REPRESENTATIONS
VISUAL IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND EFFECT ON THE NATIONAL SCENIC AREA 11.1 Representations received express concern as to the impact the siting and navigational
lighting will have on the landscape and scenic value within the NSA; that the ‘Visual Impact Study’ is not accurate as it does not reflect navigation lighting or demonstrate the view from the passing ferry at the passenger viewing deck level of circa 12m.
11.2 The ferry route at its nearest point is approximately 1km from the nearest point on the
proposed farm. SNH has been consulted and has advised that ’the structure of the proposed fish farm is low to the water surface and does not create a significant visual obstruction and will be partially screened by a backdrop of rocky outcrops. Considering this the development will merge well with the current character of the landscape.’ Therefore this development will not have any affect on the integrity of the NSA. The installation would be viewed at 1km in the distance and it is considered that the view as detailed in the visual impact study would not be significantly different. Navigation lighting is to be visible at a notional 2 mile radius but in the context of other navigation lighting in the Sound of Harris is unlikely to result in significant or cumulative impact on the landscape or the NSA. This concern does not merit refusal of the application.
NATURAL HERITAGE STATUS
11.3 The area is cited in representations as being world renowned for marine and bird life with concerns expressed that development in this area will damage fragile ecosystems. Representations also cite that the development will be detrimental to the case of a Marine National Park.
11.4 While it is acknowledged that many areas of the Western Isles and the Sound Of Harris
have scenic value and abundant wildlife, the area in and around the application site does not carry any Inter-national or European natural heritage designations. Furthermore, with the exception of the National Scenic Area landscape designation, the area does not carry any other national designation. This concern does not merit refusal of the application.
IMPACT ON SEAL COLONIES 11.5 Both common and Grey seals are Annex II species under the EC Habitats Directive and are
protected under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. Numerous representations state that the proposed site would be located within or in extremely close proximity to traditional breeding seal colony for both Atlantic Grey and Common Seals and that the farm would therefore be highly pre-disposed to seal predation. They further advise that the assessment of impact and number should have regard to the whole area of the Sound including the protected islands of Shillay and Coppay to the North west of the proposed site. It has also been advised that Grey Seals populations have barely stabilised or only increasing slowly. Further concerns are expressed on the grounds that Scotland has lost almost one third of its Common Seal population in the last 2 years. Objectors cite amongst other reasons the adverse impacts of fish farms on seal colonies and their haul-outs with predator interactions resulting in disturbance to breeding, indiscriminate shooting of adults including nursing mothers and entanglement of cubs in predator nets.
11.6 The number of common and grey seals in the area was unknown to the Comhairle and
SNH at the time of EIA Screening and at the time of submission of the planning application. However the Sea Mammal Research Unit has now provided the data to SNH. The Comhairle has sought SNH’s further advice on the impacts on the common and grey seal. In terms of the grey seal population, SNH advise that siting a fish farm so close to predators will make it far more likely for there to be interactions and that this type of predator management may be restricted in the future as there are likely to be licence procedures for shooting rogue seals as part of the Marine (Scotland) Act. In terms of the common seal where there has been a national ‘crash’ in the population they advise that any increased lethal control of common seals could have a more significant impact on the population and therefore recommended that appropriate non lethal scaring methods are employed. In conclusion SNH has maintained its position of non-objection to the application and provided mitigation advice in terms of impact on seals and cetaceans. In response, the applicant has subsequently submitted a ‘Seal Management Plan’. SNH has reviewed the Plan and advised that it ‘seems to be a reasonable approach’. It is proposed that the implementation of the actions in the management plan be conditioned on the grant of any planning permission.
IMPACT ON CETACEANS
11.7 Representations cite that the proposed development will threaten the cetaceans (risso’s ,white-sided, white beaked and common dolphins, pilot and minke whales, basking shark and harbour porpoise) that have been seen in the area.
11.8 Cetaceans are European Protected Species and it is an offence to deliberately disturb them.
SNH confirm that it had been brought to their attention that cetaceans have been observed using the area of deeper water adjacent to the proposed fishfarm and advise that they could be disturbed by the acoustic scarers. However they advise that any impact could be minimised through the design and deployment of these devices.
11.9 The deployment of acoustic scarers with reduced impact on cetaceans is addressed in the
Seal Management Plan which it is proposed be conditioned on the grant of any planning permission.
IMPACT ON OTTERS
11.10 There is a significant population of otters, (a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) established and breeding on both Lingay and Groay. The otters will suffer from pollution and degradation of aquatic habitat and suffer food contamination from water borne pollutants which are absorbed by the fish they eat on.
11.11 SEPA is the regulatory body on pollution and discharges to marine waters. SEPA has already granted a control of Authorised Activities Regulation (CAR) licence and in doing so will have assessed and satisfied itself that the site has adequate flushing to disperse pollutants. It is not the intention of the planning system to duplicate other control regimes relating to fish farming such as the controlled activities regulation licences by SEPA or fish health, sea lice, and containment regulations by Marine Scotland. Previous comment has been made on the matter in response to Local Plan Policy ED4 above. This concern does not therefore merit refusal of the application.
MINK PREDATION
11.12 There are concerns that feeding barges will attract mink back to the area which is contrary to the aims of the Council funded Hebridean Mink Project. The security of the barge and protection of feed stuff from predators is an operational manner and is not for the planning system to regulate. This concern does not merit refusal of the planning application.
IMPACT ON ORNITHOLOGY
11.13 Representation state that there is are a wide variety of birds that breed and feed in the vicinity of the proposed fish farm including species that are of national importance and conservation concern. The breeds cited are Cormorants, Corncrakes, White-tailed Eagles, Eider Ducks Red shank, Turnstone, Ringed Plover, Common Sandpiper Guillemot, Razor bills, Puffins and Heron. Concerns expressed include the impact the development will have on the bird life, through the use of antifouling and protective netting, potentially driving the birds away from the area through noise and activity levels. Concern is also expressed that noise from automatic feeders, scaring devices that may be deployed and also the daily movements of staff could potentially affect the wildlife and drive away the bird colonies.
11.14 The advice of SNH was sought on the terms of the objections relating to birds and in
particular request made for comment on any particular species that may be impacted upon by the development. Of those listed above, SNH commented on the cormorant only as the others are unlikely to be adversely affected if at all. SNH’s advice was that in the event of cormorants abandoning the colony closest to the fish farm, they do have other alternative sites in the vicinity to nest including Sgaravay. In addition the applicant has advised that in line with the Code of Good Practice the fish farm will operate with use of highly tensioned top nets to stop access to the caged fish by birds or other predators. In conclusion this concern does not merit refusal of the planning application.
DEVELOPMENT IS CONTRARY TO GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE AND CODE OF PRACTICE ON AND PREDATORY WILDLIFE AND SALMON FARMING .
11.15 Representations state that the siting of the development is contrary to Scottish Government Guidance as the site is surrounded by vulnerable wildlife. It is also Contrary to Code of Practice – Salmon Farming and predatory wildlife in that new farms should not be established close to concentrations of predator. Concerns have been expressed about the use of anti-fouling/predator and protective netting, gill netting, acoustic scarers, the possible shooting seals and the impact this will have on the species that live breed and feed in the vicinity.
11.16 The Aquaculture Industry has produced Code’s of Practice (COP) for the management of
predators and the applicant has stated that it is his intention to operate the farm in accordance with the COP. The Comhairle has taken the advice of SNH on the impact of the development on predatory species, primarily seals and cormorants. The management of species of conservation concern are already commented upon above.
THE DEVELOPMENT WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF AN ANCHORAGE
11.17 Representations cite that there is an existing anchorage in the vicinity of the proposed fish farm, which will be lost if the proposal goes ahead.
11.18 The farm has been sited to leave the charted anchorage clear as confirmed in the
navigation considerations submitted in support of the application and the consultation responses by the RYA, Harbourmaster and NLB at Section 6 above.
THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURAL HERITAGE. 11.19 The owner of Lingay has cited the discovery of a large rock formation in the shape of a
crucifix, which is thought to be a significant historical feature on the Island. The Comhairle’s Archaeologist has been consulted and advised that “…when features are enhanced for a more ritualistic reason they usually point to a significant feature on the landscape, I have checked what we know about early Christianity on the Islands facing Lingay and the majority of the sites are prehistoric, Norse and Post Medieval. I would say that this feature is not of the level of significance which would make me recommend refusal.” THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON TOURISM
11.20 Objectors cite that the economic future of Harris depends on tourism and there appears to be lack of judgement shown in considering a proposal in such a location where visitors wish to come and view the wildlife and scenic beauty of the area.
11.21 While the importance of the tourism industry and its value to a rural community cannot be
under estimated, there is a need for a number of different forms of employment and business in order to achieve a sustainable community. In the absence of research evidence on the matter the Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum commissioned and published in April 2009 a study entitled the ‘Assessment of evidence that fish farming impacts on tourism’ The report was prepared by consultants Royal Haskoning Poseidon and the research found at the three case study locations of Mull and Oban, Outer Hebrides and Shetland no evidence to suggest that current levels of aquaculture impacts on tourism. While it is acknowledged that this is only one study on the subject it is considered that the concern does not merit refusal of the planning application.
IMPACT ON WILD SALMON AND RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
11.20 Concerns have been expressed about the affect of the proposed site on the migratory salmon and sea trout through the Sound of Harris and the impact on Obbe fishing system and on the wild recreational fisheries The impact of cross transfer of sea lice from farmed fish to wild salmonoids and the impact on the wild fisheries up to 20 miles away. It has been shown that cross breeding with alien salmon (after the fish escape) reduces the survival rates of wild fish.
11.21 Both Marine Scotland and the Outer Hebrides District Salmon Fisheries Board have been
consulted on the application. See Section 6 above. Both acknowledge that the site is located outwith a sea-loch thereby reducing the risk to wild salmonids and have not objected to the proposal.
IMPACT ON SHELLFISH
11.22 Concern is raised as to the impact of the proposed farm on scallop and scallop diving. The control of pollution and water quality is regulated by SEPA and as detailed above a CAR licence is already in place. Marine Scotland are the regulatory body for off-shore shellfish fisheries.
EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT AND TIDAL FLOW AND THE EFFECT OF THE WASTE/ POLLUTION ON THE SURROUNDING SEABED, COASTAL SEAWEED, WINTER GRAZING OF SHEEP AND FOODCHAIN
11.23 Concerns have been expressed as to the accuracy of the evaluation of the current and tidal flow and extracts provided from the Sound of Harris Pilot book. Concerns have also been expressed with regard to the effect the waste from the fish farm will have on the seabed which is currently pristine and the surrounding ecology. Some of the objectors are worried that the site is not deep enough to allow dispersal of the waste from the site which will cause a build up of waste on the seabed.
11.24 The crofter who winter grazes his sheep on Groay is concerned that the pollution caused by the development will contaminate the seaweed that fertilizes the grazing and in turn absorbed by sheep and will find its way into the food chain. Concern is also expressed that the noise caused by the fish farm activity will scare the sheep away from the most fertile part of the Island which is also the most sheltered part of the Island making it more difficult to gather stock onto the landing craft when being removed in the spring.
11.24 As detailed above the assessment of tidal movement and dispersal of discharges are
matters for SEPA and Marine Scotland. As detailed above a CAR licence has already been granted by SEPA. Stock on islands are likely to become accustomed to daily boat traffic and in any event the noise generated is unlikely to be of such significance as to merit refusal of the application. SCALE AND NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
11.25 The scale of the development is similar to most of the other finfish farms as consolodation of the industry has led to larger sites in deeper waters with higher welfare standards and less environmental impact. The longlines running parallel to the main axis of the fin fish cages while adding to the scale of the development are being used to grow shellfish and seaweed species that is understood to reduce the environmental impact of the salmon farming. The application has been assessed in terms of the ability of landscape absorbtion and SNH has confirmed that the development has been assessed as not having an adverse effect on the NSA. This concern does not merit refusal of the application.
