Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 22 April 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 22 April 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 15 April 2026 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 APRIL 2026 at 10:30 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 March 2026 at 11.00 am (Pages 3 - 4) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 March 2026 at 2.30 pm (Pages 5 - 10) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 30 March 2026 (Pages 11 - 62) 4. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW (Pages 63 - 66) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support 5. ESB ASSET DEVELOPMENT (UK) LTD: SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR WEST TORRISDALE WIND FARM COMPRISING OF UP TO 9 WIND TURBINES WITH A TIP HEIGHT OF UP TO 149.9 METRES WITH A PREDICTED OUTPUT OF UP TO 6 MW PER WIND TURBINE, INSTALLATION OF BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) OF UP TO 20 MW OF ENERGY STORAGE AND ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE: TORRISDALE (REF: 25/00043/S36) (Pages 67 - 128) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
6. SCOTTISH HYDRO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION PLC (SSEN TRANSMISSION): PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICITY SUBSTATION ON A NEW SITE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ARDNADAM STATION: DUNOON ELECTRICITY SUB STATION, HIGH ROAD, SANDBANK (REF: 26/00366/PAN) (Pages 129 - 136) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Vice-Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 18 MARCH 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Reeni Kennedy- Boyle Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Alan Morrison, Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager Kim de Buiteléir, Senior Planning and Strategies Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Graham Hardie, Amanda Hampsey and Daniel Hampsey. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. MINUTE The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 February 2026 was approved as a correct record. Due to technical difficulties experienced by one of the Officers joining the meeting, the Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to vary the order of business and considered Agenda Item 5 next. 4. LOCAL AIR QUALITY IN ARGYLL AND BUTE A report presenting the 2025 Annual Progress Report for Local Air Quality in Argyll and Bute, which fulfils the Council’s statutory duty under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, was considered. Decision The Committee considered the Local Air Quality Annual Progress Report 2025 which confirmed that local air quality in Argyll and Bute was good and agreed the following actions:- a) Establish a multi service air quality working group to consider the Scottish Government’s new proposals; b) Review of arrangements for consultation on air quality impacts within the Planning Process; and c) Develop a new Council Air Quality Strategy. Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
(Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Regulatory Services dated 24 February 2026 and 2025 Air Quality Annual Progress Report for Argyll and Bute Council, submitted) 5. PROPOSED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3: DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME A report presenting the second annual update of the Development Plan Scheme (DPS) was before the Committee for consideration. The DPS sets out the timetable for, and key milestones in, the Local Development Plan 3 process, and the report sought approval of the Scheme including its associated Participation Statement. Decision The Committee considered the contents of this report and approved the Development Plan Scheme (DPS) attached as Appendix A for publication and submission to the Scottish Ministers. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 18 February 2026 and Development Plan Scheme March 2026, submitted) * 6. LAND CONTAMINATION REPORTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS IN ARGYLL AND BUTE Where the redevelopment of land is proposed and previous use indicates the potential for land contamination, it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that their proposal is “suitable for use”, through a phased process of risk assessment and ground investigation. Land contamination risk assessment and ground investigation reports are submitted by developers and passed to Environmental Health to assess whether they meet expected standards, align with authoritative guidance, and their conclusions are evidence based. A pilot was developed by Regulatory Services in May 2025 to promote better quality report submissions. The pilot brought together a number of complementary processes and a report advising of the Service’s intention to formalise this pilot into service procedures was considered. The report also sought approval of the fee structure to support these changes to operational procedures. Decision The Committee considered this report, the service’s intention to formalise the pilot into service procedures and agreed to recommend to Council approval of the associated fees and charges detailed in paragraph 4.22 of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Regulatory Services dated 24 February 2026, submitted) Page 4
Page 5
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 18 MARCH 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Reeni Kennedy- Boyle Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor Evelyn Livingstone, Applicant for first hearing Sean MacIntyre, Applicant for second hearing Louise Marshall, Applicant for third hearing 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Graham Hardie, Andrew Kain and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (E LIVINGSTONE, TAYNUILT) For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and Ms Livingstone joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of her application. APPLICANT Ms Livingstone advised that she had been a full-time taxi driver for a year and a half and had held her licence for 4 years. She said that she currently worked for Etive Taxis but they only required her to work 3 days per week. She said that this was not enough for her and that she would like to work more hours. She said that she had held off to see if she would be offered more hours, but this had not happened. She also advised that she had contacted another local taxi firm to see if they could offer her more hours, but they had not responded. She said that she loved working as a taxi driver and was applying for this licence so that she could work for herself and that she saw this as a natural progression to enable her to work full time. Page 5 Agenda Item 3b
Page 6
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Brown noted that Ms Livingstone had indicated in her application form that she would be available to work 7 days a week from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Ms Livingstone that she believed there was a need for taxi drivers during these times in Oban. Ms Livingstone advised that she would be happy to sit at the rank and put these hours in. She said that at the moment she worked 7.00 am – 5.00 pm and was not given the opportunity to work in the evenings. She advised that on the weekends there were sometimes only 2 or 3 cars at the rank, with people waiting in a queue. She advised that when she has been driving around, she has noticed no taxis at the rank at times. She said she was not sure why as there was definitely a demand there for taxis. She said she was not sure if it was because people were choosing not to work or if taxi firms could not get drivers. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Ms Livingstone that she would be happy to wait at the rank during these hours to provide a service. She confirmed that she had no other commitments as her children were grown up and had their own lives. Councillor Green commented that he has observed people coming off the train and boats looking for taxis to take them to their hotels quickly, especially on a rainy night. He agreed that there was a need for more taxis in the town and the more, the better, in his opinion. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that there were currently 49 taxis in the Oban, Lorn and the Isles area. He advised that in 2023 there were 51 taxis and when the LVSA survey was carried out in 2019 there were 52 taxis. SUMMING UP Applicant Ms Livingstone said that she believed there was a demand for more taxis and that it would be really good for her to be independent and self-employed. She said this was the best job she had ever had. When asked, Ms Livingstone confirmed that she had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Blair said he would be keen to grant this application in view of the figures given by the Council’s Solicitor and the comments made by the Applicant. Councillor McCabe also agreed to support this application and commented that it was heartwarming to hear someone so keen to work. Councillor Brown agreed with her fellow Councillors. She said it was nice to hear someone was keen to drive a taxi around in Oban and she wished the Applicant all the best. DECISION Page 6
Page 7
The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Ms Livingstone and noted that she would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) The Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to hold the hearing in respect of Mr MacIntyre’s application for a Taxi Car Licence next as it was noted that Ms Marshall would not be available join the meeting until 3 pm. 4. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (S MACINTYRE, DUNBEG, OBAN) For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and Mr MacIntyre joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr MacIntyre advised that he was currently a window cleaner and that over the past few years he had experienced problems with his shoulder. On the advice of his Physiotherapist and Doctor, he had made the decision to give up window cleaning. He said that he realised there was a shortage of taxis in the area. He commented that there were a lot of badges but many of the taxi drivers only worked part time. He said that he would be looking to work full time if the licence was granted. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Blair asked Mr MacIntyre why he was convinced there was demand for more taxis. Mr MacIntyre explained that through his work as a window cleaner for local bed and breakfast establishments and hotels, he has been advised that proprietors found it difficult to contact taxis for their customers, especially early in the morning, as a lot of the taxis were contracted for school hires. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr MacIntyre that he would do a mix of day and night work up to 40 hours a week. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr MacIntyre that the problem he experienced with his shoulder would not affect his driving. He commented that if he had an operation it would take up to 9 months to recover if he wished to continue as a window cleaner. He advised that he would only need 6 – 8 weeks recovery time to enable him to drive. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that following the grant of a Taxi Car Licence at the previous hearing, there were now 50 taxis in the Oban, Lorn and the Isles area, compared to 51 taxis in 2023, and 52 taxis in 2019, when the LVSA survey was carried out. SUMMING UP Applicant Page 7
Page 8
Mr MacIntyre advised that when he told his guest house customers that he planned to stop window cleaning and apply for a Taxi Car Licence, they thought this was excellent news as they found it difficult to get taxis for their guests. He said that he was advised that their guests were not prepared to wait long for a taxi and quite often chose to walk instead. He said that he definitely thought there was the demand for more taxis. When asked Mr MacIntyre confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Blair advised that looking at the number of taxis available, he was happy to support this application. He referred to the number of houses that have been built out at Dunbeg since the LVSA survey was carried out in 2019. Councillor Green agreed that there was a demand there for additional taxis in the area and that he would have no hesitation in supporting this application. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr MacIntyre and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) 5. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (L MARSHALL, OBAN) For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and Ms Marshall joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of her application. APPLICANT Ms Marshall advised that she had been working as a taxi driver for a number of years but had been working for other people. She said that for 9 years she has wanted to work for herself for many reasons. She advised that over the years she has been aware that many women customers are looking for women taxi drivers and feel relieved when they get one. She said there were not enough women taxi drivers in the area. Ms Marshall also advised that she had purchased a 7-seater vehicle. She said there were some 7-seater taxis out there but, she believed, more were needed. She said that she would be willing to work late at night and early in the morning. She pointed out that there was an early train from 5.00 am and at that time there were no taxis available. She said that people found it hard to get a taxi at that time to go to the train station or to catch a ferry which left as early as 6.00 am. She advised that she had witnessed people having to wait to get taxis due to there being none available and that more taxis available in the town would be better. Page 8
Page 9
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Ms Marshall that she believed her 7-seater vehicle would be of benefit to her customers. She commented that there were sometimes minibuses at the rank but people preferred taxis. She said her taxi would be able to take 6 passengers. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Ms Marshall that she would advertise her business on Facebook on the Information Oban page. She advised that coming from the islands she knew of family and friends who regularly required taxis early in the morning and so she felt she would be of help there. Councillor Blair sought and received clarification from the Council’s Solicitor that following the grant of Taxi Car Licences at the previous 2 hearings, there were now 51 taxis in Oban, compared to 52 when the LVSA survey was carried out. SUMMING UP Applicant Ms Marshall sought and received clarification from the Chair on the purpose of the LVSA survey and confirmed that she had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Blair said that he would be happy to support this application based on the information provided by the Council’s Solicitor and the Applicant. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Ms Marshall and noted that she would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 9
Page 10
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 11
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 30 MARCH 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Iain Jackson, Governance, Risk and Safety Manager Shelley Gould, Senior Planning Officer, Planning Authority Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader, Planning Authority Stephen MacIntyre, Head of Environment, Mowi Scotland, Applicant Rebecca Weeks, Senior Environmental Analyst, Mowi Scotland, Applicant Cameron Jones, Regional Seawater Manager, Mowi Scotland, Applicant Mark Laird, Carradale Site Manager, Mowi Scotland, Applicant Elaine Whyte, Clyde Fisherman’s Association, Consultee Kenny McNab, Chair of Clyde Fisherman’s Association, Consultee James Anderson, Objector Emma Kearns, Whitby Seafoods, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest intimated at this point, however, later in proceedings Councillor Dougie Philand declared a non-financial interest under item 3 of this Minute by virtue of his appointment to the Northern Lighthouse Board in his role as Provost. He advised that he intended to withdraw from the meeting and not take part in the debate and deliberation of the application. Councillor Philand left the meeting after this declaration, and this is detailed at the appropriate point in this Minute. 3. MOWI SCOTLAND: REPLACE EXISTING 10 X 120M CIRCUMFERENCE PENS WITH 6 X 160M CIRCUMFERENCE PENS (WITH A PARALLEL MINOR RELOCATION INTO DEEPER WATER MOVING THE CARRADALE SOUTH SITE CENTRE 99M EAST) AND SITING OF EXISTING FEED BARGE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION: CARRADALE SOUTH FISH FARM, KILBRANNAN SOUND (REF: 24/01381/MFF) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, which was held on a hybrid basis. For the purposes of the sederunt Shona Barton, Clerk to the Committee, read out the names of the Members of the Committee and asked them to confirm their attendance. Page 11 Agenda Item 3c
Page 12
In advance of the meeting, interested parties had confirmed they would make presentations to the Committee. Mrs Barton read out the names of those representatives and asked them to confirm their attendance. The Chair explained the hearing procedure that would be followed and invited the Senior Planning Officer to present the case. PLANNING Shelley Gould, Senior Planning Officer The Senior Planning Officer reminded members that at the PPSL Committee meeting of 17 December 2025, two applications had been considered for the replacement of existing pens with larger pens at Carradale South and Carradale North marine fish farms, located in the Kilbrannan Sound. At that time, members had agreed to continue consideration of both applications to a pre-determination hearing and site visit, due to the sustained objections submitted by the Clyde Fishermen’s Association (CFA) and its members, and because of the resulting concerns regarding potential impacts on local commercial fisheries. A site visit for members subsequently took place on Tuesday, 24 March 2026. For those unable to attend, the applicant had prepared a Google Earth video illustrating the site’s location approximately 1.8 km north of Carradale village and harbour, on the western edge of the Kilbrannan Sound, east of the Kintyre Peninsula. The hamlet of Grogport lay approximately 2.6 km northwest, and the coastline adjacent to the site was designated as countryside. The mapping material provided wider context for the existing operational marine fish farm, whose current pen layout was shown in blue. The video also demonstrated the positions of the installed pens and the location of the proposed 160-metre circumference pens, shown in red. Members were asked to note the contrast between the shallower waters at the Sound’s edges and the deeper central channel, indicated respectively by darker and lighter shading. For procedural reasons, the Senior Planning Officer advised that Carradale North and Carradale South would be addressed separately within the hearing, although the issues relevant to both sites were the same. She noted that the existing pens had been in operation since 2009 and 2015 respectively, and that both sites were managed as a single operational unit from the Mowi Shore Base at Carradale Harbour, which was currently undergoing significant investment. Before moving to the individual applications, the Officer provided an overview of the proposal as a whole. The existing 10 × 120 m circumference pens at each site were proposed to be replaced with 6 × 160 m circumference pens. Updated charts submitted by the applicant and summarised in Supplementary Report No. 3 illustrated the distances involved in the proposed eastward relocation. At Carradale South, the proposed pen group would shift 99 metres east from the existing site centre and 173 metres east from the current mooring boundaries. At Carradale North, the shift would be 79 metres east from the existing site centre and 150 metres east from the current mooring boundaries. Moorings on the northeast and southeast corners had been reduced to lessen any navigation impacts and to facilitate access for mobile gear vessels. Page 12
