Another Chapter closed at Ardmaddy, but the Book's not written yet!

Read to the end to see the significance of this picture

This week there was a good chance to see democracy in action, Argyll style, at the Corran Halls when the PPSL Committee met to decide the controversial application for a 600,000 capacity fish farm in Seil Sound.

The application had attracted about 800 objections, of which over 100 came from residents of Seil, Easdale and Luing, representing about a  quarter of the adult population. A further 140 or so came from mid-Argyll, another 125 from the rest of Scotland and about 350 from the rest of the United Kingdom, many of them holiday visitors, and 65 came from abroad. There were also 44 letters in support, of which one was from a local resident.

Those who have been following this saga will know that some years ago Ardmaddy was selected as a “pilot relocation project” by the Scottish Government to receive a transfer of the total production from a site in Loch Riddon, which had been polluting to such an extent that much of the wildlife there had become extinct. As a result the site at Ardmaddy had its capacity increased from 800 tonnes (200,000 fish) to 1300 tonnes (325,000 fish) but it was soon found that the natural capacity of the environment could not cope, as the strong tidal streams round the top of Seil Sound were carrying away huge quantities of fish waste, toxic chemicals and pesticides with some ending up in the nearby Firth of Lorn, which enjoys special protection under the European Habitats Directive.

Faced with having to relocate the operating company decided not only to move further South down the Sound but to apply for an increase of permitted biomass at the same time, to a total of 2,500 tonnes. Representing 600,000 mature salmon, this is the maximum that can currently be licensed for any farm in Scotland.

As consultees the Argyll Fisheries Board argued that it would be better to relocate without simultaneously increasing the biomass, to discover if the new site was truly better than the existing one. This would seem to be the prudent scientific way to do things, but wasn’t to be.

Although the major problems with large scale industrial fish farms are to do with pollution and waste disposal it seems that Argyll & Bute Council has convinced itself that such matters have nothing to do with the planning process. Astonishingly (and perhaps to the surprise of the applicants) the Council decided it was unnecessary to require an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Accordingly the issue came down to one of jobs – preserving employment in the operating company and its suppliers versus the threat perceived by the local residents, and expressed in their strong objections, to their own jobs in tourism and leisure based businesses. Here we saw some instances of local democracy at its very worst.

A supporter of the application claimed that unlike fish farming, tourism employs mainly “folk from Eastern Europe”. Underlying some councillors’ remarks seemed to be a feeling that jobs in tourism don’t count. There used to be a feeling that it was somehow demeaning to work in a service industry rather than to do “real work” such as in agriculture and fisheries and one would have hoped that such days were long gone.

Councillor Devon let slip her feelings in asking for figures about “your tourism” as if the industry is a trivial local thing: one would have thought that a politician would know that the sector is bigger by far than any other outside the public sector, generating, according to Scottish Government figures 130 times more revenue than aquaculture does.

Councillor Currie spoke strongly in support of the application, despite knowing that his home community of Islay had protected their jobs by seeing off efforts by a fish farm company to establish a similar operation there (746 locals plus 102 visitors signed the petition against).  Perhaps he’s hoping that the people back home don’t get to hear how he voted.

At the end of the day not one of the committee found any merit whatsoever in the points put forward on behalf of the residents of Seil and the application was granted unanimously.

This closes a chapter in the story of fish farming around Seil, but the book isn’t written yet. This week also saw an application going in to SEPA for yet another 2,500 tonne installation in a proposed new site off the bay at the South west corner of the Isle of Shuna. 

The image at the top is the plan of the proposed new farm off Shuna. It's vital that anyone who wants to continue being able to sail in Argyll gets involved in stopping this madness.

Please watch for progress on http://www.saveseilsound.org.uk/wordpress

Halt the destruction of Argyll's most precious asset

At a meeting of the planning committee on 11 March Argyll & Bute Council approved an application by a local landowner who resides in far-away Devon for the speculative building of two large houses on the sensitive area of open countryside on the East side of the Kames peninsula, in an area designated, according to the Council's own published local plan, as an "Area of Panoramic Quality." This happened at the same time as Visit Scotland published its contribution to the Surprise Yourself 2011 campaign, in which the scenery of Argyll is a major feature.

In terms of the local plan areas such as this are protected by policy ENV 10, which states "Development in, or adjacent to, an Area of Panoramic Quality will be resisted where its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape unless it is demonstrated that any significant adverse effects on the quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social and economic benefits of National or regional importance." The Council goes on to explain "The aim of this policy is to provide panoramically important landscapes in Argyll and Bute, with adequate protection against damaging development. ...These areas are important not only for their physical landforms and for the flora and fauna, which they support, but also for the environmental assets that they represent. These qualities could easily be destroyed or damaged by even a relatively small, insensitive development. They therefore must be protected."

This was the first permission to be granted on the Kames Peninsula since 1992, when one house was allowed on the basis of occupational need in the face of total opposition by the then Council's planning officers and strong objection from local residents. A factor was that the site was at least partially hidden behind a rocky knoll. In 2011 the planning policies have different numbers, but the wording remains basically the same. If anything people are probably more aware now than ever before of the value of our landscape, not just for enjoyment, but as an economic resource, in fact our main asset.

At the time I thought that the decision on 11 March was a local aberration, then I read in the Oban Times of 24 March that an application has been allowed for the construction of 22 new houses at Barran, Kilmore, a community of 32 existing houses. There the applicable planning policies were different but the result was the same, speculative development inflicted on a small community against its wishes and in apparent disregard of policies.

These decisions do share another factor, in that they are both within areas identified in the plan as "Potential Development Areas." These were introduced as a concept, I believe, because under previous plans it was virtually impossible for anyone to discover in advance which areas might be available for building purposes. The emphasis was to be on the word "potential", because the plan makes it clear that any development must still comply with the planning policies in force. It states that such sites are those where "opportunities may emerge during the plan period for infill, rounding-off, redevelopment or new development. Such opportunities are not currently fully resolved and issues may require to be overcome in these PDAs before development opportunities within the PDA area can be realised and be supported ..." Because this was taken at face value and so not perceived as a threat at the time it seems that many community councils did little or nothing to prevent these designations occurring.

What appears to be happening in practice is that instead of PDAs being viewed as only potentially developable the Council's planning officers and councillors are seeing them as areas where there is a positive presumption in favour of development and where planning constraints can be ignored. It's almost as if blanket planning permissions in principle have been granted, because in practice it seems that developers see PDAs as a green light and planning officers are readily persuaded to ignore the protection that sites such as Kames deserve. Perhaps PDA should stand for Please Develop Argyll.

Ordinary citizens cannot appeal against the granting of planning consent, but this doesn't mean that we can do nothing. We can try to persuade our councillors to understand the policies they are obliged to uphold and apply them fairly, not just in the interests of speculative developers. I have also set up an online petition, where those who feel as I do can easily add their signatures. It can be found at http://www.gopetition.com/petition/44163.html.