IMPACT ON THE NAVIGATION OF THE SOUND OF HARRIS
11.25 The farm is sited clear of navigation routes and navigation lighting at the farm does not add significantly to the level of navigation lighting already present within the Sound of Harris.
THE CUMULATIVE AND SOCIO ECONOMIC IMPACT
11.26 Representation cite the development as having adverse and cumulative socio economic impacts. However there is no evidence to support this view. The application states that the development will create seven new positions of emplyment, six of which will be involved in the operation of the farm together with one administrative position. There is no quantifiable evidence to support the case that a fish farm located 4.5Km from the nearest house in Harris and resultant loss of tourism income will negate the economic benefits arising from these new positions of employment.
PANCREATIC DISEASE INFECTION
11.27 A competitor fish farm operator in the vicinity state that the square pens proposed are more pre-disposed to Pancreatic Disease Infection in fish stock than circular pens. The applicant has responded quoting scientific evidence to demonstrate that this statement has not been borne out by scientific reaseach on the matter. The applicants response has been referred to Marine Scotland for verification and a response is awaited at the time of writing the report. Fish Health is a matter for Marine Scotland.
SYNCHRONISATION OF STOCKING/FALLOWING REGIME
11.28 Concerns have been expressed that this fish farm will not be stocked/fallow at the same time as other fish farms in the Management Area. The Code of Good Practice for Fin-fish farming recommends that operators participate in the Area Management Agreements (AMA) published by Marine Scotland. The applicant has confirmed that it is his intention to participate in Area 5c and ensure stocking, medicine treatment and fallowing will be synchronised with other fish farms in the same Management Area. Again this is an operational matter for the industry in conjunction with Marine Scotland.
THE PROPOSED SITE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THERE ARE NO CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR BAD WEATHER
11.30 Marine Scotland has a remit to address range of operational matters advised that the information provided on the areas below is satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen, provided that the proposed plans for assessing and operating the site are put into action by the applicant. Husbandry – mortality removal and disposal
Containment – contingency planning for escapes, suitability of equipment Location – maintaining stock security and access in an exposed location Production of secondary species – fallow period simultaneous with primary species
(salmon), disease free sources, and no movements to other sites. Again this is an operational matter for the industry in conjunction with Marine Scotland.
BIODIVERSITY DUTY
11.31 The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2006 places a duty on all public bodies to further the conservation of biodiversity. It is considered by some of the parties submitting representations that the Comhairle will be failing in its duty under this act by approving the application. This issue is responded to above and under Local Plan Policy ED4 above.
LIGHTING
11.32 There is concern that development will cause further light pollution in the Sound of Harris. The applicant does not propose to use under water lighting to aid growth, therefore the only additional lighting will be navigational lighting which is required by the Northern Lighthouse Board. Due to the complexity of navigation in the Sound of Harris there are already numerous lit navigational buoys and so cumulative impact is minimal. Furthermore as the navigational lighting is distant from any residential community it is considered to have neglible if any impact on the nearest residential community. It is considered that the restriction on use of under water lighting can be dealt with by condition.
INSURANCE FOR THE FISH FARM
11.33 Several of the objectors have asked how the applicant intends to get insurance for the proposal when the proposed fish farm is so close to seal haul-out when seals are predators. This is a matter for the applicant and is not a material planning consideration.
INCOMPLETE EIA PROCEDURES AND LACK OF CONSULTATION/NOTIFICATION WITH ADJOINING NEIGHBOURS AND LAND OWNERS.
11.34 Representations were submitted on the grounds that EIA should be expected for farms over 0.1ha and secondly that no one outside Uist appears to have known about the proposal.
11.35 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) refers to the whole process by which
environmental information is collected, publicised and taken into account in reaching a decision on a relevant planning application. Marine Fin Fish Farming is almost without exception a Schedule 2 development. However it should be noted that Schedule 2 development will require EIA only if the development is screened as being likely to have significant effects on the environment.
