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.
PDF 82 KB