PROPOSED RENEWAL AND MODIFICATION OF FINFISH FARM LEASES IN LOCH BRACADALE. Report by Director of Planning & Development

Transcription

1 THE HIGHLAND COUNCIL SKYE & LOCHALSH AREA COMMITTEE 29th JANUARY 2007 Agenda Item Report No 3.6 SL PROPOSED RENEWAL AND MODIFICATION OF FINFISH FARM LEASES IN LOCH BRACADALE Report by Director of Planning & Development SUMMARY The Crown Estate has consulted the Council on an application by Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd to renew and modify the development consents for two finfish farm sites in Loch Bracadale. The proposed modifications involve relocation and expansion of either the cage area or lease area on both sites. The proposals also involve the siting of larger-capacity feeding systems. Whilst renewal of development consent at these two sites would be consistent with the framework plan for the area, the proposed modifications in some respects would not. The Northern Lighthouse Board has objected to the proposed relocation of one of the leases (at Tarner Island) because it would displace the charted anchorage there a reason also for previous refusals on this site. SNH is wary of the potential visual impact of introducing larger feed barges, particularly at the Tarner Island site, and recommends mitigation measures. The long-term trend has been one of pressure for incremental expansion on both these sites despite some of the previous development proposals here having been controversial. Members are recommended to submit a qualified favourable view to the Crown Estate on this application supporting the renewal of development consent per se but supporting only an amended scheme insofar as the proposed modifications are concerned. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Crown Estate has consulted the Council on an application by Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd for renewal and modification of development consents for two finfish farm sites in Loch Bracadale. These are at Geodha na h-aibhne on the western side of the loch and Tarner Island on the eastern side, both of which were recently acquired as part of the Marine Harvest/ Stolt merger. 2.0 DETAILS OF THE PROPOSALS (see map attached) 2.1 In addition to renewal of the existing development consents, the applicant is seeking the following modifications: At Geodha na h-aibhne): slight relocation of the lease north-eastwards ( this would overlap the existing lease by about 40%) and a very slight reduction in lease area (from 10.6 to 10.2 ha); a small (5%) increase in total cage area to a maximum of 4800 sq.m. this to be from a combination of circular cages whose circumference individually would be either 70, 80, 90, or 100m. [The currently permitted gear has a maximum cage area of 4584 sq.m. based on cages with 60m or 70m circumference];

2 replacement of the currently permitted, automated feed barge (Akva Hexagon, 100-tonne capacity) with a 200-tonne capacity 'C' Cap barge. This model of barge measures 10m in diameter and sits between 3.5 and 6 m out of the water depending on load. At Tarner Island: relocation of the lease about 200m south-eastwards (this would overlap the existing lease by about one third and would take it into the most sheltered part of the lee of the island with respect to prevailing winds); 58% expansion in total area of the lease - from 4 ha to 6.3 ha; the total cage area to remain at 3438 sq.m. - as currently permitted - but this to be from a combination of circular cages whose circumference individually would be either 70, 80, 90, or 100m. [The currently permitted gear is based on cages with 60m circumference]; replacement of the currently permitted feed barge (Akva Sea-mate, 36-tonne capacity) with a 200-tonne capacity 'C' Cap barge 2.2 The current SEPA discharge consent allows for a biomass of 1000 tonnes at Geodha na h-aibhne and 500 tonnes at Tarner Island. Both sites are to be serviced from the existing shorebase at Dunanellerich (Harlosh). 2.3 The application is supported by a lengthy Environmental Impact Statement. The main reasons given for the proposed modifications are to introduce a level of flexibility into the lease and to allow use of existing equipment from within the company. The applicant states that there is no intention to increase the maximum standing biomass at either of the two sites. 3.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT National policy guidance 3.1 In terms of the national planning guidance for aquaculture, the two sites are both located in marine areas currently classified as Category 3. This is defined as areas "where there appear to be better prospects of satisfying nutrient loading and benthic impact requirements, although the detailed circumstances will always need to be examined carefully." 3.2 Under the terms of the National Policy Guidance on Coastal Planning (NPPG 13) and its supporting Advice Note (PAN 53), the coast adjacent to both sites would be classified as either Undeveloped or (the more sensitive category) Isolated, depending on the size of buffer zone used. Of the two areas, Tarner Island would be the one more likely to qualify in the Isolated category. The guidance states that: a key objective for the planning system is to provide a framework for investment in development while protecting the undeveloped coast from unjustified and inappropriate development... Large development proposals are likely to present the greatest threat to the natural, cultural or scenic environment but the cumulative effect of smaller developments can be just as damaging. As relatively few types of development require a coastal location, the undeveloped coast should generally be considered for development only where the proposal can be expected to yield social and economic benefits sufficient to outweigh any potentially detrimental impact on the coastal environment