Page 13
The Officer then presented the detailed proposal for Carradale South. This formed part of the applicant’s wider modernisation programme. The current 10 × 120 m, 2 × 5 grid of pens would be upgraded to 6 × 160 m pens arranged in a 2 × 3 grid. The proposal also included top nets, moorings, and navigational lighting. In response to concerns raised by the CFA and local fishermen, the applicant had revised the planning boundary and reduced moorings on the southeastern corner to reduce impacts on fishing activity. Sea-depth mapping demonstrated that the revised mooring layout would sit over steeply sloping seabed descending from approximately 23 m to 69 m, which was not considered suitable for most trawling activity. The Officer summarised the technical specifications of the pens, top nets, mooring systems, and the design of the nets extending to 35 metres in depth. The existing feed barge would remain onsite and would be repositioned centrally between both pen groups. The Officer summarised policy compliance, noting that the proposal met the requirements of Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) and the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). There were negligible visual impacts, no environmental effects, and no increase in biomass, which would remain at 2,500 tonnes per site. Benefits included improved containment, enhanced sea-lice management, reduced stocking density, and improved water flow and fish health. No statutory consultees had objected, including NatureScot, SEPA, Marine Directorate, Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board, Historic Environment Scotland, Northern Lighthouse Board, and others. No issues had been identified regarding amenity, noise, lighting, biodiversity, or navigation. At the time of the December PPSL meeting, 11 objections had been received, primarily relating to concerns about local fishermen, the influence of planning processes, and suggestions that alternative sites were more suitable. The CFA had submitted three formal objections, noting impacts on commercial fisheries and asserting the need to maintain the existing compromise. Their objections, summarised in the supplementary reports, stated that the proposed relocation encroached on safe, productive, and provable fishing grounds, that mobile boats would be most affected, and that this was not a “minor relocation” for their members. New representations received since December included two further objections, one from a local fisherman and one from Whitby Seafoods, two letters of comment, from a creel fisherman and from AquaSky, and two letters of support, from Salmon Scotland and East Kintyre Community Council. The Officer presented detailed analysis of commercial fisheries impacts, noting the applicant’s pre-application engagement with the CFA, the reduction of mooring extents by 14%, and the commissioning of the Poseidon Commercial Fisheries Report dated October 2025. This report concluded that, based on AIS tracking data between 2019 and 2024, only 1.4% of vessel positions fell within the proposed planning boundary and 0.3% within the proposed moorings boundary. It judged that there would be no significant impact on trawling or dredging, though navigation margins would be narrow. A second commercial fisheries report commissioned by the applicant in February 2026 further clarified methodology and considered the CFA’s “farm analogy”. This report concluded that while approximately 0.8 km² could theoretically be excluded from trawling, the seabed topography indicated that the area was unlikely to be used for trawling at present. It found that only 1.5% of vessel positions over five years fell within the extended boundary area, and most of those would remain unaffected. Page 13
Page 14
The Officer presented AIS tracking plots from the previous 30-day period and updated charts from December 2025 to March 2026, noting that no vessel tracks indicative of active fishing passed within the proposed moorings boundary, and that the closest active-fishing track remained 140 metres east of the proposed moorings. The Officer outlined planning condition 18, agreed with the applicant, which required ongoing liaison, safe access measures for smaller vessels, and if required, the preparation of a fisheries management and mitigation strategy. Officers were satisfied that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to safeguard existing fishing opportunities, including design changes, technical analysis, additional consultation, and commitments to ongoing mitigation. The Senior Planning Officer concluded that this was an existing operational fish farm, the proposal represented a minor eastward relocation, the development formed part of a positive modernisation programme, and no statutory consultee had objected. Impacts on commercial fisheries had been fully assessed, mitigated, and were not considered significantly adverse. The proposal was supported by the local Community Council as part of wider economic investment in Carradale. The Officer advised that the proposal was consistent with the Development Plan and that no material considerations justified withholding permission, in accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. The applications were therefore commended to members for approval, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the Report of Handling dated 1 December 2025 and revised Condition 18 in Supplementary Report No. 2 dated 26 March 2026. APPLICANT Stephen MacIntyre - Head of Environment, Mowi Scotland Mr MacIntyre advised that he would explain why they required to make these changes to their fish farms. He acknowledged the concerns expressed by local fishermen and the Clyde Fisherman's Association. He stated that they had tried to engage and be proactive in responding to these concerns and would outline the changes they had made to the proposal including additional assessments that they had undertaken to base these changes on. He provided some background to Mowi advising that Scottish salmon was the UK's top food export, with the sector's economic contribution to Scotland increasing by 25% over the past four years. He advised that the economic contribution of the sector from Argyll in 2025 was estimated to be around 100 million pounds. Mr MacIntyre said that Mowi was the largest operator in Scotland, showing a slide representing the spread of their locations where they operate and their employment levels on a national Scotland level scale. He said that operations throughout Scotland played a key role in the economic success of the sector at a local, regional and national level. Many of the fish farms were located in rural coastal communities. He showed Mowi’s Argyll farming locations and employment levels in the region advising that their operations provided stability and opportunity in fragile coastal communities, securing year-round employment and supporting community investment and resilience with the Carradale fish farms and the partnership they’d established with the local community being such an Page 14
Page 15
example. He advised they were investing in career pathways into aquaculture for young people by working with Salmon Scotland and Campbeltown High School and other partners to provide a vocational qualification in aquaculture. He said that they were regulated through a robust multi-agency framework, covering areas such as environmental protection, fish health, and planning; and voluntarily operated to a range of third-party standards. Rebecca Weeks, Senior Environmental Analyst, Mowi Scotland Ms Weeks provided information on operations at the site to date before presenting the proposed changes and the reasons for these changes. She said that the two sites lay very closely to one another and were operated as one. The proposal before the Committee indicated a decrease in the stocking density of the fish through the securement of additional water volume; there would be no change to the maximum biomass of 2,500 tonnes per site. She advised that since 2011 they had harvested just over ten and a half million salmon from the Carradale sites combined, equating to 100 million meals. The purpose of the application was to secure jobs for Carradale into the future by investing in more modern equipment. In terms of the sea water side, they were looking at an investment programme of around 3 million pounds paired with land-based developments in the community of around 2 million pounds. She advised they were aiming to modernise their footprint and create a modern and fit for purpose shore base for staff, as well as developing the Pier House on the shorefront. She said that they would like Carradale to be an established regional base and that the EKCC recognised the socioeconomic benefits of having Mowi in the local area. She confirmed they were committed to maintaining their community development fund and supporting the Carradale Affordable Housing Project in line with the proposed developments. She said that the planning officer’s report had advised that the primary issue raised during the application was that of commercial fishing, however, the report had concluded no matters that lead to reasons to refuse the planning permission and had been supported by the results of the statutory consultation with no objections received and the recommendation that planning permission be approved, subject to the hearing and the attached conditions. She presented the initial layout of the fish farm that had been submitted as part of an initial screening request. The layout had been amended and resubmitted in light of the Clyde Fishermen's Association’s (CFA’s) feedback regarding marine traffic. She demonstrated on slides the reduction of 14% to the mooring boundaries in response to this feedback. Another slide highlighted the initial marine traffic data that had been examined showing an area of higher traffic coming into and out of Carradale Harbour, which had been highlighted in the initial consultation with the CFA. She advised that from further analysis, it was found that most of the data was indicative of transiting rather than fishing. She demonstrated the primary area of fishing as being in the flatter, deeper area of the channel. Ms Weeks advised that following on from the initial feedback and initial data, they had been able to decrease the moorings area on the east to the eastern extent and cut off the southeastern area of the moorings, adding that they were restricted on the inshore side by Page 15
Page 16
depth as the larger pens required additional depth. They had been unable in terms of moving the pens back towards the west but had been able to shorten the moorings lengths on the east side; and that this would require higher investment by Mowi. Cameron Jones, Regional Seawater Manager, Mowi Scotland Mr Jones advised that across Mowi Scotland, they currently used a mixture of pens, ranging from steel square pens, which come in 24 by 24 pen, or 36 by 36 pen sizes, but more commonly, they used plastic circle pens, ranging from 100 metres all the way up to 200 metres. He said that currently in Carradale, there were ten 120 metre pens on each farm, totalling 20 across both sites. He said that number of pens required a lot of maintenance, labour and resource, making day-to-day operations more demanding. Mr Jones advised that one of the reasons they were looking to expand and increase to 160 metre pens was that although the 120 metre pens were robust, they had found from experience on other locations with 160 metre pens that the design, larger walkways, and larger tubes dealt with the weather better. He said that as Carradale was an exposed site, it would be a positive improvement to the location. Mr Jones said that fewer pens to manage gave greater efficiency in daily tasks, whether it was net washing, daily inspections, or health checks on stock. It also meant better fresh water bathing efficiency, therefore fewer pens to treat, meaning they were able to treat the farm quicker than what they were now, meaning less time with larger well boats in the area, which was a positive for all. The proposal aligned with other successful installations on other sites across Mowi Scotland. He advised that although Carradale had a very low level of lice historically they would see improved sea lice control as the fish would be distributed across fewer larger pens. The lower stock intensities would support best practice for fish health and welfare. The low stocking density would reduce the waste deposition and extend on the seabed, helping to minimise seabed environmental effects. He advised that it provided the opportunity to use the 120 metre pen site currently at Carradale on other locations to upgrade their equipment. Rebecca Weeks, Senior Environmental Analyst, Mowi Scotland Ms Weeks provided information on stakeholder engagement. She said that of the statutory consultees, there had been no objections received, therefore the bulk of their focus had been on the objection received from the Clyde Fishermen's Association. She advised that the Association had been approached prior to their objection as part of the engagement process, and there had been a number of both formal and informal engagements. The formal engagements had been summarised on a slide, with 18 recorded since November 2024; a mixture of Teams meetings, emails and phone calls which had included both the Executive Secretary and also CFA members directly. She advised that Mowi felt that they'd had useful collaborative exchanges with the CFA which had allowed them to update and amend their plans. She advised there had been information shared from both sides and recognised there had been a national issue with data availability, however they had been able to geo-reference one chart plotter image successfully, which had been helpful in terms of site design. It highlighted an area of bad fishing grounds, which we were pleased to see correlated with the proposed mooring extent. She noted a general hesitancy around the sharing of Page 16
Page 17
confidential data and acknowledged the reasons behind this. She advised both parties were working together with Salmon Scotland, forming a liaison group with many of the fishing associations to try and facilitate dialogue and work towards an approach for that for the future, which would be a great help to both sectors. She advised that a number of individual objections had been received but these hadn’t provided any supporting evidence upon which they could amend the plans further. Ms Weeks advised that Mowi had engaged an independent fisheries consultancy to analyse the data that was available publicly. The bulk of which was on AIS data from the last five years and represented all fishing vessels above 12 metres. She said that of all the positions recorded within that five year period, only four data points had fallen within the proposed mirroring boundary. She displayed a map on the screen showing a heat map of fishing effort and seabed types. The data represented 10 fishing vessels regularly using the area, eight of which were trawlers and two dredgers. In addition, she advised that their mooring surveyor confirmed, as an ex-fisherman, that the area directly under the proposed moorings was not suitable for trawling or dredging due to rocky outcrops or muddy seabed type. She confirmed that the proposed extension did not extend beyond the 80 metre contour line. Ms Weeks referred to the farm shop analogy already mentioned by the Senior Planning Officer that had been brought to their attention just prior to the planning meeting in December. Mowi felt like the analogy would have been helpful in a new site development but did not feel it was as relevant to an existing site. In effect, the shop already existed and they were proposing a small extension of the shop. She advised that it also touched on losing safe and productive grounds and ending up with an area of unproductive land. She said that again they did not feel that it was representative of the application in hand, given that the wider extent of the sound would remain fishable. She acknowledged that the fisheries report had a weakness in that it did not capture vessels less than 12 metres in length. To try and address that Mowi had engaged with local fishermen in the Carradale area. Mark Laird, Carradale Site Manager, Mowi Scotland Mr Laird advised that on site, they took a note of any sort of fishing vessels that had been around the site and site boats. He advised that staff had not noted any active fishing in the proposed area. He added that as they were working alongside the local fishermen, they had willingly given them the data of where the fishing grounds were. Rebecca Weeks, Senior Environmental Analyst, Mowi Scotland To sum up on the commercial fisheries side of things, Ms Weeks advised that Mowi were conscious of the need to avoid competition for space and acknowledged the pressures on fishing in regard to spatial squeeze. She advised that they recognised and supported the importance of the wider Kilbrannan Sound and the Firth of Clyde itself as an important location for fishing. However, they felt like the application represented a slight expansion to an already existing farm over an area of potentially poor fishing grounds. She advised that, to the best of their knowledge, this was backed up by data as well as local engagement and their on-site observations. She said that the fisheries report, their own and the planning officer’s conclusions were all aligned in that there was no significant impact to the wild fisheries as a result of the proposal. Stephen MacIntyre - Head of Environment, Mowi Scotland Page 17
Page 18
Mr MacIntyre advised that the changes they were seeking to implement had a range of benefits. They would modernise, improve and future-proof Carradale South Fish Farm, underpinning continuing employment and community benefit. He advised that this application was for investment in the seaside of their cargo operations, but there were also proposals for a parallel significant programme of investment on the shore side with planned harbour infrastructure improvements. Both investment programmes were complementary to one another. He advised that they understood that the Council was looking at the Carradale Harbour themselves, and irrespective of the outcome of the hearing, they were committed to working with the Council and all other stakeholders to maximise the pool of resources through the fabric of the harbour and facilities for all harbour users, including the vessels that operate out of there. Mr MacIntyre highlighted that the application had raised important considerations relating to marine spatial squeeze with commercial fishing. He advised that they fully understood these concerns and throughout had tried to engage constructively. He advised that they had paused the application while they had investigated further and sought ways to mitigate and resolve such concerns. He advised that they felt there had been a misunderstanding on the extent of the change they were proposing. He said that this was a minor change to the operational footprint of an existing long-established farm and hoped that they had conveyed that in their presentation based on all the evidence that they had considered. He concluded by saying that they genuinely believed the proposal would not result in the loss of recognised fishing grounds. CONSULTEES Elaine Whyte, Clyde Fisherman’s Association Ms Whyte advised that before she began her presentation there were a couple of points she wanted to respond to. She advised they were not against aquaculture, and they appreciated that there were employment opportunities and knew that there were two local people employed in that area at the moment, but they had a number of vessels in the area as well. She advised that 12 fishermen from the local area had objected to the proposal, she advised that there were three people to five people on those boats at times. She acknowledged that aquaculture did provide employment in the area, but so did they, and potentially a higher number were local people based in the community. She said it was great that aquaculture were training young people, but they had been doing that for a long time and for the last three years, two of their trainees won national trainees of the year at the Fishing News Awards. This year, they had been nominated for it again, for being one of the charities that have helped most in terms of getting people into stable employment. Ms Whyte advised that in terms of policies, there were five policies in the National Plan that they could see, which were section 6, section 4, section 12, section 11, section 8 and section 9, that a basic ChatGPT search could show and one under the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. In respect of a point that was raised about absorbing things to the east of the site, she advised that there was rock dumping to the east of the site, and there was also cables there so it was quite a dangerous thing to do. Ms Whyte stated that, in terms of the professional reports, there had been one from a local creeler and one from a company named Aqua Sky involved. She noted that she did Page 18
