Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were intimated from Councillors David Kinniburgh, Robert G MacIntyre and Richard Trail.

There were no declarations of interest.

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

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

Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law, outlined the hearing procedure that would be followed and invited anyone who wished to speak at the meeting to identify themselves. 

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 advising that this was a detailed application for the establishment of a new marine fish farm in Seil Sound.  He advised that it was proposed as a replacement facility for a smaller fish farm operated by the Applicant 900m north of the proposed site.  Although the production capacity of the proposed site represents a substantial enlargement of that provided by the existing site, the proposal is described as a relocation to indicate that the current site would be surrendered should this new site be permitted and therefore would remain a single, albeit expanded site, within Seil Sound.  The Application site lies inshore and parallel to the mainland coast close to the southern entrance to the Sound, opposite the island of Torsa.  In terms of the Local Plan the site lies off the ‘sensitive countryside’ zone which triggers the undeveloped coast policy CST2.  It also lies within a wider Area of Panoramic Quality which accords the locality a scenic designation of regional status.  Mr Kerr referred to a number of plans showing the location and layout of the existing fish farm and the proposed site some 900m further south of the equipment to be removed.  The existing site due to hydrographical conditions, does not lend itself to expansion in terms of pollution control, hence the intention to relocate to a more favourable site which has had better prospects for a larger discharge consent being obtained from SEPA.  Mr Kerr also referred to plans showing the proposed location and configuration of the proposed equipment and the extent of moorings.  He advised that this represents the area of the sea bed affected, but does not indicate that navigation would be precluded from this area.  He advised that the construction of the moorings and the navigational marking requirements are such that boat traffic is only excluded from an area close in to the surface equipment.  Mr Kerr also referred to a plan showing the site in the context of the Admiralty Chart with water depths shown and to a plan showing the equipment layout and cage schematics.  He advised that the site currently has consent for mussel rafts with a mooring area about ¼ of that now proposed.  The site is not currently equipped for shellfish production and if this proposal is consented it would supersede any use for shellfish.  The proposed maximum biomass for the site is 2,500 tonnes which is almost double the biomass licensed to be held at the existing fin fish site.  He advised that the nets are to be held in tension to minimise risk of them being breached by predators and are to be fitted with false bottoms to resist any attacks from below.  They are specified, and are to be maintained, in accordance with the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO) Code of Good Practice.   Mr Kerr referred to a photograph showing the type of feed barge to be installed at the north end of the cage group. He advised that SNH had expressed a preference in landscape terms for this to be sited at the south end.  The Applicant’s operational practice is to site barges on the least exposed sides of their sites, so their response has been to reduce the scale of the model to be employed, from a 26m long barge, as originally proposed, to a 14m long model.  Mr Kerr advised that a major consideration of this case is the acceptability of the development relative to the Firth of Lorn European Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated for its rocky reef habitat.  The Application site lies out with the SAC, the closest point of which is Cuan Sound some 2km to the west.  As the operation of the site would contribute to solid waste and chemical residues being transported through the water body into the designated area, given the possibility of significant environmental effects arising as a consequence, it has been necessary to carry out a Habitats Regulations Appropriate Assessment, the conclusions of which are set out in an Appendix to the report of handling.  He advised that it should be noted that whilst both the existing site and the proposed site have similar relationships with the SAC, the doubling of biomass by the proposed site represents a materially enhanced risk requiring assessment.  Consideration has also been given to the White Cluster Anemone population in Seil Sound given its proximity to the site and its status as a Priority Marine feature.  Mr Kerr advised that this Application attracted a high volume of objection founded predominantly upon the concerns objectors have with the scale of the development, the consequent level of pollution the site would produce, and, in turn, the likely adverse effects upon marine habitats and species, both locally and further afield within the SAC.  As pollution control is the responsibility of SEPA and not the planning process,  the Applicant’s accepted Officer’s advice that it would be appropriate for the planning application to be held in abeyance for them to be able to pursue a CAR licence application with SEPA.  In so doing that enables the acceptability or otherwise of the pollution implications of the development to be put beyond doubt, along with the nature conservation consequences given the need for SEPA to carry out their own Habitats Regulations Appropriate Assessment as part of their CAR licensing process.  Mr Kerr advised that despite significant objection to the CAR application and a review of SEPA’s intended decision to grant by the Scottish Ministers, a CAR licence was granted by SEPA at the end of 2012 thereby prompting the resuscitation of this planning application.  It now falls to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.