3 3.3 It goes on to state that: In areas recognised for their landscape value planning authorities should ensure that new buildings are located and designed in a sensitive and unobtrusive manner. In commenting on applications for seabed leases planning authorities should acknowledge the potential benefits of marine aquaculture to the local economy while recognising that, on the isolated coast, new or expanded fish farms may be inappropriate. In other areas, particularly where the tourism industry is based on high quality scenery and an unspoilt environment, special attention should be paid to the number of fish farms, their location in relation to each other and the surrounding land mass as well as the design and colour of cages, buoys and other equipment. Regional and local policy guidance 3.4 The Highland Structure Plan identifies Loch Bracadale as part of the proposed Area of Great Landscape Value on the west coast of Skye. Strategic policy G6 applies in this instance: The Council will seek to conserve and promote all sites and areas of Highland identified as being of a high quality in terms of nature conservation, landscape, archaeological or built environment. 3.5 Structure Plan policy L4 also applies: The Council will have regard to the desirability of maintaining and enhancing present landscape character in the consideration of development proposals, including offshore developments 3.6 No Local Plan policies specifically apply in this case. However, the introduction to the section on Dunvegan and Northwest Skye states: New jobs are most likely to come from the primary and service sectors, notably fish farming and tourism, although the potential for diversification is limited by remoteness from the mainland. Future aquaculture, afforestation and wind energy proposals in this locality will need to take account of the high scenic quality of much of the coastal and moorland landscape...the capacity for further finfish farms is limited by the number and distribution of existing sites and environmental constraints. The establishment of new shorebases or the intensified usage of existing bases requires careful control. 3.7 The Loch Bracadale Aquaculture Framework Plan (2002) provides more detailed guidance. The site at Geodha na h-aibhne falls within policy zone 'O' of this plan: "Robust equipment is required but the forested backdrop and the distance at which this stretch of coast is normally viewed means that aquaculture installations can be fairly unobtrusive provided their scale is not excessive." "Because this coast is uninhabited and rarely visited on foot it serves as a refuge for wildlife and there are some special bird interests here which need to be safeguarded." AREA POLICY - Presumption in favour of shellfish and finfish development which can be accommodated without prejudice to the wildlife interest, landscape character, and interests of other users of the coast.

4 3.8 The Tarner Island site falls within policy zone 'J'. Seapens, maerl, an anchorage and a bird colony are all marked on the policy map near the fish farm site: "Because of its relatively high relief and steep cliffs on the west side, Tarner Island is one of the most important landscape features in the loch." "...the east side...broadly coincides with a listed anchorage and seabed areas where maerl beds and sea pens have been recorded." AREA POLICY - Presumption in favour of small-to-medium scale finfish or shellfish farming at the northeast corner (continued use of existing lease), provided this does not block access to the anchorage and is of an appropriate scale. It is important for landscape reasons that the scale of the island is not diminished by any installation which is too large. The plan defines a medium fish farm as one with a cage area of up to 4000 square metres. 3.9 The following strategic elements of the Framework Plan are particularly relevant to this application: support continued finfish and shellfish farming activity in the areas currently used for this purpose provided due regard is given to other users of the loch and the environmental sensitivity of the loch and its surroundings; contain finfish farming broadly at its current level; safeguard the key seaward views, coastal landscape features, and wildlife havens of the loch (eg the headlands and islands); encourage sea servicing for aquaculture sites wherever possible to limit the impact of heavy goods vehicles on minor roads in the area; safeguard navigational access and safety of passage to recognised anchorages and landing places 4.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND COMMENT 4.1 Few comments were received on these proposals probably because the application was for renewal of existing development consents rather than development of new sites and because little expansion of the existing cage area is proposed. Neither SEPA nor the two community councils in the area responded to the consultation. The comments which were received all came from organisations and none came from the general public. 4.2 Most of the comments indicated no objection to the proposals. However, the Northern Lighthouse Board recommended refusal of the proposed modification of the Tarner Island lease on grounds of navigational safety because it would displace a charted anchorage. In relation to the Geodh na h- Aibhne site, the Board had no objections and passed on its usual technical comments regarding lighting and marking requirements, should the application be approved. 4.3 SNH did not object to the application but expressed concerns about the poor quality of the visual impact assessment provided and asked for mitigation measures to reduce the likely visual impact of the installations. It recommended that the feed barges on both sites should be uniformly painted in a matt grey colour and that the cages be of a uniform size to create a more regular pattern.