Page 19
not know who Aqua Sky were and could not confirm the identity of that operator. The local creeler did have a known name, and she highlighted that twelve men had individually signed their names to say they had concerns. Given the small size of the area, this represented the majority of the local fishermen. She further noted that one crew fisherman, who was a member of the CFA, had provided data but had also objected to the licence and the development. Regarding the Community Council, Ms Whyte explained that it was understood the Council had been keen to progress pontoon development in the area. It was not clear whether they would proceed, and she pointed out that the CFA could not provide the same level of financial support to the Community Council. However, contact had been made with the Community Council on 20 March to advise that the CFA did not support the proposal, due to the lack of consultation with local fishermen prior to the Community Council agreeing to support it. She expressed hope that the Community Council would work with the CFA going forward. She also highlighted that CFA members had built Carradale Harbour, and referenced author Naomi Mitchison, who had written about the fishermen of Carradale, stressing that this heritage formed an important part of the community’s history and needed to be protected. Ms Whyte emphasised that the issue was not minor, despite suggestions to the contrary, and noted that the fishermen would speak for themselves on the matter. She commented that the meeting felt as though it had become an exercise in proving the fishermen’s existence, despite the reality that they were active and working in the area. Ms Whyte noted that there had been confusion expressed regarding the evidence presented. She stated that she did not understand why, as plotter data had been provided directly from the fishermen. She explained that AIS data did not capture vessels under 12 metres, which was a significant omission. She also referred to vessel tracking work undertaken by the Council but noted that it covered only a short time period. As such, it might not reflect the boats generally operating in the area during the summer or over a typical year. Ms Whyte commented that the Council had mentioned the possibility of establishing a mitigation group after the decision was made, if the decision was in favour of the development. She stated that establishing such a group after ground had already been lost would be difficult and of limited value, aside from general good practice. She acknowledged the importance of dialogue and noted that the CFA was in more frequent discussions with the group, including with Stephen. However, she reiterated that mitigation after the loss of fishing ground would not be productive for the fishermen. She also wished to address procedural matters. She noted that comments submitted following the previous event in December had not been reported to Committee, despite the CFA having provided them. She stated that the CFA had therefore often felt on the back foot, and that reports had been issued late at times. As the CFA representatives were not working full-time on these matters, they were doing their best to respond within tight timescales. Ms Whyte stressed that the fishermen already held a licence to operate in the area and were actively working there. She reiterated that it was a strange and difficult position to have to prove their existence when it was well known that fishing activity took place in the area. Ms Whyte noted that she would need to move quickly through her remaining points but emphasised the importance of the issues raised. She explained that there were 109 finfish licenced sites in the West Coast marine area and that approval rates within Argyll and Bute Council had historically been very high. She stressed that Argyll and Bute were not Page 19
Page 20
the only authority finding increasing difficulty in balancing the competition for space between fishing and aquaculture. Highland Council had encountered similar tensions and had taken different decisions in comparable circumstances. The Western Isles had likewise objected to several sites as spatial pressures intensified. She stated that this was now a national issue and that there was a clear shift emerging in how such conflicts were being viewed. She stated that decisions should not be based on whether some fishing might still be technically possible. Instead, decisions should be based on whether a proposal protected the long-term viability of an existing and locally important industry. At present, she believed the evidence did not demonstrate such protection. Ms Whyte pointed out that some of the data being relied upon was around five years old. Since that period, both COVID-19 and Brexit had significantly altered fishing patterns, with many vessels tied up for long periods. This, she argued, had contributed to a loss of resilience within fishing businesses, making any further loss of ground more difficult to absorb. She stated that the supply chain for wild-caught fish was routinely under-represented in assessments. The chain was fragmented, involving haulage companies, processors, and exporters, yet she had provided detailed information illustrating the multi-million-pound businesses that depended on inshore landing activity. The impact extended far beyond harbour-side operations. She referred to a short film made by a woman in Lanarkshire who highlighted how workers in factories across Scotland were also dependent on the continuation of the sector. Ms Whyte noted that Argyll and Bute’s national contribution was often hidden, despite its significance. She added that the industry trained its own workforce, including young people who wished to remain in the area. However, she did not believe the cumulative spatial squeeze had been properly addressed. Assessment had focused only on the impact of the extension rather than the wider pressures in the area, such as potential Royal Navy closures, existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), subsea cables, rock dumps, and other restrictions. The cumulative squeeze, she said, was real and growing. Moving to policy issues, she explained that even a basic search would show conflicts with the National Marine Plan, the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan, and Scotland’s National Planning Framework. The CFA did not believe that approving the extension would support existing industries, given the displacement impacts and lack of alternative ground available for transit or relocation. She argued that the proposal conflicted with marine planning requirements to support coexistence and avoid displacement of established marine users. She then addressed specific Policies requiring existing fishing opportunities to be safeguarded “wherever possible” were, she said, relevant here because safeguarding was possible. The CFA was not objecting to the presence of aquaculture at the site, coexistence was already occurring. They were simply seeking the continuation of the current balance. Fishing was culturally and economically vital to vulnerable coastal communities, producing “sticky money” that stayed in the local economy and sustaining strong community connections. She reiterated that a mitigation group established after ground had been lost would not change the reality for fishermen. On the precautionary principle, Ms Whyte stated that where evidence was incomplete or uncertain, the principle required caution. Instead, assumptions were being made in place of data. This, she argued, was contrary to marine planning principles. She referenced relevant National Planning Framework policies and noted that the report had explicitly excluded downstream employment, processing, supply chains, and economic multipliers. By limiting analysis to spatial overlap, it had failed to assess the true economic impact or Page 20
Page 21
recognise the interdependency between fisheries and local economies. This represented a significant omission. On natural heritage and coexistence policies, Ms Whyte stated that the proposal relied heavily on AIS data, even though most inshore vessels did not carry AIS. Decisions to displace people had to be based on robust, representative evidence, which she did not believe was present. She pointed out that most vessels affected had already returned feedback confirming problems. The report’s reference to “low activity” did not meet policy standards. She expanded on displacement concerns, explaining that shifting eastwards was not viable because of subsea cables and rock dumps, both of which created serious snagging dangers. She noted, with some emotion, that she had lost members and friends to accidents at sea, and emphasised that safety could not be underestimated. Fishing grounds were defined by ecological and safety constraints, not by convenience. Displacement led to increased conflict, reduced viability, and increased risk, and she argued that the assumption of easy absorption was unsupported. Returning to cumulative impacts, she described the Clyde as an area facing numerous pressures: Royal Navy closures, Marine Protected Areas, aquaculture, subsea cables, and soon additional renewable infrastructure near Islay. The situation was akin to “death by a thousand cuts,” meaning even small losses mattered. She stressed that no cumulative baseline had been provided. She highlighted concerns with the report’s methodology, which used percentage area fished to suggest low impact. She explained that fishing grounds were not uniform; they contained small, high-value zones essential to annual viability. The approach therefore led to misleading conclusions. She emphasised the importance of hearing directly from skippers, especially those with small vessels, as they were the ones whose livelihoods were directly affected. She said fishermen were already operating in the area and that the extension would effectively be built over them. She challenged claims that the extension might function as a no-take zone and improve fisheries, stating that there was no evidence to support such benefits. She again noted that the impact was not purely physical overlap; it related to safety, operational constraints, economics, access, and flexibility. Ms Whyte stated that the Poseidon report did not provide a sufficiently robust evidence base, failed to apply the precautionary principle, omitted key socioeconomic and cumulative considerations, and underplayed the inshore sector. She argued that conclusions of “minimal impact” were not supported by policy-compliant evidence. She reiterated that displacement caused real harm, not inconvenience, and that coexistence was preferable where already functioning. Displacement increased steaming time, fuel use, emissions, and economic strain. She highlighted the dramatic decline in Clyde trawlers, from around 64 to about 15 over 12–15 years and warned that losing even two or three more vessels could threaten viability of haulage and downstream services. She stressed that this was not theoretical; it involved real people. Safety remained the most important concern. Ms Whyte recounted an incident where a member’s vessel had caught on an anchor that was not where it should have been, nearly sinking the boat. Such hazards, she said, became more likely with increased spatial compression. She argued that aquaculture jobs, while important, were not as locally embedded as fishing jobs, and that fishing income circulated directly within the community. The Carradale site employed two people, whereas the fishing fleet employed significantly more local crew whose earnings remained within the area. On legal weight, she stated that material considerations and the precautionary principle must be applied where there was uncertainty, risk to safety, or potential economic harm. Page 21
Page 22
She highlighted the importance of food security, noting that during COVID many fishermen sold directly to the public, demonstrating the value of local supply in turbulent times. She also noted that displacement would undermine net-zero ambitions by increasing fuel use. Turning to intergenerational matters, she highlighted the ongoing issue of depopulation in Argyll and Bute. Her own grandfather had had to leave the area for work. Fishing provided local employment that kept families and young people in the community, supporting school rolls and maintaining population levels. She warned that approval would set a precedent for further encroachment into key fishing grounds. Fishing in Argyll and Bute had experienced repeated losses with very few regulatory decisions going in its favour. While the CFA wished to maintain good relationships with aquaculture, compromise was needed to prevent further erosion of fishing grounds. On environmental matters, she emphasised the CFA’s desire to work constructively with aquaculture but referenced recent issues, including the North Kilbrannan case, where low sea-lice risk was later found to be high, leading to an appeal. She noted that fishermen’s experiences of biodiversity near pens did not always reflect the claims made. She reiterated that the Poseidon evidence base was materially deficient, especially regarding AIS and misrepresentation of typical fishing patterns. She referenced the detailed gap analysis provided to councillors, which identified missing high-value grounds and other omissions. She explained that the submitted report did not assess socioeconomic impacts on the basis that they were not relevant—a position she argued was inconsistent with Scottish planning principles. Fishing impacts went far beyond lost revenue, affecting viability of vessels and the wider supply chain. She believed councillors should consider whether they wished to take that risk. She clarified that fishermen were willing to provide data but had concerns about commercially sensitive information being published; however, workarounds were possible. Meetings with the operator had taken place, and fishermen had engaged openly. She returned to the issue of cumulative loss, stating that while the report acknowledged spatial squeeze, it downplayed the significance of the extension. There was no cumulative modelling or baseline of historic loss. She repeated that small areas still held high value, and occasional use did not diminish their importance. Ms Whyte stated that the majority of the local fishing fleet was not represented in the dataset used by the report. Poseidon had not spoken to the CFA during the assessment, and the timeframe for comment had been extremely limited. She argued that the absence of EIS data had been incorrectly interpreted as an absence of fishing activity, despite the fishermen having clearly stated the area’s importance. In concluding, she said it was difficult for fishermen to repeatedly justify their existence and the cultural and economic value they brought to the area. The CFA wished to build a vibrant local industry and maintain a positive relationship with aquaculture, but they did not want to be pushed out. She emphasised that both sectors had a place and should continue to coexist as they currently did. Kenny McNab, Chair of Clyde Fisherman’s Association Mr McNab explained that he had attended the meeting to support the fishermen who had objected to the proposal and stated that he had been taken aback by the attitude presented by Mowi and within the Poseidon report. He noted that he had been fishing for 55 years and had worked both inside and outside the fish farm areas for many years. In his view, the level of ignorance shown by Poseidon and Mowi regarding commercial fishing activity was astonishing. Page 22
Page 23
He explained that when trawling or fishing, whether for demersal species or for shellfish such as prawns, which were the main stock in that area, there were grounds where fishing was productive and others where stocks were scarce. He stated that moving east would not provide viable grounds, and this was why the “hot spot,” illustrated in the purple area on the charts, was so important. The boats wished to fish there because the grounds were productive for prawns, yet the proposed extension by Mowi would remove this opportunity. Mr McNab emphasised that fishermen fished for financial gain in the same way that Mowi operated for financial gain. However, the proposed extension would take existing fishing ground away from them. He remarked that if fishing grounds could be identified as easily as suggested by Poseidon, he could have completed such a desktop study himself decades ago, saving many years of experience and effort. He stated that the AIS data used in the report was completely flawed and failed to represent real activity. To provide wider context, he outlined what had happened in the Clyde over the past 15 years, noting that he had previously presented on this topic. Fifteen years earlier, the Clyde had 68 vessels over 15 metres in length; this number had since fallen dramatically. The number of scallop dredgers had declined from 23 to four, and nearly two-thirds of the under-15-metre fleet had also been lost. Overall, nearly two-thirds of the Clyde fleet had disappeared. He attributed the primary cause of this decline to the loss of fishing grounds. During that period, the Clyde had gained five Marine Protected Areas, 18 fish farms, which he believed represented oversaturation in such a small marine region, and further closures due to Royal Navy operations and subsea cables. He stated that the Clyde Sea area covered approximately 3,600 square kilometres, of which around 1,150 square kilometre, roughly one-third, had been lost to closures of various types. Fishermen were repeatedly told they could no longer fish in certain areas, and this proposal represented yet another example. Although the extension might appear small, he said a line had to be drawn or the industry would not survive. Referring to community impact, Mr McNab made comparisons between aquaculture and wild fishing. He stated that wild fishing communities had existed for hundreds of years and that genuine fishing communities, such as Carradale, Tarbert, and many in Ayrshire, had been built by fishermen themselves, long before corporate entities existed. The income generated by fishermen had always remained within these communities, and this continued to the present day. He argued that Argyll and Bute had lost many millions of pounds over the last 15 years due to the decline of the fishing industry, as money that had once circulated locally had now disappeared. He contrasted this with Mowi, stating that while Mowi provided some local employment, its profits flowed to a multinational company. In his view, aquaculture attempted to “buy community,” whereas fishermen were the community itself. He concluded his remarks by reiterating that the fishing industry could not absorb further loss of grounds and that the cultural, economic, and historical importance of wild fishing must be recognised and protected. SUPPORTERS There were no supporters present in the meeting. OBJECTORS Page 23