11.36 A request for a combined screening and if required scoping opinion in respect of this
development was submitted to Comhairle nan Eilean Siar in May 2009. The view of statutory and internal consultees who have an environmental remit in relation to marine fish farms were consulted. Having reviewed the advice of these consultees, the Comhairle concluded that the development was unlikely to have a ‘significant effect on the environment’ and issued its decision and that in these circumstances a full environmental statement was not required. Notwithstanding this process the applicant had submitted environmental information in support of his request for a screening process and was advised to submit specific information in support of any future planning application. The EIA regulations were therefore adhered to.
11.37 As fish farms are at the sea and generally do not share a border with land, the planning
procedure for public notification is to place an advert advising of the receipt of the application in a newspaper circulating in the locality. The statutory press advert appeared in the 1 January 2010 issue of the West Highland Free Press. There is no requirement to formally notify the owners of nearby land or islands. In addition the planning application was included in the weekly list of applications made available on the Comhairle website and circulated to community councils, elected members and local newspapers. The planning application was displayed on the Comhairle Planning portal for on-line viewing. Prior to submission of the application the applicant had consulted with Berneray and North Uist Community Council and the Western Isles Fisherman’s Association who represent fishing
interests throughout the Western Isles. Statutory notification procedures were therefore adhered to.
PRECEDENT FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
11.38 As detailed in the response to Local Plan Policy LP/ED4, the Comhairle does not at present have strategic framework plans to identify preferred locations for fish farms and therefore at present the Development Plan comprising the Western Isles 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. In carrying out an assessment the cumulative impacts of farms are taken into consideration. The preparation of a future strategic framework plan for aquaculture is however being considered as part of the new Local Development Plan (LDP), for which the Development Plan Scheme has recently been published. The Main Issues Report for the LDP is to be the subject of public consultation shortly as advertised in the local press.
CONCLUSION
12.1 The Planning Acts require decisions to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations are those that relate to the development and use of land. 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. Where there are impacts that can be mitigated, conditions may be imposed on the grant of planning permission to enable development to proceed.
12.2 When determining planning applications for marine fish farms, authorities require to take
into account the direct and cumulative effects of the proposed development on the environment, including carrying capacity, visual impact and the effects on the landscape, marine historic environment and the sea or loch bed. The needs of local communities and other interests require to be taken into account alongside the economic benefits of the sustainable development of the fish farming industry and the operational needs of fish farms.
12.3 The planning system requires to consider all the planning issues and weigh up the competing issues in the context of local and national policy guidance and have regard to material considerations if they dictate that the application should be dealt with other than in accordance with the Development Plan.
12.4 The Planning Service seeks the advice of statutory consultees as specialists in different aspects of the development. In this case further advice was also sought in respect of some of the issues raised by consultees. None of the statutory consultees have objected to the application.
12.5 Some concern remains as to whether in approving the application the Comhairle may be failing in its duty to protect and further the conservation of Bio-diversity. Having considered all the issues raised, the main issue is the impact the development could have on grey and common seal populations, and cetaceans (and in particular predation by them resulting in direct impact - lethal means of predatation control or the in-direct impact of non-lethal methods (acoustic deterants and scarers) on cetaceans).
12.6 The coasts of the Hebrides have an abundance of wildlife and habitat. Their relative value in an international, European or national context is recognised by designation of sites for specific species and/or habitats.
12.7 The small seal islands of Shillay and Copay at the north western extreme of the Sound of Harris have a national designation in the form of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), but no other part of the Sound or its islands are a candidate for or subject to an area based designation for habitats or species under National or European Legislation.
12.8 Notwithstanding this cetaceans are EPS while the common and grey seal are species of conservation concern listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive to be considered for designation as an SAC. The Comhairle has sought and obtained advice from SNH on mitigation measures. The applicant has taken advice from a number of different sources and submitted a Seal Management Plan. SNH has sight of the plan and advise that in their opinion the proposed approach is reasonable.
12.9 The visual impact and the effects on the landscape are satisfied as are any impacts on marine historic environment and the seabed. The wild fisheries interests are satisfactory as are the impacts on any settlement. The site does not give rise to navigation conflicts and does not conflict with wider fishing or recreational interests. The development will create economic benefits and therefore the deciding factor is the balance of these issues against the possible impacts on the seal population.
