Issue - meetings

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.

Iain Jackson, Governance and Risk Manager, outlined the hearing procedure that would be followed and noted everyone who wished to speak at the hearing.

The Chair then invited the Planning Officer to set out his recommendations.

PLANNING

Richard Kerr presented the case on behalf of the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.  He advised that this was a local detailed application by the Scottish Salmon Company for the establishment of a new marine fin fish farm in Loch Striven.  It was accompanied by a second application for the expansion of an existing farm already operated by the Company elsewhere in the Loch, which was to be considered separately later today.  There was therefore some cumulative impact considerations associated with each of the applications, depending upon the outcome of the other application.  He referred to the location of the site which lay on the west side of the lower section of the Loch.  He advised that to the north of the site there was a single dwelling accessed by a private track which ran along the coast past the site.  In terms of the Local Plan he highlighted the location of the site 3km north of Strone Point and which lay off the sensitive countryside zone which confers undeveloped coastal status on the land adjacent to the site by virtue of the effect of local plan policy CST 2.  He referred to slides which showed the location of the site in the context of the whole Loch and he referred to other sites in the Loch.  He advised that aquaculture in the upper part of the Loch was confined to shellfish production, the closest mussel site being at Ardbeg 2 km to the north.  He advised that the closest dwellings lay approximately 500m to the north and south of the site.  He referred to slides showing the extent of the sea bed mooring area, the proposed cages and the feed barge.  He also referred to slides showing the site layout with an 18 cell mooring grid containing 16 100m circumference cages, occupying a surface area of about 1.5 hectares and capable of holding a maximum biomass of nearly 2,500 tonnes with a 220 tonne feed barge to be sited at the northern end of the cage group.  He also referred to slides giving an impression of the cages contained within the mooring grid.    He advised that bird nets would be placed on top of the cages with a hamster wheel supporting the nets.  He advised that the nets would be held in tension to deter predators.  He advised that underwater lighting would be used to maximise growth in the winter every second year.  He advised that the production cycle would be 22 months with a 2 month fallow period prior to restocking.  He referred to slides showing the design of the feed barge and advised that the site would be served by boat from the Company’s existing shore base at Ardyne.  He referred to various photographs showing the location of the site and highlighting the landscape context of the area.  He advised that the 2 application sites would be intervisible on the water.  He advised that visibility of the site would be confined to a fairly restricted coastal area north of Strone. He advised that there would be no visibility from the Kyles of Bute, a National Scenic Area.  He referred to the adjacent landscape character types with visibility mainly within the area which represented the steep ridgeland and mountain Character Type.  He circulated to Members a number of photomontages produced by the Applicant to demonstrate the effect of the development on the landscape.  He advised that the application had not attracted objections from key consultees such as SEPA, SNH, Marine Science Scotland or the Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board.  He advised that an objection had been lodged by the Clyde Fishermen’s Association and the Colintraive and Glendaruel Community Council.  He advised that objections had been received from 12 individuals and that representations in support of the proposal had been received from 35 parties.  He advised that a late representation was received from a Colintraive resident commenting that a significant number of the supporters were in fact employees of the Scottish Salmon Company and that accordingly it was questionable whether these should be regarded in the same way that normal expressions of support from the public would be.  Mr Kerr advised that from a procedural point of view, it was open to anyone to express a view in respect of a planning application and that it was not incumbent upon representees to declare any interest they may have on a development.  However, he advised that this claim arose from a search of the names on the internet along with the company name Scottish Salmon Company, and did appear to indicate that an element of the support expressed did indeed appear to emanate from company employees.  He advised that with that in mind, it was a matter for Members to apportion weight to the expressions of support as they saw fit in these circumstances.  Mr Kerr advised that one further matter raised by the same representee was that the development proposed did not satisfy the advisory 0.8 km separation distance between fish farms and residential property (the house at Coustonn being 500m away) as recommended in the former Scottish Executive’s 1999 guidance note to the Crown Estate.  Mr Kerr advised that this guidance was prepared by the government at the time the former Interim Scheme of Fin Farm Development consents operated by the Crown Estate and it preceded the transfer of fish farm consents to planning authorities in 2007.  He advised that this guidance was not superseded, although no subsequent guidance to the Crown Estate on to planning authorities has suggested any other guideline separation distance.  He advised that he thought it was in part because with greater experience of the operation of aquaculture sites it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3