Page 24
Mr James Anderson stated that Mr McNab had spoken at length already, but he wished to make one further point. He explained that he had employed five men on his boat over the past 42 years, all of whom were local fishermen and members of the local community. He emphasised that everyone working on his vessel was from Carradale; none came from outside the area. He contrasted this with Mowi, which he stated employed only two people locally. He concluded his remarks briefly, noting that this was all he wished to add. Ms Kearns stated that the points made by Ms Whyte and Mr McNab had been expressed perfectly, but she wished to add a brief contribution from the perspective of her organisation. She explained that her company was one of the larger seafood processors in the UK and was heavily reliant on the nephrops fishery around the British Isles. She reported that the business had achieved a turnover of approximately £67 million in the previous year, and that roughly 8% of its overall products consisted of scampi. She noted that, through the course of this process, her company had been notified that there could be potential impacts on its seafood suppliers, including Producer Organisations across the UK. Ms Kearns added that she did not have further data to provide, and that these were the main points she wished to contribute. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Armour asked Ms Whyte for clarification regarding the vessels under 12 metres in length. He referred to the statement that 64% of vessels were under 12 metres and sought confirmation as to whether this figure represented only CFA members or whether additional non-member boats also fished in the area. Ms Whyte confirmed that the figure included both CFA members and non-members. She explained that some nomadic vessels also worked in the area at times, including boats from Northern Ireland, although fewer tended to operate around Carradale specifically. She stated that if the boats currently fishing there were displaced, this would, in turn, displace vessels travelling from other areas as well. She reiterated that among the under-12-metre fleet, some boats were CFA members and others were not. Councillor Armour then asked whether these under-12-metre vessels had been included in the tracking data provided to the Council. Ms Whyte confirmed that they had not. He went on to ask whether the smaller vessels tended to fish closer to the shore than larger boats. Mr McNab responded on behalf of the fishermen, explaining that while smaller vessels usually did work closer to the shore, this was not possible at this particular location due to the presence of the fish farm. Moving closer would bring them into contact with the farm’s anchor system. Mr McNab stated that comments within the Poseidon report suggesting that the seabed adjacent to the fish farm was “unfishable” were incorrect. He explained that modern fishing gear, such as rock-hopper gear, allowed vessels to work grounds close to structures. However, fishermen deliberately avoided getting too close to fish-farm anchors because snagging them posed a severe risk. If a vessel caught an anchor, it could lose a full day or more attempting to retrieve gear, and in some cases the gear might have to be cut away. More critically, he stated that if the weather deteriorated and a vessel remained attached to a seabed anchor, the situation could become extremely dangerous and potentially life-threatening. For safety reasons, fishermen avoided anchors at all costs. Councillor Armour noted that the tracking data the committee had seen appeared to show only one vessel using the area over the recorded three-month period. He sought confirmation that this did not reflect the true activity in the area, as AIS data excluded under-12-metre vessels. Ms Whyte confirmed this, adding that the CFA had provided Page 24
Page 25
tracking information for multiple boats, not only one. She stated that tracks had been submitted for several vessels over the years, including those operated by James Anderson and John Brown, among others. Councillor Brown then asked about the number of creel boats operating locally, noting repeated references to under-12-metre creel vessels in the area. Mr McNab confirmed that three creel boats were based in Carradale. She asked how many boats from outside the area also fished there. Mr McNab stated that two creel boats came from Campbeltown and a couple from Tarbert also worked in the area. He confirmed that none of these vessels had been included in the tracking dataset used in the report Councillor Brown asked a question regarding the consultation process. She noted that reference had been made to involving a wide range of people during consultation and asked how much engagement had taken place specifically with members of the local community who were not fishermen. Ms Weeks responded that, as shown in the presentation, there had been five local vessels represented, all of which were prawn-creeling boats under 12 metres, included in the additional plotter data submitted beyond the Poseidon report. They clarified that the area in question extended across a wide section of East Kintyre, not only Carradale village but the full stretch along the shoreline up towards the old port. Councillor Brown asked whether there had been broader local consultation—for example, going door-to-door in the area or asking residents to complete a survey form—and whether any such steps had been taken. Mr Laird responded that, while discussions had taken place with local residents, there had not been a formal process involving public notice boards or similar methods, as suggested in the question. Mr MacIntyre explained that extensive discussions had indeed taken place with the community. This included holding open days in the village, two of which had been attended over the course of the application period. At these events, many local residents had viewed the plans. It was stated that the applicant had connected directly with over 100 local people during these events. Councillor Armour asked a further question, directed initially to representatives of Mowi and subsequently to the objectors and Ms Whyte. He noted that Mowi had stated they could not extend the site towards the shore due to depth constraints, which he accepted. He then asked whether consideration had been given to extending the site northward rather than eastward. He indicated he would also seek views from the objectors on whether a northern extension would have created more or fewer problems than the proposed eastern extension. Ms Weeks responded that, in configuring the proposal, the intention had been to align the extended farm as closely as possible with the existing site layout. The design involved two strings of pens, and feedback had been received from fishermen indicating that productive fishing grounds lay both to the north and south of the current site. For that reason, Mowi had attempted to maintain the existing northern and southern boundaries. The representative noted that there were good nephrops burrowing grounds in those directions, and therefore extending northward or southward had not been pursued. Councillor Armour then asked the objectors whether an extension to the north, rather than the east, would have posed problems for the fishing industry. Mr McNab began to respond, stating that such an extension would create difficulties for both scallop dredgers and creel fishermen, and also wished to note personal experience of fishing inside the fish-farm boundaries. However, the Chair intervened to remind participants that the Page 25
Page 26
meeting was at that point taking questions from members only and asked participants to follow the established procedure. Councillor Armour indicated that he was content to pause his line of questioning for the moment but intended to return to the matter later. Councillor Philand noted that the Committee had heard from fishermen about the potential dangers posed to boats and personnel. He asked what assessment the Council had carried out regarding the risks that had been highlighted. The Chair advised that the question should be addressed by the planning officers and passed the matter to Ms Gould. Ms Gould explained that safety considerations were assessed under Policy 28 of the Local Development Plan 2, which covered navigational impact. She stated that any changes to the fish-farm layout would require enhanced navigational marking, which was standard practice for marine fish-farm developments. She added that the Northern Lighthouse Board had specifically requested such measures to ensure navigational markers were clear and could be easily avoided by other vessels. She further referred to mitigation offered by the applicant, noting that some smaller vessels, particularly creel boats, were not included in AIS data and sometimes operated closer to fish-farm boundaries. The applicant had offered to share coordinates with these fishermen and to maintain ongoing liaison to manage safe access for vessels working in close proximity to the site. Ms Gould also highlighted that, as stated earlier by the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, there had been no safety issues recorded at this site or involving this operator. The Chair asked Councillor Philand whether this answered his question. Councillor Philand said that it did in part but that he wished to address a further question to the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. He noted that although there had been no incidents at this site to date, concerns had been raised about the risks associated with fish-farm cages moving, and he wished to hear the fishermen’s views on whether this would create a safety issue. Ms Whyte of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association responded that the lack of previous incidents at this particular site did not eliminate the inherent risk. She explained that the closer fishing vessels were required to work to fish-farm anchors, the higher the danger became. She noted that the proposed extension would encroach into ground currently towed by fishermen. She also reported that in June of the previous year, a fisherman had contacted them after becoming fast on an anchor elsewhere in the region, resulting in a situation close to a sinking and posing a serious risk to life. She emphasised that adequate space between fishing activity and fish-farm infrastructure was essential for safe coexistence. She added that if fishermen were forced eastward, they would encounter both rock-dump and subsea cables, which also posed snagging hazards. She stated that safety concerns therefore existed in multiple directions and that the current arrangement worked only because there was presently enough room for both sectors to operate without compromising safety. Councillor Philand thanked all contributors for their responses. Councillor Hardie asked the Clyde Fishermen’s Association whether, if the application were to be granted, they anticipated job losses within the local fishing community. Ms Whyte responded that the situation in the Clyde was already extremely challenging, noting that, as Mr McNab had previously stated, the industry had lost a significant amount of fishing ground, a large number of boats, and many jobs over recent years. She explained that the sector was working hard to reverse this decline, highlighting that the Association had developed an economic vision for the area and was actively training young people to enter the industry. She stated that the proposal could indeed cause difficulties. She reported that one creel fisherman in Carradale had already spoken about the possibility of emigrating to New Zealand due to the accumulated pressures, including recent Clyde closures. She emphasised that it was often the cumulative impact of multiple restrictions that pushed fishermen to the point of leaving the industry altogether. Ms Whyte concluded Page 26
Page 27
that, given the increasing pressures on fishing grounds and the overall cumulative squeeze, the proposed development could contribute to further losses, with some fishermen potentially deciding that it was no longer safe or viable to continue working in the area. She stressed that this was the last outcome the community wished to see. Councillor Kennedy Boyle referred to page 14 of the report, which stated that the Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) had expressed concerns regarding the welfare of young fish and their ability to withstand currents and environmental conditions. She noted that no veterinary health and welfare plan had been provided and asked whether the new location posed more or less risk to smaller fish being held in deeper waters. Ms Weeks responded that the proposed location did not present any change in risk with regard to currents. They explained that enhanced fish-health management would be achieved through having fewer units to manage, rather than through any change in water depth. Councillor Kennedy Boyle then referred to page 18 of the report, which mentioned benefits on the west side for local creel fishermen but did not detail what those benefits were. Ms Weeks stated that at the initial Teams meeting with the Clyde Fishermen’s Association (CFA), it had been indicated that creel fishermen were actively using the inshore side. At that time, the applicant had been asked to share mooring extents, which they did in November 2024. However, through further conversations, it became clear that creel vessels were not using the inshore area but were instead operating mainly to the north and south of the existing pens. This led the Councillor to ask whether the eastward movement of the farm — initially proposed to benefit creel fishermen — was still required. Ms Weeks responded that the larger pens required a deeper sidewall to achieve increased volume and reduced stocking density. Due to seabed topography, they could not move further inshore, meaning the eastward extension remained necessary. Councillor Kennedy Boyle continued by referring to the Poseidon report, which noted there was “very little margin for error in navigation.” She observed that the Royal Yachting Association described the channel as busy, particularly during the sailing season, and noted additional marine traffic associated with undersea cable maintenance and MOD activity. She asked whether the increased infrastructure would heighten the risk of containment breaches due to collisions, and whether this had been assessed. Ms Weeks responded that the proposed extension measured 175 metres at its greatest extent. She explained that, as shown both in the Google Earth visualisation and at the site visit, this constituted a small change relative to the overall width of the sound. For vessels transiting between the site and Carradale Harbour, a distance of 1.8 kilometres, adjusting course by 175 metres represented only a minor navigational change. Mr MacIntyre added that the Northern Lighthouse Board had been consulted and had provided navigational advice. They had also requested additional navigational marking beyond what had already been proposed. Mr Anderson offered further perspective, explaining that when towing gear northwards up the Kilbrannan Sound, fishing vessels had right-of-way over sailing yachts under navigational rules. He stated that fishing vessels could not move eastward due to the presence of hard rock seabed and therefore could not avoid the fish-farm site easily when meeting other marine traffic. He also noted that while creelers used static gear in some circumstances, towing gear near the fish farm created substantially more risk than working with static gear. Councillor Kennedy Boyle then asked about condition 10, relating to notification of fish movements. She recalled operational information provided during the site visit indicating that fish were dynamically assessed, with larger fish removed and transferred to another Page 27
Page 28
site for finishing. She asked whether the condition covered this process. Ms Gould confirmed that it did, explaining that the condition included harvesting, fish deliveries, and well-boat visits. The purpose of the requirement was to maintain records so that the Council could cross-check any amenity impacts, such as excessive vessel movements. She added that having fewer, larger pens should reduce the frequency of large-vessel visits. Councillor Armour then referred to condition 18, which required the applicant to establish a forum for operational communication with local vessels, including CFA members, and to agree a fisheries-management mitigation strategy “if deemed necessary.” She asked who determined whether such a strategy was necessary. Ms Gould responded that this would be decided by agreement between the parties. She clarified that the phrase referred to the creation of a large-scale, formal strategy. Ongoing liaison would occur regardless, but a full strategy would only be required if considered necessary in line with the National Marine Plan. She emphasised that the National Marine Plan set out a detailed process for engagement and data-sharing where conflict existed. Ms Weeks added that if one party felt a strategy was necessary, then it would proceed on that basis. Councillor Armour noted that the applicant had described meetings as productive and asked Ms Whyte whether she agreed. Ms Whyte stated that communication had improved and that discussions had been civil, but the material issues remained unchanged. She referred to policy requirements to minimise impacts on wild fisheries and argued that the proposal did not satisfy those requirements. She stated that the CFA believed coexistence currently worked, but the proposal would push fishermen into unsafe areas and result in a loss of fishing ground. She acknowledged that Mowi had made efforts to engage and mitigate impacts, but stated that some impacts could not be mitigated. Councillor Armour asked, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with fishing, what would be lost if the area were extended. Mr McNab explained that prawns lived in the mud and emerged only when conditions aligned such as tide, weather, and light levels. The area in question was one of the most productive prawn grounds, as confirmed by both fishermen’s camera gear and Marine Scotland Science surveys. Removing that area would take highly productive ground out of use. They added that when trawling out of Carradale, gear was rigged for a specific depth. Deviating around an obstacle meant the gear would stop fishing effectively until the correct depth was regained. Although the extension appeared small, the impact on fishing operations over a year could amount to substantial financial loss across several boats. They emphasised that navigation around gear and obstacles required constant attention and advance planning, and that the impact could not be dismissed as minor. Councillor Kennedy Boyle referred to page 44, paragraph 3.37 of the report, which suggested that further work could be undertaken regarding the use of mobile gear east of the site. She asked how any changes identified in such work would be managed if the application were approved. Ms Gould clarified that any changes would relate to operational practices and communication rather than material changes to the consented works. Ms Weeks confirmed that they had nothing further to contribute. Ms Gould concluded by stating that condition 18 required ongoing liaison and ongoing compromises, and that this was the mechanism intended to manage such issues. Councillor Dougie Philand declared a non-financial interest in the proceedings at this point by virtue of his appointment to the Northern Lighthouse Board in his role as Provost. He advised that he intended to withdraw from the meeting and not take part in the debate and deliberation of the application. Councillor Philand left the meeting at this point. Page 28
Page 29