5 4.4 It felt that the proposed changes at Geodh na h-aibhne should not create an additional landscape impact but the photomontages provided in the ES were poor. It was more concerned about the Tarner Island proposal, expressing disappointment at the quality of the photomontages here also and the fact that the ES provided no assessment of impacts on views from the sea - for example as viewed from kayaks. SNH does not think the proposed change in lease area at Tarner Island would have an adverse landscape impact. However it thinks the increased size of feed barge would when viewed from the townships of Eabost and Eabost West. It believes the impacts can be reduced by the mitigation measures mentioned above but complained that the visuals in the ES were so poor it was difficult to make a judgement on these. 4.5 SNH has no significant concerns about the proposals insofar as they relate to wildlife. It feels that the continuation of fish farming at these sites with the proposed modifications is unlikely to significantly affect benthic habitats and marine species of conservation importance and should not result in additional risk to wild salmonid populations. It regards the proposed anti-predator methods to be acceptable - as long as the fish farm operator monitors their effectiveness and reviews its strategy accordingly. Whilst SNH accepts that shooting of seals may be necessary as a last resort when other means fail, it emphasises that legislation provides for "close seasons" on this activity. During these seasons management must be achieved by use of non-lethal measures. 4.6 SNH noted that Tarner Island has large colonies of seabirds but the ES makes no mention of these and there is no assessment of whether the existing fish farm has impacted on them. SNH does not expect the current proposal to have any new impact in this respect because there is no increase in activity level proposed. Nor does it expect the protected bird interest in west Loch Bracadale to be adversely affected. Finally, SNH notes that the new cages are to be constructed on a beach within the loch. It recommends that the applicant provide further details on this the location, timing, duration, extent etc - and asks to be consulted on these proposals. 4.7 SEERAD was content that the environmental information provided was adequate and raised no environmental concerns. It foresees no adverse disease risk implications nor any new hazards to wild salmonid fisheries arising from this application. It recommends that management agreements are entered into with other aquaculture operators sharing the same area (12c - Loch Bracadale and Loch Harport). 4.8 The Royal Yachting Association had no objection to the application. This was surprising given the organisation s previous strong objection to a proposal by Harlosh Salmon in 1998 to site its fish farm at the Tarner Island site. It may also have objected to the earlier 1988 proposal there which was rejected by the Crown Estate on navigational grounds. 5.0 PLANNING APPRAISAL Site history 5.1 Both the areas in question have seen a series of previous applications, elements of which were accepted, rejected, or amended by the Crown Estate as appropriate. This makes the case more complex than it first appears but an understanding of this context is important in determining the appropriate response to the current proposals. 5.2 The principle of development at the current fish farm site at Geodh na h-aibhne was established as acceptable in Subsequent expansions proposals in 1998 however proved controversial, with concerns being particularly expressed by local residents who were anxious to conserve and restore the special amenity of the Loch Bharcasaig area. The expansion proposals were therefore scaled down.

