With the conclusion of the Loch Long Salmon Ltd (LLS) Planning Appeal related to the planning application for an experimental semi-closed containment fish farm at Beinn Reithe, Loch Long in October, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority (NPA) has submitted its closing submission to the DPEA Reporter, who in turn will make his recommendations to Scottish Government Ministers. The NPA board refused the planning application by a majority of 10 votes to 1 in October, 2022.
In a damning closing submission to the DPEA, the NPA raised a number of issues as to the reasons the proposal for the experimental fish farm was refused by the National Park Board and why Scottish Ministers should now dismiss the appeal.
The failure by Loch Long Salmon to prove that the technology is proven or still at the trial stage was just one of the many reasons behind the National Park’s decision. In addition, the NPA also cited the efficacy of the proposed waste recovery technology; emissions from the proposed plant; unacceptable landscape; seascape and visual impact of the development; significant adverse effect of escapes of the farmed fish on the Endrick Water Special Area of Conservation (SAC); as well as the failure of Loch Long Salmon to address critical policies related to climate and nature.
Technology – Commercially proven?
The NPA appealed to Scottish Ministers “..to make a finding-in-fact on whether (on the evidence) the proposal is commercially proven or still at trial stage before they assess its wider environmental effects”. The NPA said..
“The onus is squarely on the appellant to demonstrate its case in this matter with convincing and independently verifiable evidence, (however) the appellant has failed to do this”.
Loch Long Salmon had argued during the Appeal that the technology was proven and that in Norway, research licences and development licences were broadly the equivalent to commercial licences. LLS said that over the past 8 years there were more than 30 semi-closed containment systems in operation. However the company (LLS) could not offer verifiable information as to the exact technology used in these systems nor could they confirm the technology they proposed to use. Similarly, it wasn’t clear what the stocking density would be or whether it would be a post smolt1 or entry to harvest2 model. The NPA cited several organisations (some supporting the SCCS concept), who considered that the technology was not yet proven.
The National Park highlighted the lack of certainty as to the technology which would be used. Much of Loch Long Salmon Salmon’s submission had related to the Norwegian Fiizk Certus 30000 system, however when asked at the Hearing if there was a fish farm in commercial operation using this technology the NPA state “the appellant answered in the negative”. The report continued..“The appellant’s case was largely based on accepting Loch Long Salmon Limited representative’s unvouched (for) statements regarding visits to SCCS’s at undisclosed locations using unspecified technology”. “This significantly undermines the appellant’s case that the proposal is commercially proven. It is particularly important to have certainty on the design detail of a proposal at such a sensitive location in order that its environmental and landscape effects can be properly assessed”.
“The Reporter will be aware that it would not be lawful for Scottish Ministers to grant planning permission on the basis that the detailed design drawings are omitted (or subject to subsequent changes) and that permission is granted subject to fundamental design details yet to be approved”.
Bag construction and predation
Whilst the NPA accepted “on a logical but unproven basis” that the incorporation of an opaque outer bag in the SCCS may be beneficial from seal predation, “(the) claimed resilience from seal predation is unsupported by detailed independently verified studies and the evidence is that grey and common seals are present in Loch Long with scientific studies demonstrating that seals can hunt without using their sight”.
“Although the proposal will include the outer bag, no other part of the proposal has been improved or strengthened to make it more resilient than existing open net farms”.
Waste recovery – “85% not enforceable”
A key area of the proposal is that as LLS received a CAR (Controlled Activities Regulations) licence from SEPA with the condition that 85% of waste is captured. However, the specific text of the licence states “Each fish pen must be installed with infrastructure designed to capture 85% of the waste”. It does not say that 85% of the waste must be captured. In its submission, the NPA said that it considers that the SEPA requirement “does not appear to be expressed in enforceable terms”.
LLS referred to 40% waste capture having been achieved elsewhere and indicated that it was prepared to “take the risk’ of the proposal not meeting 85% waste recovery. However, the National Park Authority “cautioned the Scottish Ministers against taking such a risk which is fundamentally contrary to the precautionary principle that the appellant claims to have adopted”.