Councillor Brown asked a question regarding the welfare of the fish. She noted that much had been made of the proposal improving fish health through the use of larger pens, providing more space and better conditions. She asked whether these changes resulted in a reduction in mortality rates within the pens. Mr Jones responded that the Carradale site was already a strong performer, with an average fish survival rate of approximately 96% over the previous five years. He explained that they could not specify expected future survival rates for the new pen design at this site, but stated that the company, now over 60 years old, sought continual improvement. He noted that experience at other locations with similar larger pens had shown low mortality rates and good yields, forming part of the rationale for progressing the proposal. Councillor Brown asked a follow-up question, noting that the company had argued that giving fish more room and reducing crowding improved welfare. She observed that the same overall number of fish would be stocked and asked how mortality rates compared at other farms that already used these larger pens. She queried whether the reduction was significant or marginal. Ms Weeks explained that the company operated these larger pens at 12 other locations in Scotland and had observed improved site performance. She stated that the improvements related not only to fish health but also to operational efficiency. Each pen was treated as a single management unit for health interventions, meaning that tasks such as fish-health checks, gill-health checks, sea-lice counts, and net inspections had to be carried out in every pen. By consolidating the same number of fish into fewer, larger pens, daily tasks were reduced from ten pens to six, and treatment periods were similarly reduced from ten days to six. Councillor Brown acknowledged the explanation but clarified that she was trying to understand whether measurable reductions in mortality had been recorded at sites where pen size had already increased, given the commercial importance of maximising harvestable fish. Ms Weeks responded that mortality rates were site-specific and therefore projections could not be provided in advance. Mr MacIntyre added that there had been a general trajectory of improved performance at sites where larger pens had been introduced. In particular, they had observed reductions in sea-lice levels and improvements in fish-health outcomes, including interactions with wild salmon, at several of the upgraded locations. Councillor Howard asked a question regarding the proposed larger pens. She stated that while the increased pen size appeared beneficial in providing more space for the fish, she wished to understand how it could be guaranteed that the larger pens would not subsequently be used to justify an increase in stocking levels. Ms Weeks responded that they were not seeking any increase in biomass. She explained that biomass levels were controlled through a separate authorisation process regulated by SEPA, and that any increase would require a distinct SEPA application. She confirmed that although a change in layout had been submitted to SEPA, it sought to maintain the existing maximum authorised biomass, not increase it. Councillor Kennedy Boyle asked a further question regarding the operational benefits of the proposed development. She noted that the applicant had referred to greater efficiencies arising from the larger pens, including improvements in sea-lice management and fish health. She referred to the statement that approximately 20 employees were currently associated with the site and asked whether those 20 jobs would be maintained going forward. Mr MacIntyre confirmed that the 20 existing jobs would be retained. He Page 29
Page 30
added that, as discussed earlier, there were two residents of Carradale employed at the site, and suggested that Mr Laird might wish to comment further on local staffing. Mr Laird explained that the Carradale operation currently had three managers and two vessels, with a total staff complement of 20. He stated that all 20 staff would continue to be required with the new 12-pen layout. He added that, while only a small number of staff lived in Carradale itself due to the village’s ageing population, the wider workforce was drawn from across Argyll, including individuals from Ardrishaig, Campbeltown, and Tayinloan. Councillor Kennedy Boyle then asked about biomass, seeking clarification on the site’s current authorised capacity. Ms Weeks confirmed that the site held a SEPA-authorised maximum biomass of 2,500 tonnes. She asked whether this figure represented the site’s full operational capacity or whether the site could support a higher biomass. Ms Weeks stated that the site was environmentally dispersive, meaning that, in principle, higher levels of waste dispersal might be supportable. However, the current application did not seek any increase in biomass. Councillor Kennedy Boyle asked whether, should the applicant wish to increase biomass in the future, now that the site would have larger pens, this would require a separate process and an environmental impact assessment. Ms Weeks confirmed that any future biomass increase would require a separate SEPA application along with all associated environmental analysis. Mr MacIntyre further stated that the company’s long-term investment plans for the site did not include any intention to increase biomass at Carradale. Councillor Blair referred to the report and asked the planning officers to confirm that the statutory consultees, of which there were many, had raised no objections to the application. He also asked whether those statutory consultees considered matters relating to health and safety, fish husbandry, and other issues discussed during the hearing. Ms Gould confirmed that all statutory consultees had responded without objection, and that each consultee assessed the application in line with their regulatory remit, including matters of health and safety, fish-welfare considerations, and other relevant environmental or operational issues. Councillor Blair then directed a question to the applicant. He observed that the company had described future operational enhancements at the site and asked whether, as an organisation planning ahead, it anticipated any further improvements that would help meet future regulatory or technological requirements. He commented that the site visit had been valuable, particularly for members less familiar with marine operations. Mr MacIntyre explained that, with respect to Argyll, their current investment focus included improvements at Carradale Harbour. He noted that one reason the site visit could not depart from Carradale was the absence of safe sea access, which the company hoped to address through a new pontoon arrangement and further harbour-side improvements, including renovation of the pier house. He also outlined a potential future development at Sanda Island, which was still at an early stage and had not yet reached the application phase. At present, this was the only other development under consideration in Argyll. Councillor Blair then posed a question to the consultees and objectors. He asked whether the fact that all statutory regulatory bodies had raised no objections offered any reassurance, given that these organisations assessed safety and environmental issues rigorously. Ms Whyte responded on behalf of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. She acknowledged that statutory consultees had raised no objections but observed that fishing vessels themselves were also licensed and regulated, and that the fishing sector likewise received no statutory objections to its operations. For that reason, she considered both industries to be in a similar position, with neither having regulatory objections to their Page 30
Page 31
activities. She emphasised that the absence of objections from statutory consultees did not alleviate fishermen’s concerns regarding snagging hazards, safety risks, or loss of fishing ground, which remained material regardless of procedural compliance. Councillor Blair commented that during the site visit he had been impressed by the professionalism of Mowi staff and likewise by the professionalism of the fishermen who had presented at the hearing. He said he took reassurance from the high standards demonstrated by both sectors and asked again whether this gave any comfort to the objectors. Ms Whyte responded that while she appreciated the professionalism shown, she remained concerned about unresolved environmental and safety issues. She noted that the CFA had highlighted previous procedural issues involving another site, not the one under consideration, but emphasised that similar regulatory processes would apply. She advised that the CFA had invited the Council to visit fishing vessels as well, as understanding both industries’ operations was essential when making decisions that could displace fishermen who were actively working in the area. She highlighted that fishermen such as Mr Anderson employed multiple crew members and that observing fishing operations first-hand would allow councillors to appreciate the reality of the potential impacts. She added that although communication with Mowi had improved and discussions had been civil, this did not alter the material policy issues or the CFA’s belief that coexistence currently worked but would be compromised by the proposed extension. Councillor Blair, speaking as Chair, acknowledged the point and reiterated that the purpose of the hearing, and the site visit requested by Councillor Armour, was to ensure members had full understanding of the issues. Councillor Armour clarified that, at the previous meeting, it had been the hearing that he had proposed and advocated for. He noted that he had commented at the time that a site visit might not prove significantly beneficial, but that the request he had pressed for was specifically the holding of a hearing. The Chair apologised for having previously misstated this and acknowledged the correction. The Chair added that, on a personal level, he had found the site visit advantageous, as it had allowed members to better understand the operation and context of the site. Councillor Hardie asked the applicant about staffing. He noted that Mowi had stated it employed 20 staff members, several of whom lived within Argyll and Bute, and he asked whether staff travelled into the area for work or whether some had settled within the local community. Mr Laird sought clarification of the question and confirmed that staff lived in a range of locations. He stated that approximately four staff members travelled daily from Ardrishaig and Lochgilphead. The remainder were based in Tayinloan, Carradale, and Gigha. One staff member worked on a two-weeks-on, two-weeks-off rotation and travelled from Oban, while another two employees also travelled from Lochgilphead. In addition, two staff members were based outside Argyll and Bute, commuting from Glasgow. Councillor Hardie thanked the representative and confirmed he had no further questions. Mr MacIntyre added that one element of the company’s long-term plans included renovation of the fire-damaged pier house at Carradale Harbour. The intention was to convert the building into staff accommodation, enabling employees to live within the community and strengthening the company’s connection with the Carradale community. Councillor Hampsey referred to the earlier comment that an offer had been made for councillors to visit one of the fishing vessels. She asked where that offer had been sent, as she did not recall seeing any such invitation. Ms Whyte indicated that she had sent the invitation to Ms Gould. Ms Barton confirmed that the Council had indeed received the Clyde Fishermen’s Association’s invitation. She explained that the purpose of the site visit agreed at the December meeting had been specifically to view the fish-farm site boundary, Page 31
Page 32
not to observe operational activity or engage with any party during the visit. The committee therefore accepted the offer from Mowi first, solely to allow members to view the site itself. No discussions with representatives took place during that visit, in line with the agreed procedure. Councillor Hampsey thanked Ms Barton and noted that she personally would have been willing to take up the fishermen’s invitation, as she believed it would have offered an additional and valuable perspective to aid understanding. The Chair thanked Councillor Hampsey and expressed disappointment that she had been unable to attend the arranged site visit due to availability. He emphasised that coordinating attendance for all members could be challenging. He reiterated that the visit undertaken had been limited strictly to viewing the site and not to consider operational matters, which were being examined during the hearing. Councillor Hampsey replied that she fully understood this distinction and clarified that her earlier point related not to the site visit itself, but to the missed opportunity for members to also observe fishing operations separately. SUMMING UP Planning Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Ms Davies summed up by saying that, in their consideration of the proposal, members had been made aware of arguments both supporting and opposing the replacement of the existing 10 x 120-metre circumference pens with 6 x 160-metre circumference pens. She noted that members had also heard wider debate concerning the management of shared marine space and potential conflict between different elements of the proposal, particularly in relation to cultural factors, the fishing industry, salmon farming, and local commercial fishing interests. Ms Davies reminded members that the planning system existed to balance competing demands and to ensure that land, and in this case, the marine environment, was used and developed in the public’s long-term interest. Effective planning decisions, she stated, should contribute to sustainable economic growth, which was identified as the main purpose of the Scottish Government. To achieve this, planning decisions were required to strike a careful balance between supporting economic development and providing appropriate protection to the environment and local communities. She emphasised that, notwithstanding the ongoing national debate about the current state and future of salmon farming in Scotland, finfish farming remained a legitimate activity which continued to be promoted by the Scottish Government in recognition of the economic and social value the industry brought to rural and island communities. This included job provision, community investment, and supply-chain stimulation at both local and national levels. Support for the sustainable expansion of aquaculture was also reflected in the Council’s own economic development strategies. She highlighted that this was an existing operational site, not a new development. Ms Davies explained that national discussions on aquaculture were centred on the requirement for sustainable development that maintained a balance between fish-farming activity and a healthy, functioning marine ecosystem. The Scottish Government had Page 32
Page 33
identified that effective regulation, informed by the best available science and evidence, was essential to ensure development took place within environmental limits and with regard to animal health and welfare, biodiversity, other marine users, and communities. In the present case, no increase in biomass was proposed, and no concerns had been raised by statutory consultees with respect to environmental amenity, biodiversity, or navigational safety. She noted that the principal objections related to the proposed upgrade of the cages and the alleged loss of fishing grounds. The applicant had advised that the proposal represented a significant investment in the local area, which would retain stable local employment and improve fish health as well as operational safety at the site. The development would also continue to support the wider supply-chain economy, including existing marine businesses in Argyll and Bute. In relation to objections raised by local fishermen about loss of fishing grounds, Ms Davies stated that little empirical evidence had been provided to quantify this loss. Evidence submitted by the applicant indicated that the seabed immediately adjacent to the site would not be suitable for trawling or dredging. For creeling or potting activity, the applicant had confirmed a willingness to facilitate safe access to the pens wherever possible, to be secured through planning conditions. She added that an ongoing liaison mechanism had been proposed to support communication between the operator and fishing interests. Ms Davies noted that the Clyde Fishermen’s Association had been critical of the Poseidon report submitted by the applicant; however, the criticisms had primarily been anecdotal and lacking supporting evidence. In contrast, East Kintyre Community Council and local creel fishermen had expressed support for the proposal, noting that it would not impact their fishing activity and highlighting the value of the investment being delivered by the applicant through its community fund and associated works at Carradale, including the shore base, the Pier House renovation and the new pontoon at Carradale Harbour. She advised that the hearing had provided members the opportunity to hear directly from the applicant, consultees, and third parties, and to seek clarification on the matters requiring consideration in determining whether planning permission should be granted. The proposal represented a minor relocation of the site centre within revised mooring boundaries and formed part of a wider modernisation programme offering benefits in fish health, operational efficiency and the safety of site workers. The development supported a key local employer and contributed to the local, regional and national economy. Commercial fisheries impacts had been fully assessed, and the proposal had been redesigned to minimise effects on fishing activity. Mitigation measures were proposed and would be secured by planning conditions. The local Community Council supported the modernisation as part of wider investment in Carradale Harbour, recognising the importance of safeguarding local jobs and community benefits. Ms Davies reminded members of their obligation under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. For aquaculture developments, the relevant development plan policies were NPF4 Policy 32 and Policy 28 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2024, both of which set out criteria to be applied in assessing the application. Despite the issues raised by the Clyde Fishermen’s Association and other third parties, officers considered the development to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 32 and ALDP2 Policy 28, and compliant with other relevant policies. The National Marine Plan was a material consideration, and commercial fisheries matters had been addressed in a manner ensuring that impacts were mitigated and not significantly adverse so as to justify refusal. Page 33
Page 34