12.10 Given the ability to condition the actions in the seal management plan in the grant of any planning permission it is on balance considered that the proposal can be recommended for approval.
12.11 The proposal has been assessed against the Development Plan and consideration given to all other material considerations including those highlighted by third party representations. There are no formal objections from statutory or internal consultees. The development has on balance been assessed to comply with Development Plan Policy and while there are relevant material planning considerations it is judged that none either individually or collectively carry sufficient weight to justify refusal of the application. Where unacceptable impacts have been identified, these are proposed for mitigation by way of planning condition. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions shown in Appendix 1 to this report.
APPENDIX 1
SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Condition 1 Other than as required by Condition 6 below, throughout the life of the development
to which this planning permission relates, the cage structures above water level shall be coloured a light grey and the cage, shellfish and mooring cushion floats shall be coloured dark grey and shall be retained in this colour throughout the life of the development, unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Comhairle as planning authority.
Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the area Condition 2 Throughout the life of the development to which this planning permission relates, no
means of artificial illumination, other than that required for health and safety or navigation reasons shall be installed above or below the water surface, without the prior written approval of the Comhairle as planning authority.
Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the area Condition 3 In the event that the fish cages, longlines or associated apparatus approved by this
planning permission fall into disrepair or cease to be in operational use for the growing of finfish or shellfish for a period exceeding 18 months, they shall be wholly removed and the site restored to the satisfaction of the Comhairle as planning authority within (in the case of disrepair) 3 month of notice by the Comhairle of their disrepair or (in the case of cessation of operational use) 24 months of last use, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Comhairle as planning authority.
Reason To prevent deterioration of the site in the event of cessation of operations. Condition 4 On commencement of cage group installation and throughout the life of the
development to which this planning permission relates the cage group should be marked by means of a lit yellow pole, flashing group four yellow every twelve seconds, (Fl (4) Y 12s) and fitted with a yellow multiplication cross topmark. The pole should be positioned at the most Northerly corner of the group of cages. The pole 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.
Reason In the interests of navigational safety Condition 5 Unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Comhairle as planning authority,
throughout the life of the development to which this planning permission relates 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.
Reason In the interests of navigational safety Condition 6 The use of trip ropes and mooring buoys to indicate the seabed extremity anchors are
prohibited on the Northerly and Westerly side of the site. The anchors to the the most Southwesterly corner are to be marked with 50cm high visibility orange.
Reason In the interests of safety in the anchorage and indicate to vessels the extreme anchor positions.
Condition 7 The development shall be implemented in accordance with the 'management plan
actions' as set out in the Seal Management Plan dated 2 February, attached to and forming part of this consent, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning authority.
Reason In order to safeguard the natural heritage and biodiversity interests in the area
Plan Dated 2 February 2010 Fish farm seal management plan – Groay-Lingay, Sound of Harris Objectives
1. To minimises the impacts of seals on the farmed fish and vice versa 2. To primarily use non-lethal methods for reducing seal-fish farm conflicts 3. To use management methods which minimise impacts on cetaceans 4. To monitor effectiveness of measures 5. To develop techniques for seal management within the context of the Marine Bill
Management assumptions Moderately high numbers of both grey and harbour seals have been observed using haul-outs on the islands of Groay, Lingay and neighbouring islands and skerries (Duck 2009). Though the islands and skerries may be used by both species as foraging haul-outs, the highest densities of seals occur during the grey seal breeding season. Harbour seals in contrast breed at much lower densities, mainly at sea, and are recorded ashore between foraging and during moulting. Studies in the Moray Firth have shown harbour seals to foraging at ranges of up to 50km from haul-outs (Parijs 1997), though as pups may accompany their mothers during this period, smaller ranges are more likely. Pups are weaned at around four weeks and then disperse widely. Harbour seals do not cluster in numbers like grey seals and maintain relatively broad and low density distribution along the local coastline. Both male and female grey seals, while involved in breeding spend the majority of time ashore and loose considerable body mass during the period (Anderson 1975). It is assumed that during breeding, grey seals feed on very little, with females suckling and protecting their young and males managing their harem, only entering the water for short courtship displays. Pups are weaned at approximately 4 weeks and then disperse widely. Tracking studies have shown grey seals to move ranges between 75 – 365 km (Thompson 1996) while foraging and it is assumed that breeding sites offer different characteristics from suitable foraging haul-outs. Both species of seal will potentially interact with the proposed fish farm but the type and extent of interactions will be controlled, as is possible, through the development of measures appropriate to the species, target age group, season and the implications for other wildlife. Negative interactions between seals and the fish farm may include: the stressing of farmed fish, the killing of farmed fish and damage of nets allowing release of farmed fish. The primary assumption for seal management at the proposed fish farm is that, if the seals are prevented from gaining access to the farmed fish, negative interactions will be minimised. Seals are likely to forage adjacent to fish cages as these physical structures can act to aggregate wild fish. Freshly weaned pups of both species will disperse widely, approximately 4 weeks after birth. Heightened ensnaring risk of pups on fish farm equipment is likely during post-weaning dispersal, as animals are inquisitive and naïve. Timing of highest seal numbers in vicinity of fish farm may not correspond to the greatest number of farm and seal interactions, as previously stated, grey seals are feeding very little during the breeding season.