Visual impact
In its closing submission, the National Park Authority expressed deep concern regarding the effect the development would have on the landscape and seascape of a highly sensitive location. The proposal would include offices, workshop and storage areas, oxygen tanks, feed silos, a water treatment plant, a new access road as well as the 5 – 50m diameter pens of 8m in height which the Park considered would give a “cluttered composition of large steel containers, poles, netting and rails”.
Lighting on land and the marine infrastructure would also be very obvious during night-time, contrasting with the otherwise unlit and undeveloped locality. Given the infrastructure would occupy approximately 70% of the loch width, the overall appearance would be industrial and highly incongruous said the NPA.
Woodlands
On the removal of woodland from the site and compensatory planting by LLS, the NPA said information from the appellant was insufficient and did not meet the requirements of the Scottish Government or the Natural Environment Policy of the Local Development Plan. As it’s a requirement that the proposal must contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity (which includes compensatory planting) and adverse impacts to be minimised, the NPA was of the view that this was inadequate and by its nature “compensation” and not enhancement.
Climate
The NPA submission referred to The National Planning Framework (NPF4) Policies related to climate and nature. It said “Although not in force at the time the application was refused, the appellant has made little or no effort in the significant period of time that has elapsed to address relevant parts of the policies that are engaged and where further information would have greatly assisted an assessment. The proposal is contrary to these fundamental policies”.
The NPA continued, “(LLS) claimed relatively low carbon nature of salmon; use of green tariff electricity and short sea shipping for delivering and collecting fish and waste (at some future time). As the proposal is at the trial or experimental stage, it is in the NPA’s opinion entirely premature and incorrect to make such claims at this time”.
A further environmental concern cited was that if LLS were to adopt the ‘post smolt’ method, this would involve the transfer of the fish to open net farms. The NPA said “this significantly undermines the appellant’s environmental claims for the proposal”.
Loch Long Salmon also received criticism from the Park Authority regarding the significant emissions that would be generated by the plant.
“No attempt had been made by them to quantify these emissions”.
Escapes
Of particular concern to the NPA is the possibility of farmed salmon escaping and interbreeding with wild salmon. It said..
“The National Park Authority is unable (on the evidence) to rule out an adverse effect on the integrity of Endrick Water SAC from these impacts and it is not certain beyond reasonable scientific doubt that adverse impacts on the integrity of the Endrick Water SAC will not occur”.
In the event of an escape, and considering that each of the 4 pens would hold almost 1 million post smolts or 300,000 entry to harvest salmon, the adverse impact the farm would have on wild salmon at the Endrick Water SAC and other rivers could be considerable.
Expert witness, Professor Colin Adams (Chair of Freshwater Ecology at the University of Glasgow) has suggested that a figure of 50% escaping from a single pen was appropriate which would be equal to 450,000 smolts. If applying the ‘Carradale’ escape data, (where 4% entered the Endrick Water SAC system) this indicates that up to 18,000 fish could enter the Endrick Water SAC, creating very significant damage from which the small wild salmon population may not recover.
Economic
Despite the claims of both economic and environmental benefits by Loch Long Salmon, the National Park Authority contends that such claims can carry little weight in the overall assessment and do not outweigh the very strong policy and legal arguments against the proposal.
“The landscape and seascape of the Appeal site and its setting is highly sensitive to the introduction of an incongruous fish farm development and considering the intrusive nature of this prominent industrial infrastructure, it would result in a detrimental change to the character and quality of the National Park”.
“Quite simply, the proposal is located at an inappropriate location. Scottish Ministers ought therefore, to give priority to conserving the National Park for future generations to enjoy, as Legislation and Policy intends”.
In conclusion, the NPA requested Scottish Ministers dismiss the Appeal and refuse planning permission.
The National Park Authority Closing Submission can be read in full here.
1 In the “post-smolt” system, the fish would be grown in the four farming enclosures (from smolt size 50-100g) for up to ten months (to 0.7 to 1.5 kg) and would then be taken directly to other conventional farming sites by sea to complete their growth.
2 The entry to harvest system would employ the proposed harvesting facility (square shaped marine enclosure). The fish would be delivered to the farm at 80-100 grams and reared until at full harvest size (4-6.5kg average weight) within the four farming enclosures and moved to the harvesting enclosure after approximately eleven to twelve months. In this farming method the fish would be introduced to the four marine enclosures sequentially, with one enclosure being stocked each month over a period of four months.