Accordingly, Ms Davies commended the proposal to members for approval, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee dated 1 December 2025, as well as the revised Condition 18 contained within Appendix C of Supplementary Report No. 2 dated 26 February 2026. Applicant Stephen MacIntyre, Head of Environment, Mowi Scotland Mr MacIntyre addressed the Committee, explaining that the proposed changes were intended to deliver a range of operational benefits for the fish farm at Carradale. The upgrade would future-proof the site, improve fish health and husbandry, and support more streamlined and efficient operations. He advised that these improvements would underpin the 20 existing jobs on the site and help secure them for the future. Mr MacIntyre acknowledged the concerns expressed by fishermen and fishing interests. However, he respectfully pushed back against any suggestion that they had approached the matter in an arrogant manner, stating that they had sought throughout to engage proactively and constructively. It was noted that Mowi, and several members of the team, had a personal affinity with the fishing sector and understood its historic and ongoing importance to coastal communities. Mr MacIntyre stated their belief that the two industries could continue to coexist, as the farm was already doing at present. Reference was made to earlier discussion regarding data, confidence in data, and suggestions of missing information. Mr MacIntyre stated that, in addition to technical reports, the company had extensive observational information arising from the presence of staff on site almost every day of the year. These staff included former fishermen who had long experience of the local grounds. He invited a colleague, Mr Laird, to provide further comment. Mark Laird, Carradale Site Manager, Mowi Scotland Mr Laird advised that, on a daily basis, staff did not observe fishing vessels working within the area proposed for the new pens. He stated that two staff members, both ex-fishermen who had worked in the Carradale area for 15 years, had confirmed that the seabed in the proposed location was not ground typically used for fishing. He added that the only fishing activity normally observed was within the 100-metre depth zone, as previously illustrated to the Committee. Mr Laird further explained that the company regularly engaged with local fishing vessels, including those operating north and south of Carradale, and that none of those individuals had raised objections in the course of those discussions. Stephen MacIntyre, Head of Environment, Mowi Scotland Mr MacIntyre reiterated that, irrespective of the outcome of the hearing, they would continue to engage proactively and constructively with local fishing interests. He noted that further opportunities for collaboration existed through the company’s planned renovation works at the harbour. In conclusion, he advised that Mowi maintained their position that the proposal represented a minor change to a long-established fish farm, and that the evidence presented did not support the contention that the development would result in displacement effects on fishing vessels of any size. Page 34
Page 35
Consultees Elaine Whyte, Clyde Fisherman’s Association Ms Whyte summed up on behalf of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association (CFA). She stated that it felt “slightly like being in a parallel universe”, as her understanding was that around twelve local fishermen had submitted individual objections in addition to the formal objection from the CFA. She therefore considered it clear what local fishermen thought of the proposal, noting that “by and large” they had indicated that they did have an issue with it. While she recognised the importance of maintaining good relationships between sectors, she stressed that discussions had to be grounded in reality, and the reality was that there were objections to the proposal. Ms Whyte referred to comments about staffing levels at the fish farm and noted her understanding that there were normally two staff continually on site. She questioned whether staff numbers would change and suggested that, if employment levels at the site were to be maintained or increased, that could in turn impact local fishermen’s employment opportunities. In her view, this amounted to displacement, and while the aquaculture operator might gain or retain jobs, the consequence for local fishermen could be a loss of employment. She emphasised that discussions had focused heavily on salmon, but it was important to remember the value of the area’s langoustines and scallops, which she described as some of the finest, exported to France, Spain and Italy as well as being consumed domestically. These fisheries, she argued, were a vital asset, and if the fishing fleet were eroded, the associated markets would be lost. Maintaining resilience across sectors was important, as industries fluctuated over time, and a balanced economy provided stability. She stressed that the community should avoid “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. Ms Whyte then invited fishermen present to speak, indicating that CFA members themselves should have the final word regarding their concerns. Kenny McNab, Chair of Clyde Fisherman’s Association Mr McNab expressed disappointment at comments made earlier in the meeting, particularly those from the applicant regarding fishing activity. He stated that he had fished for 55 years and had not attended the hearing “to get a lecture on fishing”. He expressed concern over the Poseidon Report, describing it as containing anomalies that appeared to have been accepted as fact. He questioned how a report could be carried out as a desktop exercise without interviewing Clyde fishermen, noting that no approach had been made to them for comment. Mr McNab further stated that, in his view, the information contained in the report was “a load of nonsense” from a fishing standpoint. He explained that the suggestion fishermen could not tow gear towards the fish farm was incorrect; they currently avoided the area not because of seabed type, but because of the risk of catching an anchor. He noted that the ground in question was actually harder on the opposite side of the Sound than on the side discussed in the report, and therefore the conclusions reached were “complete nonsense”. He also expressed disappointment at comments made regarding investment in Carradale. He questioned why comparisons were being drawn between the harbour investment and the present planning application. He understood the applicant to have stated that the harbour investment would proceed regardless of the outcome, and therefore felt it was Page 35
Page 36
misleading to imply that the two matters were linked. He said the suggestion that the investment depended on approval of the extension was “completely untrue”. Elaine Whyte, Clyde Fisherman’s Association Ms Whyte added a final point, stating that while the applicant had spoken of operational improvements to the moorings, these changes would create operational issues for fishermen who already faced challenges navigating existing constraints. Areas previously fished were already avoided, and the proposed development would increase those difficulties. She also questioned the planning recommendation, noting that although he was not a planning expert, she had reviewed the reports and identified areas where, in his view, the application contravened national and local planning policy. He stated that these concerns had been highlighted in materials sent to members. She emphasised that beyond economic issues such as market loss and supply-chain impacts, the most significant matter for him was safety, stating that fishermen “cannot keep cutting out safe grounds”. Supporters None Objectors Ms Kearns summed up on behalf of her business as a nephrops processor. She highlighted the company’s significant dependence on the UK nephrops fishery, particularly landings from Scotland. She advised that this fishery was already experiencing considerable pressure due to spatial squeeze and displacement, and she stressed that any further loss of access to fishing grounds could have notable consequences. Ms Kearns stated that the proposed extension to the fish farm had the potential to affect the seafood supply chain for her processing business, in addition to impacting the fishermen who operated in the area and the members of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. She wished to ensure that these points were clearly reiterated before the Committee reached its decision. The Chair sought confirmation from all parties that they had received a fair hearing. Planning Officers confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. The Applicant confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. Ms Whtye on behalf of Clyde Fishermen’s Association confirmed that they had received a fair hearing on this occasion, but expressed disappointment that members had not taken up the invitation to visit the fishing boats, noting that both the Association and local fishermen had extended this offer. They stated that such visits would have been “instrumental” in assisting members to understand the nature of the fishing businesses. They added that only a site visit to the fish farm location had taken place. Mr McNab was asked if he had received a fair hearing. He replied no, stating that he had not. Mr Anderson was then asked the same question and also indicated that he had not received a fair hearing. Page 36
Page 37
The Chair then sought confirmation from Ms Emma Kearns. Ms Kearns confirmed that she believed she had received a fair hearing at the meeting. The Committee adjourned for lunch at 1.15pm. The Committee reconvened at 1.45pm with all those present as per the sederunt, with the exception of Councillor Philand who had declared an interest and left the meeting earlier in the proceedings. At this point in the meeting, Councillor Kennedy joined the proceedings. He was advised by the Chair that, as he had not been present for the earlier part of the consideration of Item 3 on the agenda, he would not be able to participate in the decision-making process for the remainder of that item. He was further advised that he would be able to participate in Item 4, as this concerned a separate application. Councillor Kennedy confirmed that he was content with this arrangement. DEBATE Councillor Hardie thanked the Chair and all participants for their contributions to what he described as an interesting and informative debate. He advised that he had listened closely to the arguments presented by all parties and had carefully considered the merits put forward on both sides. He stated that the nature and clarity of the communication received in support of, and in objection to, the application had led him to the view that he wished to approve the application. Councillor Armour thanked the Chair and stated that he had listened carefully to all parties who had spoken during the hearing. He commented that he had been very impressed by the presentations and the contributions made by everyone involved. He noted, however, that unlike Councillor Hardie, he had some concerns regarding the Community Council’s position. He explained that he would have welcomed their attendance at the hearing to clarify how they had engaged with the wider community and how community views had been gathered. He felt that, if the submission represented only the views of the Community Council members themselves, without wider consultation, that was a matter of concern. He stated that hearing directly from the Community Council about the community’s views would have been valuable, and he was disappointed that this had not been possible. He acknowledged that attendance was at their discretion but reiterated that their input at the hearing would have been helpful. Councillor Armour also expressed concern about the fact that vessels under 12 metres were not included in the vessel-tracking information presented during the process, stating that this omission troubled him. He concluded by noting that these issues raised concerns for him, but he remained open to hearing the views of other members before reaching his final decision. Councillor Green thanked the Chair and stated that, like Councillor Hardie, he had appreciated hearing all the different viewpoints presented during the hearing. He advised that, having considered the information carefully, including the benefit of attending the site visit, his view was that the proposal represented a relatively small change from the existing arrangement on site. Councillor Green stated that he could see no substantial reason to refuse the application and was therefore minded to support approval. Councillor Brown thanked all those who had presented, stating that the presentations had been informative and she had appreciated them. She noted that there had been a significant number of questions and answers throughout the hearing, but also some Page 37
Page 38
questions for which she felt the answers had not fully addressed the points she was seeking clarity on. She advised that she had greatly benefited from the site visit, including the trip by boat which had taken members as close to the existing pens as was permitted. This had allowed her to understand both the current positioning of the pens and the location to which they were proposed to be moved. She commented that, although the proposed move was around 97 metres, she did not consider it to be a substantial shift. Councillor Brown stated that she was not yet fully convinced and wished to take a little more time to reflect before reaching her final determination. She confirmed that she would “hang fire a wee bit longer” before making her decision and thanked the Chair. Councillor Kennedy Boyle stated that she echoed earlier comments regarding the quality of the presentations, noting that they had been extremely worthwhile. She thanked all contributors for their patience in responding to the various questions she had raised. She commented that there were clear merits within the proposal and aspects that aligned positively with certain planning policies. However, she also expressed reservations in relation to other policies, particularly those dealing with co-existence between conflicting and competing marine industries. Councillor Kennedy Boyle concluded that she was content to hear the views of other members before reaching her final decision on the application. Councillor Blair asked whether any colleagues participating online had further comments; no additional comments were raised. He then offered his own contribution to the debate. He stated that he had found the site visit extremely beneficial and also valued the advice and professional input provided by the Council’s officers. He remarked that he was satisfied with the responses and assessments from the statutory agencies and consultees whose role was to protect all aspects of society, including local communities, businesses, and matters relating to fish husbandry and environmental considerations. Councillor Blair advised that he was content to support the application and to accept the officers’ recommendation along with the conditions set out within the report. MOTION That the Committee support the application as per the recommendation of officers. Moved by Councillor Gordon Blair, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie. AMENDMENT From the concerns raised by the Clyde Fishermen’s association I am of the view that existing commercial fishing opportunities have not been sufficiently safeguarded and this application should be refused as the increase in the total area of the development, encroaches into a valuable creel and commercial fishing area which will result in an unacceptable exclusion of commercial fishing activity from this important fishing ground which will result in a significant direct adverse effect on the commercial interests of the fishermen in this area and as such the application can be considered to be contrary to LDP2 Policy 28 and the relevant provisions of the National Marine Plan. Moved by Councillor John Armour, seconded by Councillor Reeni Kennedy Boyle. Councillor Hampsey offered her personal contribution and requested that her remarks be placed on record. She thanked all individuals who had presented and contributed to the hearing, noting her appreciation for input from both sides. In particular, she expressed her thanks to the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, and specifically to Mr McNab, whom she Page 38
Page 39
described as a strong and effective champion of local fishermen. Councillor Hampsey stated that Mr McNab had provided a clear, informed, and grounded account of the realities faced by local fishermen, as well as the importance of safeguarding wild fishing interests. She commented that, regardless of the differing views expressed in the room on the application, she felt that Mr McNab’s contribution reflected the lived experience of those whose livelihoods depended on the local waters. She emphasised that such perspectives should be given proper weight in members’ deliberations on both the motion and the amendment. Councillor Hampsey concluded by thanking all contributors once again. As the meeting was being held on a hybrid basis, the vote required to be taken by calling the roll and members voted as follows: Motion Amendment Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Reeni Kennedy Boyle Councillor Peter Wallace DECISION The Amendment was carried by 6 votes to 3 and the Committee resolved accordingly. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 1 December 2025 and supplementary report 1 dated 16 December 2025, supplementary report 2 dated 26 March 2026 and supplementary report number 3 dated 26 March 2026, submitted) 4. MOWI SCOTLAND: REPLACE EXISTING 10 X 120M CIRCUMFERENCE PENS WITH 6 X 160M CIRCUMFERENCE PENS (WITH A PARALLEL MINOR RELOCATION INTO DEEPER WATER MOVING THE CARRADALE NORTH SITE CENTRE 79M EAST) AND SITING OF EXISTING FEED BARGE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION: CARRADALE NORTH FISH FARM, KILBRANNAN SOUND (REF: 24/01382/MFF) The Chair welcomed everyone to the second part of the meeting, which was held on a hybrid basis. In advance of the meeting, interested parties confirmed they would make presentations to the Committee. Mrs Barton read out the names of those representatives and asked them to confirm their attendance. The Chair explained the hearing procedure that would be followed and invited the Senior Planning Officer to present the case. PLANNING Shelly Gould, Senior Planning Officer The Senior Planning Officer presented the application and reminded members that, at the PPSL Committee meeting on 17 December 2025, members had agreed to continue the Page 39
Page 40
determination of the application for the Carradale North Fish Farm to a predetermination hearing, together with a site visit. The predetermination hearing was taking place today, and the site visit had been undertaken on 24 March 2026. For those members who had been unable to attend, the applicant had provided Google Earth imagery. The Officer explained that the site was located approximately 1.8 kilometres north of Carradale village and harbour, on the western edge of the Kilbrannan Sound, on the eastern side of the Kintyre Peninsula. The hamlet of Grogport lay around 2.6 kilometres northwest, and the coastline adjacent to the site was designated as Countryside. The Google Earth footage provided wider context for the existing operational fish farm, shown outlined in blue, and demonstrated its position within the Kilbrannan Sound, with Arran situated to the east. The imagery also detailed the location of the installed pens in blue and indicated the proposed mooring extent for the replacement 160-metre pens, which were outlined in red. Members were invited to note the marked contrast between the shallower depths on the eastern and western edges of the Sound, shown in darker shades, and the deeper central channel shown in a lighter colour. The Officer explained that, although the applications for Carradale North and Carradale South were being addressed separately, as had been done earlier that morning, the issues relevant to both sites were essentially the same. The Officer referred to additional charts submitted with the application and summarised in Supplementary Report No. 3, which had been annotated to illustrate the distances involved in the proposed eastward relocation of the new pen groupings. For Carradale North, the relocation would shift the centre of the site 79 metres eastwards, with a further 150-metre eastward shift from the current mooring boundary to the proposed mooring boundary. The moorings had been reduced on the northeastern and southeastern corners in order to lessen any navigational impacts and to maintain access for mobile-gear vessels operating near the site. The Officer then moved on to the proposal in detail. She explained that the application formed part of a wider modernisation programme undertaken by the applicant across several sites. The existing 10 × 120-metre circumference pens, arranged in a 2 × 5 grid, were shown in blue along with the feed barge situated to the north. These pens would be replaced with 6 × 160-metre circumference pens in a 2 × 3 layout, indicated in red. The existing 650-tonne feed barge would be repositioned slightly northwards on the shore side of the grouping. In response to concerns raised by the Clyde Fishermen’s Association and by local fishermen, the applicant had submitted revised plans which reduced the moorings on the northeastern and southeastern edges. The planning boundary was shown in black, and the revised moorings were indicated in red. The mooring lines themselves were shown as eight grey lines extending toward the boundary. An Admiralty chart was shown to members which indicated that the proposed mooring extent would lie over a steeply sloping seabed descending from approximately 23 metres to 69 metres, a topography that was not well suited to most trawling activities. The deeper channel, which reached depths of around 150 metres, lay farther to the east of the proposed moorings. The Officer then described the technical components of the proposal. The existing elevations of the current pens were shown, along with the proposed elevations of the replacement pens. These drawings also included the design of the proposed top nets, the Page 40