6 5.3 The principle of fish farm development at Tarner Island was established as acceptable in However this was only for a small farm (1300 sq.m. cage area) close to the northern part of the island, where the fish farm would not encroach on the charted anchorage. Previously, the first application for a fish farm site at Tarner Island in 1988 had been rejected by the Crown Estate because it would have had precisely that effect. 5.4 In 1998, six years after establishing its toehold in 1992, Harlosh Salmon applied to expand and relocate the Tarner Island fish farm closer into the lee of the island. The expansion proposal per se was accepted though the Council indicated (as it also did for the Geodh na h-aibhne site) that in view of the landscape factors and other sensitivities, it would not be inclined to favour any subsequent expansion. The relocation proposal was not accepted for the reasons outlined previously but a compromise was reached which had the backing of the Royal Yachting Association. This was the current fish farm lease position - an intermediate location which gave the fish farm more shelter than before but still allowed boats access to sheltered anchorage. The current proposal however once again makes a bid for the area which Harlosh Salmon sought in 1988 and 1998 but which each time it was refused to safeguard the navigational/anchorage interest. 5.5 Pressure for establishment of automated feed barges began in 2001 when Stolt Sea Farm UK Ltd (the new lease holder) received consent from the Crown Estate to site the currently approved barge at the Geodh na h-aibhne site. The Crown Estate also approved an expansion of the lease area at this time to allow an alternative gear configuration agreed between SNH and the operator. Both of these changes were made without any public consultation. 5.6 The Crown Estate consulted in June 2003 on an application from Stolt for renewal of the development consent at the two sites currently in question. This consultation was a screening/scoping exercise, required under the EIA regulations, to ascertain what further supporting information would be required, eg in the form of an Environmental Statement. The application indicated no change in lease area or location, said that changes in the equipment specification were proposed but provided no details on this, and said there was no intention to install new or additional ancillary equipment. The statutory consultees responded to this accordingly. 5.7 Shortly after the screening/scoping consultation, Stolt asked the Crown Estate for permission at short notice to install a 36-tonne Sea Mate feed barge at the Tarner Island site. The Crown Estate invited informal comments by from the Council at officer level but was apparently not prepared to wait for the views of the local councillor and community council to be obtained. The Crown Estate is not yet obliged to go through public consultation on applications for ancillary fish farm equipment and it approved the barge shortly thereafter without receipt of a view from the Council. 5.8 The above background shows that there has been pressure over a period of time to develop and expand fish farming on these two sites in Loch Bracadale which has helped to generate or sustain employment locally but which has not always been well received and which has tested the limits of what is an acceptable level of development here. Driven by commercial imperatives, the scale of operations has been gradually nudged upwards sometimes with public endorsement and sometimes without. Such pressures for bigger lease areas, bigger cages, higher capacity feeding systems and more automation - are likely to continue in the longer term. 5.9 A degree of rationalisation or consolidation is to be expected when finfish farm leases change hands and a certain amount of flexibility is desirable to make the most of new equipment and methods. The applicant's Environmental Statement concludes that "the environmental impacts associated with the proposed changes are less than or identical to those arising from previous operations in Loch Bracadale". However some of the details of the proposal suggest otherwise. The proposal at Geodh na h-aibhne is likely to involve a slightly larger cage area and feed barge. The proposed relocation north-westward would bring it closer to the amenity area of Loch Bharcasaig. The proposed expansion and relocation of the fish farm at Tarner Island would further encroach on a listed anchorage and leave little room for other craft. The introduction of a larger feed barge to

7 this site would to a certain extent increase the installation's visual impact. Some of these changes are minor or readily mitigated and therefore acceptable. Others are less easy to reconcile with other interests. In responding to the current proposals it is important that the Council recognises and encourages technological advances in the industry, whilst making sure that other interests are not compromised and key natural assets are conserved. Assessment of the proposals in detail 5.10 The application for renewal of development consent is consistent with the Aquaculture Framework Plan for Loch Bracadale and should be supported. The proposed modifications of the leases should only be supported in part and with the provisos as follows: 5.11 Proposed modifications at Geodha na h-aibhne: maximum cage area of 4800 sq.m. from a combination of 70/80/90/100m circumference cages This represents only a minor overall change (5% increase) in permitted cage area, which would be acceptable on technical grounds within the spirit of the Council's indication in 1998 that there should be no further expansion on these sites. However, the expansion of cage area which would result if 10 cages each 80m circumference or 8 cages each 90m circumference were to be used, as suggested in the applicant's Environmental Statement, would exceed the 4800 sq.m. limit and amount to an 11% or 12% increase over the currently permitted level. This would not be consistent with the spirit of the Council's 1998 recommendation that there should be no further expansion; 'C' cap automated feed barge (200 T capacity) - this is likely to be somewhat higher in profile and visible mass than the 100T-capacity Akva hexagon feed barge which is currently permitted. However, provided it is painted matt grey, the generator noise is well muffled, and the feed pipes connecting it to the cages are kept tidy, it should not detract from the surrounding landscape or amenity too much; slight relocation of lease north-eastwards - the proposed slight shift out from the shore in an easterly axis (presumably to take advantage of slightly deeper waters) would be acceptable but the proposed shift in a northerly axis should, if possible, be avoided to avoid impinging on the amenity of Loch Bharcasaig. The sensitivity of the Loch Bharcasaig area has been repeatedly stressed in correspondence by the Council and local residents in the context of discussions on earlier fish farm proposals. The applicant states that relocation is necessary to be consistent with the Department of Transport Section 34 Consent granted by the Scottish Executive. However, the Crown Estate's development consent must have primacy. Otherwise the Section 34 consent would amount to a de facto planning consent in its own right Proposed modifications at Tarner Island: relocation and re-orientation SE-wards (would overlap about one third of the existing lease area) this is not acceptable because of the objection from the Northern Lighthouse Board re the anchorage interest. Approval would not be consistent with the Crown Estate's rejection of the 1988 development proposal at this site ("unacceptable effects on a listed anchorage") and its amendment of the proposal which came forward in As for the Geodh na h-aibhne site, the applicant states that relocation is necessary at the Tarner site to comply with the Department of Transport Section 34 Consent. However, as mentioned above, the Crown Estate development consent must have primacy. 58% expansion in total area of the lease - from 4 ha to 6.3 ha - the lease area should only be expanded if it is genuinely necessary to accommodate the equipment specified in the current lease at its current position. Otherwise it would encourage further applications