Plan Dated 2 February 2010 Management Actions A combination of effective physical and non physical barriers, between the seals and farmed fish will be utilised to reduce physical ability to access farmed fish. As a further step, development of methods to adjust and suppress the interest of the predators in farmed fish will be investigated. Management actions will include:
• Use of highly tensioned fish cage nets, presenting a robust barrier to physical interaction. • Frequent removal of fish mortalities (possibly daily depending on mortality rate), with mort
removal rate being assessed by use of drop down camera. • Management of seal predation will be a task specifically allocated to an employee/subcontractor
of the fish farm company. The responsible person will have a scientific background and will work with regulators and appropriate members of the scientific community to develop appropriate management measures for the site, as part of a 2-3 year project. Recommendations from this process will inform the future seal management activities at the site.
• Development of a seasonally specific management plan which targets specific actions at assumed predator risk periods, will be developed.
• Within the plan, use of the following measures will be incorporated as appropriate: o Use of triggered acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs), which though acoustically powerful
when triggered remain silent for the majority of the time, thus minimising the experience which seals have of the associated consequences while minimising the potential time which acoustic transmissions may affecting cetaceans in the immediate locality.
o Use of highly tensioned predator nets, when most significant negative seal and fish farm interactions are thought most likely. Periods when the worst of secondary predator interactions e.g. diving birds, and net fouling (with macroalgae in spring and early summer), will be avoided.
• Development of farm specific seal management measures within the context of the Marine Bill (and its recommendations on the Conservation of Seals Act and advocacy of exemplar management plans e.g. Moray Firth Seal Management Plan) will be undertaken. This process will assess fish farm site management within the wider implications of local and regional seal abundance.
• The fish farm will participation in industry/academia seal and fish farm interaction studies, which aim to develop appropriate non-lethal methods for managing seal interactions e.g. use of emetic salmon bait (associating salmon with bad taste), range of ADD transmission, cetacean friendly ADDs, development and reinforcement of responses to ADDs.
• The fish farm will be managed to enable participation in the Freedom Foods accreditation scheme. This process requires a justified and auditable seal management process to be in place.
References: Anderson, S. G., Burton, R. W. & Summers, C. F. (1975). "Behaviour of grey seals, Halichoerus grypus, during a breeding season at North Rona. ." J. Zoo., London, 177,: 179–195. Duck, C. p. c. (2009). Discussion of grey and harbour seal distribution in Sound of Harris. Sea Mammal Research Unit. Parijs, S. M. V., Thompson, P.M., Tollit, D.J., MacKay, A. (1997). "Distribution and activity of male harbour seals during the mating season." Anim. Behav. 54: 35-43. Thompson, P. M., McConnell, Tollit, D.J., MacKay, A, Hunter, C., Racey, P.A. (1996). "Comparative distribution, movements and diet of harbour and greay seals from the Moray Firth, N.E. Scotland." Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 1572-1584.