Page 41
manufacturer’s mooring specifications, and the design of the pen nets, which had a depth of approximately 35 metres. The existing feed barge would be relocated to a more central position between the two pen groupings. The Officer summarised the policy considerations, stating that the proposal met the requirements of Local Development Plan 2 and the National Planning Framework 4 for aquaculture development. The proposal was assessed as having negligible landscape and visual impacts. No environmental impacts were identified, including no impacts relating to pollution or interactions with wild migratory salmon. The biomass would remain at 2,500 tonnes, and the use of fewer, larger pens would result in improved containment, fish health, water flow, and sea-lice management due to reduced stocking density. There were no concerns relating to amenity, as the equipment had been designed to minimise lighting and noise, and appropriate operational measures were in place, including a waste-management plan. No navigational or shipping impacts had been identified, and biodiversity enhancement measures were secured by planning conditions. The Officer noted that the application had not attracted objections from any statutory consultee, including NatureScot, SEPA, the Marine Directorate, the Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board, Historic Environment Scotland, the Northern Lighthouse Board, the Royal Yachting Association, or internal Council consultees. At the time of the December committee meeting, 11 objections had been received. These concerns related to impacts on local fishermen and their families, concerns regarding the ability to influence planning decisions, and suggestions that alternative sites were more suitable. The Clyde Fishermen’s Association had submitted one objection in November 2024, followed by two further objections in December 2025. Their objections emphasised the importance of safe, productive fishing grounds and stated that fishing was not simply a matter of available area but of specific grounds essential to livelihoods. The CFA also provided landing and turnover information for the sector, together with links to national datasets. An objection had also been received from Councillor MacPherson, restating the CFA’s concerns. Since the December meeting, two further objections had been received: one from a local fisherman concerned that the proposed relocation lay within tows used in poor weather, and one from Whitby Seafoods, who stated that the proposal would affect supplies to their business, although they submitted no further evidence. Two comments had been submitted: one from a local creel fisherman who stated that no vessels routinely operated in the area in question and that he foresaw no conflict, and another from AquaSky, a marine inspection and surveying service, who stated that trawling at depths shallower than 100 metres risked equipment damage, that scallop dredging on the predominantly muddy seabed would be uneconomical, and that the proposed extension did not extend beyond the 80-metre contour, meaning it was unlikely to affect any mobile-gear activity. Two letters of support had been received, including from Salmon Scotland, who highlighted the benefits to the local community and supply chain, and from East Kintyre Community Council, who described the applicant as an important local employer and welcomed continued investment. In total, the application had received 13 objections, 2 comments, and 2 letters of support. Turning to the commercial fisheries impacts, the Officer stated that this remained the central outstanding issue during the December deliberations. She explained that the applicant had engaged proactively with the CFA since pre-application stage, had commissioned a detailed technical moorings analysis, and had reduced the mooring extent by 14%, submitting amended plans. The applicant had also commissioned the Page 41
Page 42
Poseidon Commercial Fisheries Report (October 2025). This report found that, based on AIS data over a five-year period, only 1.4% of vessel positions fell within the proposed planning boundary and 0.3% within the proposed mooring boundary. The report considered the proposed boundary to be the effective westward limit of bottom trawling on this side of the Sound and concluded that no significant impact on trawling or small scallop dredging was expected. The report acknowledged that navigation margins would be narrower but stated that any displacement would be minor compared with existing conditions. Mitigation included enhanced navigational markers, sharing of coordinates, and the inclusion of Condition 18, which would ensure ongoing liaison and, if required, the preparation of a fisheries-management and mitigation strategy. Updated AIS data submitted after December showed vessel tracks for December 2025 to March 2026. Several vessels were identified in the vicinity, including the Atlas, Radiant Morn, Jenska, and Rebecca Jane, though no recorded tracks passed within the proposed mooring boundary. The closest track was 60 metres from the mooring boundary, and the vessel was travelling at 4.6 knots, unlikely to be fishing. The closest track thought indicative of fishing, recorded at 2 knots, remained 140 metres east of the moorings, within the deeper channel. In response to CFA concerns about the Poseidon report, the applicant commissioned an updated commercial fisheries report in February 2026, which clarified data sources and confirmed that the vessels referenced by the CFA were included in the analysis. The updated report examined the CFA’s “farm analogy” and identified around 0.8 square kilometres of seabed theoretically excluded by the mooring extent; however, this did not account for reductions on the northeastern and southeastern corners. The key issue examined was whether the proposed change would result in an actual loss of fishing opportunity, and the analysis concluded that dependency on the area was very low. Of the 1,034 AIS positions recorded in this segment of the Sound over five years, only 14 fell within the extended boundary, and most of these were located in an area that would not be affected by the proposal. The majority of activity occurred farther east, in the deeper trawling channel. The Officer noted that the applicant had also undertaken additional engagement with vessels under 12 metres, which are not included in AIS datasets. Annotated images of small-vessel activity were included in Supplementary Report No. 2. The applicant had also stated their willingness to work with creeling and potting vessels to allow and mark safe access and creel deployment near the site, with these measures secured by planning condition. The Officer then outlined the relevant policy considerations. Under LDP2 Policy 28, aquaculture development should not have significant adverse effects on commercial fishing activity, and should be assessed against net economic impact and community benefits. In this instance, salmon farming contributed positively to the national and local economy, provided employment, and supported investment. Operational measures to reduce or mitigate impacts had been secured. The National Planning Framework supported aquaculture development where proposals complied with the LDP and National Marine Plan. The National Marine Plan required that existing fishing opportunities be safeguarded where possible and that mechanisms be in place for managing conflicts between fishing and other marine sectors. Policies Fisheries 2 and 3 required consideration of cultural and economic importance and, where necessary, the preparation of mitigation strategies. The Officer noted that these strategies Page 42
Page 43
were generally associated with major marine developments but could be applied proportionately in this context. In this case, officers did not consider that significant adverse effects had been demonstrated. Liaison provisions and mitigation were secured via revised Condition 18. In summarising commercial fisheries impacts, the Officer stated that, based on all information provided, officers were satisfied that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to safeguard existing fishing opportunities, including through engagement with fishermen, design amendments, technical analysis, further data submission, and the agreement of Condition 18. Officers considered this to be a reasonable resolution and in accordance with NPF4 Policy 32, LDP2 Policy 28, and the relevant provisions of the National Marine Plan. In concluding, the Officer stated that the Carradale North site was an existing operational fish farm, and the proposal represented a minor eastward relocation of 79 metres to the site centre and 150 metres to the mooring boundary. The proposal formed part of a broader modernisation programme that would deliver improvements in fish health, operational efficiency, and worker safety, supporting a key local employer with local, regional, and national economic significance. No statutory consultees had raised concerns. Commercial fisheries issues had been fully assessed, the proposal had been redesigned to minimise impacts, further engagement had taken place, and ongoing liaison and mitigation measures had been secured by planning condition. The local Community Council supported the modernisation as part of wider harbour investment and community benefit. The Officer stated that the proposal was consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and that no material considerations indicated that permission should be withheld under Section 25 of the Act. She therefore commended the application to members for approval, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the Report of Handling dated 1 December 2025 and revised Condition 18 in Supplementary Report No. 2 dated 26 March 2026. APPLICANT Mr Stephen MacIntyre, Head of Environment for Mowi Scotland Mr MacIntyre delivered a presentation to the meeting. He was accompanied by Rebecca Weeks, Senior Environmental Analyst; Cameron Jones, Regional Seawater Manager for Argyll; and Mark Laird, Local Manager in Carradale. Mr MacIntyre re-introduced the presentation for the benefit of a new attendee and asked for the first slide to be shown. He explained that the introductory slide set out information on the salmon farming sector and Mowi Scotland’s national footprint. He highlighted that Scottish salmon remained the UK’s top food export, with the sector’s economic contribution to Scotland having increased by 25% in recent years. He advised that the sector’s economic contribution from Argyll in 2025 was approximately £100 million. Mr MacIntyre described the distribution of the company’s sites across Scotland and noted overall employment figures. He stated that Mowi was the largest operator in Scotland and that its activities played a key role in the economic success of the sector locally, regionally, and nationally. Many farms were located in rural coastal communities, and the next slide focused specifically on Argyll. He outlined the spread of operations in Argyll: in the north, Loch Etive and Loch Awe; in Mid Argyll, the Craobh Haven sites and the Page 43
Page 44
open-sea site at Colonsay; and in Kintyre, three sites—North Kilbrannan and two fish farms at Carradale, which were the subject of the current proceedings. Mr MacIntyre emphasised that the company’s operations provided stability and employment opportunities in fragile coastal communities, supporting local investment and resilience. He cited the partnership between the Carradale fish farms and the local community as a positive example. As part of the application process, he reported that Mowi had regularly engaged with the East Kintyre Community Council. This engagement included attendance at community council meetings to explain proposals, provision of regular written updates, and participation in the annual village open day, which had been well attended by more than 100 people. Boards, images, and information on the plans had been presented, ensuring regular and wide communication over the two-year period. Mr MacIntyre noted the challenge of depopulation in coastal communities and outlined the company’s investment in career pathways for young people. He advised that Mowi was working with Campbeltown Grammar School, Salmon Scotland, and other partners to offer a vocational qualification— the National Progression Award in Aquaculture— as a senior subject option later in the year. He added that employment in the sector was regarded as desirable, shown by the 60 applications received for two recently advertised apprenticeships based in Carradale. He noted that aquaculture offered more than 80 different career paths for young people. Moving to the next slide, Mr MacIntyre explained that it addressed frequent criticism regarding governance of the sector in areas such as fish health and mortality. He stated that the sector operated within a robust, multi-agency regulatory framework covering environmental protection, fish health, and planning. In addition, Mowi voluntarily adhered to a range of third-party standards. He highlighted that sites could be inspected 15 to 20 times annually by various authorities, demonstrating the high level of oversight and the focus on sustainable development. In concluding his introduction, Mr MacIntyre stated that the proposed changes to the Carradale North Fish Farm were intended to modernise the site, future-proof operations, remain competitive, and ensure the production of healthy salmon. He noted that the company had modernised several farms in this way in recent years and emphasised the need to innovate and adopt new technology as it became available. Rebecca Weeks, Senior Environmental Analyst Ms Rebecca Weeks provided an overview of operations at Carradale North to date, the proposed changes to the site, the benefits of transitioning to fewer and larger pens, and the stakeholder engagement undertaken over the preceding two and a half years since the application had been submitted. Ms Weeks noted that Carradale North had been operational since 2015. She confirmed that a team of 20 employees operated from the Carradale shore base, covering both Carradale sites, North Kilbrannan, and the site service vessel. Eighteen of the employees lived locally, and two travelled from Glasgow. She explained that the company was proposing to reduce the stocking density at the site from 15.6 to 12.78 kilograms per cubic metre, representing fewer fish per cubic metre and providing associated fish-health and welfare benefits. The maximum biomass would remain unchanged at 2,500 tonnes, and any future change to that figure would require a Page 44
Page 45
separate application process. She advised that since 2011, when this type of record began, the company had harvested just over 10.5 million salmon from the combined Carradale sites, equivalent to more than 100 million meals supplied to national and international markets. Ms Weeks reiterated that the purpose of the application was to modernise the site, remain current and competitive, and secure local employment into the future. Ms Weeks confirmed that the company maintained a regular communication plan with the East Kintyre Community Council. She outlined a suite of parallel developments, including a £2 million land-based improvement plan to modernise the harbour and shore base, positioning Carradale as an established regional base. The proposed seawater development under consideration represented a further £3 million investment. She added that the company remained committed to contributing to the Community Development Fund and supporting the Carradale Affordable Housing Project. The East Kintyre Community Council had acknowledged the socioeconomic benefits of the company’s presence within the community. Ms Weeks summarised the Planning Officers’ report, noting that commercial fishing had been the only issue raised during the application process. Planning Officers had concluded that no matters had been identified that would justify refusing planning permission. This conclusion had been supported by extensive consultation with statutory consultees including SEPA, NatureScot, and Marine Directorate, and the final recommendation was that planning permission should be approved, subject to the pre-determination hearing and appropriate conditions. Turning to the proposed changes, Ms Weeks explained that the original layout submitted during the screening stage—classified as a non-EIA application—had been revised following feedback from the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. The proposal now involved upgrading to fewer, larger pens, allowing for modern equipment and improvements in operational efficiency and fish health. In light of the feedback, the company conducted an internal review of available marine traffic data. Ms Weeks described vessel-tracking information showing all traffic in the area, including company vessels and recreational craft. Data indicated a higher number of boats entering and leaving Carradale Harbour, prompting amendments to the mooring layout to ensure the safe transit of vessels. She noted that most vessel tracks were high-speed, suggesting transiting rather than active fishing activity. She highlighted that the easternmost moorings reached depths of around 80 metres, with the 100-metre contour lying slightly further east, which would be relevant to later considerations. Ms Weeks reported that, following a re-analysis by the moorings provider, the company had been able to reduce the mooring spread by 14% compared with the initial design. This reduction required investment in higher-specification and more costly mooring systems. She explained that the layout could not be moved further inshore due to the increased depth required for the larger pens, and the company had also chosen not to move further north to avoid potential conflict with local creel fishermen, with whom they had held discussions. Cameron Jones, Regional Seawater Manager, Mowi Scotland Mr Jones provided an overview of the equipment currently used by Mowi Scotland. He explained that the company operated a mixture of steel square pens, measuring either 24 x 24 metres or 36 x 36 metres, although the more commonly used structures were plastic Page 45
Page 46