8 for expansion of gear on this site at a later date and the value of Tarner Island as a special landscape feature in the loch and as a sheltered anchorage would be progressively eroded. The request for an expanded lease area to be accommodated in the lee of the island is also linked to the proposed relocation of the fish farm to give it the position of optimum shelter. This would give the fish farm priority of location over existing navigational interests - a prospect which has generated the objection from the Northern Lighthouse Board and which would run counter to the Crown Estate's previous decisions in this area; max. cage area of 3438 sq.m. from a combination of 70/80/90/100m circumference cages this would be acceptable. The currently permitted gear is 12 cages each 60m circumference a total cage area of 3438 sq.m. Larger individual cages would make little difference to the landscape impact as long as the total enclosed cage area remained the same, the cages are maintained in a compact matrix, and they are not used as a justification for a larger lease area overall; 'C' cap automated feed barge (200 T capacity) - installation of a larger feed barge here, along with the associated pipework, would to a certain extent increase the visual impact of the fish farm installation and tend to detract from the landscape character of the island. This perhaps would not be significant for those who view it from a distance but it could be significant for those who approach the island by sea and view it from closer quarters, eg canoeists. Introduction of a higher capacity feeding system may encourage applications for expansion of cage area at a later date. However, a general up-scaling of the fish farm at this site would run counter to the objectives of the Loch Bracadale Framework Plan. The Council's assent to the siting of this larger type of feed barge here should therefore be a qualified one. The visual impact should be mitigated by using matt grey colouration as suggested by SNH and the feed pipes connecting it to the cages should be neatly bundled. Generator noise should be well muffled. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That members submit a qualified favourable view to the Crown Estate Commissioners, ie support the renewal of development consent per se but support the proposed modifications subject to the conditions as set out above in paragraphs 5.11 and In addition, the following conditions should apply: a. the approved sites should be fully developed within two years and the installations maintained in good order, failing which the lease should be terminated and the operator should be required to remove all equipment from the sites within three months; b. all surface gear should be low-profile and the colour schemes should be sympathetic to the adjacent landscape; c. the approved sites should be marked and lit in accordance with the requirements set out by the Northern Lighthouse Board; d. the fish farms should be operated in compliance with the Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture; e. Marine Harvest Scotland (or any other future tenants of these leases) should be proactive in ensuring the development and communication of an Area Management Agreement covering these sites. Marine Harvest should also seek to ensure that the Area Management Group includes local authority and local community representatives; f. details of the planned location, timing, and duration of the local cage construction should be provided to SNH and the organisation given the opportunity to comment and advise on this; g. as far as possible, uniform cage sizes should be employed on each site within the agreed limits for total cage area

9 2. The Council should emphasise to the Crown Estate that its recommendation of support for this proposal is not just qualified but conditional. If the Council s position is not to be misrepresented, it is essential that the above conditions are properly incorporated into the Crown Estate s development consent. They should not merely be relayed to the applicant as Advice from Consultees. Signature: Designation: pp Director of Planning & Development Date: 17th January 2007 Author: Attachments: Colin Wishart (1) Location map

10