Venue: Dervaig Hall, Dervaig, Isle of Mull
Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Rory Colville, Robert G MacIntyre, Donnie MacMillan and James McQueen. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made. The Chair advised that the Committee had undertaken a site visit that morning and had looked at the site from many different aspects. Iain Jackson, Governance Officer, outlined the procedure that would be followed at the meeting. He advised that only those who identified themselves at the start of the meeting would be entitled to state their case and invited those who wished to speak to come forward and he took a note of their names. Planning Richard Kerr – Principal Planning Officer Mr Kerr advised that the application was for a marine salmon
farm on the south coast of Mr Kerr advised that fish farm applications were the subject of a multi consent regime whereby planning was only one of 4 consents to be obtained. He advised that consents must also be obtained from the Crown Estate for a sea bed lease; from SEPA for a license for the tonnage of fish to be held at the site with a view to controlling pollution and water quality; and from Marine Scotland to address issues with navigation, fish welfare and health. He advised that there was an Environmental Statement accompanying this application and this was detailed at appendix A to the report of handling and he highlighted the key issues covered in this statement. Mr Kerr told the Committee that the application had been the subject of a number of consultations, and that these were detailed on pages 1 – 4 of the report. He highlighted that there had been no objections to the application by SEPA or Marine Scotland and that SNH had not formally objected but had raised concerns regarding landscape impact. Mr Kerr gave a summary of the responses received by consultees. He advised that there had been 26 representations of objection and 44 of support received with a further 2 letters being received 1 of support and another raising concerns. Mr Kerr added that on Friday 2 November, he had received a letter from a firm of environmental lawyers on behalf of the owner of Gometra which raised the issue of a legal challenge should permission be granted by the Committee. He suggested that this was a tactical ploy to inhibit due process and advised that he would cover his response to this at the end of his presentation. Mr Kerr highlighted that the applicants had provided a response to the issues raised in objection to the application in their environmental statement, which raised no concerns; and reminded Members that consideration must only be given to matters which are material planning considerations. He advised that consultees had raised no significant concerns other than SNH who had raised concerns over visual impact in the National Scenic Area, but who had not raised a formal objection. Mr Kerr showed Members a number of photographs with a super
imposed fish farm on the site and also some views of the site from a boat and
vantage points at a range of distances.
He showed slides showing zones of theoretical visibility which highlighted
the influence of the fish farm on the National Scenic Area; and which showed
the roads and access tracks highlighting the absence of any formal access route
on the coast of Mr Kerr advised that the Planning Section were recommending approval of the application and summarised the reasons for the recommendation which were also detailed on page 32 of the agenda pack. Mr Kerr referred to the letter received on Friday 2 November from Environmental Law Chambers Ltd and advised that he would comment briefly on each of the 7 matters raised in the letter. In response to point 1 which claimed that it breaches EU law to allow SEPA to process the application outwith the EIA process given that the environmental statement accompanied the planning application and not the SEPA application he advised that both approvals were required separately and that there was no prescribed order in which to apply. He advised that in this case SEPA went through the process in parallel with the planning application as part of the multi regulatory ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |