Planning permission refused for Isle of Lewis fish farm

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar’s planning board ruled that developer Bakkafrost Scotland Ltd “had failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable exclusion of commercial fishing activity from a historically important and economically productive fishing ground”.

The decision overturned a recommendation of approval for the development off the east coast of Lewis, subject to conditions, by Comhairle planners.

Consultee on the proposals, Western Isles Fishermen’s Association (WIFA) opposed the plan, saying the development, named ‘North Gravir Fish Farm’, “would impose the biggest ever loss to the Scottish fishing industry of prolific commercial fishing grounds that have been harvested sustainably for generations.”

READ MORE: Rachel Reeves hit by rebellion over inheritance tax for farmers

WIFA added in their objection that the site “has consistently provided large volumes of prawns, scallops, and brown crab that are all landed locally, creating long-term sustainable employment opportunities both at sea and ashore at the modern MacDuff shellfish factory that has been built at Goat Island at a cost of £3 million.”

The site, according to WIFA, also provided “unique shelter for vessels during periods of strong winds from a south-westerly to northerly direction, coupled with vessels being able to haul their gear safely in this specific area.”

The environmental impact assessment submitted by Bakkafrost Scotland Ltd as part of the planning application acknowledged that the development could reduce available fishing grounds with mobile gear vessels “likely to be excluded from the entire 1.02 km² site.”

In terms of the economic impact of the development, a report by council planners noted the impact assessment “draws together data from publicly available information,” and that the developer “did not have access to vessel monitoring system] tracks possessed by local fishermen who operate the site.”

WIFA had countered in their submission that “the data has indeed been provided,” with prawn trawlers estimating “an annual income of £50,000 each from within the site boundary, with up to 20 trawlers fishing within the proposed site.”

The planning report stated: “It is difficult for the planning authority to counter either stance and therefore considerable weight must be given to the content of the EIA report.”

The report detailed that the development would provide five permanent jobs with estimated direct economic benefits of £606,000 annually, with a cumulative contribution of over £1m per year to the wider Scottish economy.

null (Image: kris1138)

The developer’s assessment had, according to the planning report, concluded the displacement would be “negligible.”

At the planning meeting, South Uist, Eriskay, and Benbecula councillor Susan Thomson asked planning staff: “Can you help me reconcile the two different points of view about the net economic value of this?

“The Western Isles Fisherman’s Association says that it’ll have a detrimental impact on their industry. The applicant gives us quite detailed figures about the positive impact on theirs.

“I’m concerned that the fish farm will bring about that economic benefit potentially by displacing an industry that’s already providing an economic benefit to the Western Isles.”

Comhairle planning staff responded: “In the context of the area, the site is within a statistical rectangle which covers quite a large portion of that area of the North Minch.

“The development site only represents 0.06% of that entire statistical rectangle, so while we acknowledge it is taking away fishing ground and associated economic income to fishermen, it’s also, on balance, providing full-time jobs and additional employment in the area.

“So it’s not being dismissed that it’s not going to have an impact at all. But on balance, it’s considered that it will also bring a positive element to the economy.”

Cllr Thomson responded: “Do we have figures about the value the [displaced] industry would provide?

“This proposal talks about the direct value and the supply chain value – do we have figures about the direct value and the supply chain value of the commercial fishing industry so that we can compare the two, and so that we’ve got all the facts, and we’re not encouraging this displacement, that will have a net negative effect?”

Comhairle planning staff responded: “According to the applicant, they sought the hard figures from the fishing industry in relation to any economic loss at the site, and they were unable to get that. Whether that’s the case or not, I don’t know.”

Cllr Thomson noted: “That’s the part that gave me some concerns…It just seems to me that while this will provide economic benefit it may be at the cost of another industry, and because I can’t quantify what that benefit is, I’m struggling to make an informed choice on this one.”

Stornoway North councillor Iain Macaulay asked if the loss of traditional sheltering ground for commercial fishermen had been taken into account in the economic assessment, as it could affect when they were able to go to sea.

Planning staff responded: “Yes I believe it has…while [the proposed fish farm] is a big site in fish farming terms, it represents a small area of the north Minch…but, again, like a lot of matters in planning, it will be decided on balance.”

Proposing refusal, Cllr Thomson, seconded by Cllr Macaulay, stated that the application did not comply with Policy ED4 and the Supplementary Guidance of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan, and with Policy 32 of NPF4.

Policy 32 of Scotland’s National Planning Framework 4 encourages sustainable aquaculture development in rural areas while balancing it with other considerations such as community, business, and the environment.

The PAB unanimously backed the recommendation to refuse planning consent.