circular pens ranging from 100 to 200 metres in diameter. At Carradale North, the company was operating with ten 120-metre pens. He noted that managing a high number of pens required substantial maintenance, labour, and resources, which made day-to-day farm operations more demanding. Mr Jones went on to explain the rationale behind the proposed move to 160-metre pens. He stated that Mowi was still a relatively young company at around 60 years old and continued to innovate, learn, and grow quickly. He described how pen sizes had evolved over time— from 24-metre steel structures to 200-metre pens at some locations. Recent experience across twelve sites that had already adopted 160-metre pens indicated that these larger pens performed better in adverse weather conditions. They ride waves more effectively due to their increased surface area, which improved staff safety, containment security, and fish welfare. He added that operating fewer, larger pens increased efficiency in daily farm operations. This included routine tasks undertaken by the site team as well as freshwater bathing treatments, which could be completed more quickly on farms with fewer pens. Faster treatment processes reduced the risk of re-infestation from sea lice or recurrence of gill-related issues such as Amoebic Gill Disease (AGD). Mr Jones noted that these benefits aligned with the successful rollout of 160-metre pens across the 12 existing farms where they had been installed, with further sites planned. Mowi Scotland currently operated 48 farms in total. Mr Jones highlighted additional benefits, including improved sea-lice management due to the distribution of fish across fewer but larger pens. He remarked that Carradale historically experienced very low lice levels, and sea lice were naturally occurring parasites. He emphasised that lower stocking densities—achieved by consolidating stock into fewer, larger pens—supported best practice for fish health and welfare. Reduced stocking density also lessened waste-deposition footprints on the seabed, helping minimise environmental impacts. Finally, he noted that upgrading Carradale to larger pens would also allow the company to reallocate existing steel pens to other sites still using older infrastructure, helping to modernise farms across the wider business. Rebecca Weeks, Senior Environmental Analyst, Mowi Scotland Ms Weeks provided an overview of the stakeholder engagement undertaken since the submission of the application in July 2024. She noted that, as previously outlined, several statutory consultees had been consulted during the application process, and none had raised objections. As a result, most of the stakeholder engagement had focused on the wild fisheries sector, particularly in response to a sustained objection from the Clyde Fishermen’s Association (CFA). She explained that the company had been keen to engage proactively with the CFA, drawing on lessons from other local proposals, and had approached them before any objection was submitted. Ms Weeks confirmed that engagement with the CFA had taken place on multiple occasions through both formal and informal channels. Formal engagement included Microsoft Teams meetings, email correspondence, and phone discussions with the Executive Secretary and individual members. She described these interactions as useful and collaborative, enabling the company to amend its plans and reduce the moorings area by 14%. Both parties had exchanged information, including a chart-plotter image from the CFA, which the company geo-rectified to overlay within its mapping software to assess interactions with the proposed site. This analysis highlighted an area of poor fishing ground that aligned with rocky seabed features and the suggested mooring extent. The company had reciprocated by sharing mooring-extent information with creel fishermen to assist them in fishing as near as possible to existing pens, and committed to Page 46
Page 47
sharing updated information once available. However, Ms Weeks noted that some information received from the CFA had been unclear or contradictory. For example, supplementary report one included an email dated 10 December 2025 indicating that the vessels most affected would be mobile-gear boats. She noted that these vessels were all legally tracked and therefore already represented in the marine-traffic data analysis. In contrast, separate engagement with local creel fishermen suggested that claims of creeling activity on the inshore side of the site were not accurate. Ms Weeks acknowledged the national hesitancy among commercial fishermen to share confidential fishing data, given competitive sensitivities. To support improved communication, Salmon Scotland had established a liaison group to streamline dialogue between the aquaculture industry and fisheries associations, with the intention of informing future applications involving potential spatial conflicts between aquaculture and wild fisheries. Despite engagement efforts, Ms Weeks explained that several individual objections had been submitted. Most followed a standard template and lacked supporting evidence that might have enabled further amendments to the proposal. However, four vessel names had been supplied: MFB Atlas, MFB Regent Mourne, MFB Rebecca Jane, and Janice. She reassured members that all four vessels—three of which were 16 metres in length and one 22 metres—had been included in the Poseidon fisheries report. To expand upon the company’s in-house marine-traffic analysis, Ms Weeks reported that an independent fisheries consultant had been commissioned. She summarised key findings, noting that AIS data provided positional information transmitted every five minutes, which all vessels over 12 metres were legally required to broadcast while operating. Over a five-year dataset, only four AIS data points fell within the proposed mooring boundary—representing just 0.3% of all recorded locations. A heat map demonstrated that the majority of mobile-gear fishing activity occurred in the deeper central channel. She highlighted that the area beneath the proposed moorings corresponded with rocky outcrops shown in dark green on the map. Fishing patterns suggested that rocky areas were typically avoided, leading to the assumption that similar avoidance would apply beneath the proposed moorings. Responding to earlier representations, she clarified that the company was not proposing the relocation of fishing activity eastwards but was noting that the small number of recorded data points could be safely absorbed within existing, already-used deep-channel fishing grounds. Ms Weeks further advised that these conclusions were supported by the company's moorings inspector from Aqua-Skye, an ex-fisherman with experience in prawn trawling and scallop dredging. In a written representation, he had confirmed that the seabed shallower than the 100-metre contour was unsuitable for trawling or dredging. The proposed extension remained within the 80-metre contour, and therefore, in his professional view, would not impact mobile bottom-trawling activities. She added that although the CFA had asserted the proposal posed a significant issue for mobile-gear operators, this was not supported by the data. Addressing an analogy previously raised by the CFA—comparing the proposal to excluding a farmer from productive land in favour of an unproductive area—Ms Weeks stated that while such an analogy might suit a new-site development, it was not applicable in this case. She emphasised that Carradale North was an existing site and that the proposal involved only a small extension. Productive grounds lay immediately east of the site, and only 1.35% of all mobile-gear fishing recorded over five years had occurred within the proposed mooring area, all of which related to the southern site rather than the northern proposal under discussion. Page 47
Page 48
Recognising the limitations of AIS data in capturing vessels under 12 metres, Ms Weeks referred to concerns raised at the December planning meeting. She then presented maps showing the fishing grounds of five local prawn-creel vessels under 12 metres in length, which the company had engaged with directly. The maps demonstrated that prawn-creel activity centred on the deeper channel and muddy areas to the north and south of both the existing and proposed cages. She confirmed that all three primary prawn-creel vessels based in Carradale were represented in the mapping, with full details provided in Supplementary Report 2, Section 4, and Appendix B. Mark Laird, Carradale Site Manager, Mowi Scotland Mr Laird addressed the meeting and confirmed that, as indicated by Ms Weeks, he had engaged directly with the local creel fishermen operating from Carradale Harbour. He explained that through regular conversations with them, he had identified and recorded the areas in which they fished. He noted that none of these fishermen appeared among those listed in the objections submitted by the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, and all had expressed that they had no objections to the proposal. He reported that the creelers were content to continue working alongside the company, as they had done routinely. Mr Laird advised that although the fishermen were not willing to formally document their fishing grounds on paper for presentation, they had provided the necessary information verbally. He added that this was supported by the company’s own operational logs gathered on site. While he had only been based at Carradale for a couple of years, he noted that staff with over 15 years of experience had confirmed that creeling activity did not take place within the areas shown on the maps presented to the meeting. The company had also not observed fishing within those grounds. In closing, Mr Laird reiterated a point raised earlier by Mr Cameron, confirming that the proposed £3 million investment in new pens was for the benefit of the fish—specifically to improve fish health and welfare—and not to increase stock numbers. Rebecca Weeks, Senior Environmental Analyst, Mowi Scotland Ms Weeks stated that Mowi remained highly conscious of the need to avoid competition for marine space and acknowledged the increasing pressures on the fishing industry arising from spatial squeeze. She recognised the importance of Kilbrannan Sound for a range of commercially valuable fishing species, as well as its wider role within the Firth of Clyde. She explained that the proposal before the committee represented only a slight expansion of the existing site, over an area that had been described in a chart-plotter image provided by the fishing sector as poor-quality fishing ground. She reported that this position was supported by all publicly available data, Mowi’s engagement with local fishermen, and on-site observations. She noted that the independent fisheries report, Mowi’s own investigations, and the Planning Officer’s report were all aligned in their conclusions that the proposal would not give rise to significant adverse effects on fisheries. Nonetheless, Ms Weeks emphasised that the company wished to maintain harmonious coexistence with fisheries interests. She confirmed that Mowi intended to engage fully with draft Condition 18, which proposed the establishment of a forum with Clyde Fishermen’s Association members. If considered necessary by any party, Mowi would also participate in the preparation of a Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy, although she noted that such strategies were typically associated with much larger developments, such as offshore wind projects. Page 48
Page 49
Turning to the final slide, Ms Weeks outlined the benefits of the proposed changes. She explained that the upgrades would modernise and future-proof the Carradale North Fish Farm, safeguarding employment and supporting ongoing community benefits. While the application related to investment in the marine elements of the operation, she highlighted that it sat alongside a significant programme of planned harbour-side improvements. These included infrastructure enhancements that Mowi considered both necessary and desirable. She noted that the community and the council had ambitions to revitalise the harbour, which had deteriorated over time, and Mowi wished to support this aspiration. She confirmed that the harbour-side improvements would proceed regardless of the outcome of the present application. Ms Weeks acknowledged that the application had prompted important considerations in relation to marine spatial planning. She stated that Mowi understood, acknowledged, and sympathised with the concerns expressed by the commercial fishing sector. However, she emphasised that the proposal represented only a minor alteration to the operational footprint of a long-established fish farm. Based on all available evidence—including official vessel-tracking data, observational data from farm staff who worked 12-hour day and night shifts, the characteristics of local seabed substrate, and direct engagement with local vessel owners—Ms Weeks stated that Mowi genuinely believed the proposal would not result in the loss of recognised fishing grounds. CONSULTEES Elaine Whyte, Clyde Fisherman’s Association Ms Whyte addressed the meeting on behalf of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association (CFA) and highlighted a number of policy concerns. She stated that the Association had identified conflicts with five policies in the National Marine Plan—GEN 4, GEN 12, GEN 11, GEN 8, and GEN 9—as well as a point within the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. She noted that, contrary to earlier statements, the Poseidon report had suggested that displaced fishing activity could be absorbed to the east of the site. She explained, however, that this was not feasible due to the presence of rock dumping and subsea cables in that area, which were publicly charted in Kingfisher and other navigational resources following recent re-cabling work. Referring to comments made about Aqua-Sky, she clarified that although the company acted as Mowi’s moorings manager, the CFA was not aware of their direct experience of fishing in the area. She emphasised that local fishermen present at the meeting did not agree with Aqua-Sky’s assessment of the seabed. She also noted that several local creel fishermen had submitted objections, contrary to earlier references suggesting broad support. She reported that 11 or 12 fishermen had objected, in addition to the CFA, and stressed that these fishermen should be allowed to speak for themselves. Ms Whyte confirmed that the CFA had written to the East Kintyre Community Council on 20 March to ensure the Council were aware that many local fishermen did not support the proposal. She emphasised that the Association did not consider the proposal to be a “minor change.” To illustrate this, she asked the meeting to consider whether Mowi would regard a reduction in its pen numbers as a minor modification if it were proposed by the fishing sector. She explained that the CFA viewed the development as displacing fishing activity. Page 49
Page 50
Addressing the reliance on AIS data, Ms Whyte repeated that AIS did not capture vessels under 12 metres, which constituted the majority of the inshore fleet. She also noted that even some of the larger vessels, which had been referenced by Mowi, were not consistently represented because vessel activity was seasonal. She added that several skippers who normally fished the area regularly had been unwell in recent months and therefore had not appeared in the dataset. In her view, this further limited the reliability of the AIS evidence. Ms Whyte stated that mitigation measures proposed for discussion after approval would be ineffective, as planning consent itself would result in the permanent loss of fishing grounds. She argued that, at present, wild-fishing activity was able to operate in cooperation with the existing site, and that the requirement in Section 6 of the National Marine Plan to protect wild fishing “wherever possible” had not been met. She stressed that the CFA supported aquaculture in principle but considered this development to threaten an important fishing ground in terms of both productivity and safety. She expressed concern over the consultation process, noting that the CFA had received the Poseidon report at short notice and had only a few working days to review it. She stated that the chance to speak directly with the authors would have allowed fishermen to highlight errors or omissions. She also referenced the CFA’s role in training young fishermen, noting their recent national awards and the sector’s strong contribution to local communities. Ms Whyte stated that much of the discussion had focussed on statutory consultees, yet these bodies did not oppose the work currently undertaken by licensed fishermen either. She pointed out that CFA members had historically built Carradale Harbour and that it was important to recognise fishermen’s cultural and economic contribution to the area. She urged the committee not to undervalue the heritage of fishing in Argyll and Bute, noting its significance from authors such as Naomi Mitchison through to modern tourism, with visitors wishing to see active working harbours. Turning to policy matters, Ms Whyte stated that the decision should not be based on whether some fishing might still take place after development, but on whether the proposal protected the long-term viability of an established local industry. She remarked that evidence did not demonstrate this. She highlighted that the west coast already supported 109 finfish-farm sites and that the rate of approvals in Argyll and Bute had been particularly high. She explained that spatial conflict between aquaculture and fisheries was a growing national concern, citing recent refusals of aquaculture applications in the Western Isles and similar issues arising in Highland Council areas. She added that the last five years of AIS data were distorted due to the impacts of COVID-19 and Brexit, both of which had reduced fishing activity. This, she argued, led to an underrepresentation of true fishing effort. She emphasised that the wild-fishing supply chain—although fragmented—comprised individual family businesses, hauliers, processors and exporters, and should be considered as a combined socioeconomic system. Addressing cumulative spatial squeeze, she noted that pressures came not only from aquaculture but also from MPAs, subsea cables, rock-dumping, naval closures and other marine uses. She referred to recent work by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, which demonstrated significant national losses of fishing space. Ms Whyte went on to outline detailed policy conflicts with the National Marine Plan, Scotland’s National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), and the Argyll and Bute Local Page 50
Page 51
Development Plan. She stated that the proposal conflicted with requirements to support coexistence, safeguard fishing opportunities, and avoid displacement. She criticised the Poseidon report for failing to apply the precautionary principle despite acknowledged data gaps, particularly for vessels under 12 metres. She argued that the methodology used— relying on percentages of space fished—ignored the functional value of specific grounds, including seasonal refuge, safety considerations, and high-value capture zones. She stated that the assumption that displaced fishing could be absorbed elsewhere was unsupported and contrary to policy. She also argued that no cumulative-impact assessment had been provided, despite this being a requirement of GEN 4 and GEN 12 of the National Marine Plan. She emphasised that fishing activity, especially for small vessels, must be understood through lived experience. She expressed concern that anecdotal ecological benefits said to arise from aquaculture pens had not been evidenced. Ms Whyte stated that impacts had been too narrowly defined as overlaps in AIS tracks, excluding wider factors such as safety zones, gear conflict, weather refuge, operational flexibility, and cultural significance. She explained that fisheries impacts were not merely financial: they affected vessel viability, crew livelihoods and the resilience of local supply chains. She argued that the Poseidon report was not fit for decision-making due to data gaps, assumptions about the under-12-metre fleet, and failure to capture socioeconomic impacts required by policy. She reiterated that displacement was not a minor inconvenience but caused real economic harm, increased fuel use, greater emissions, risk of gear conflict and heightened safety risks. She noted that such impacts could accumulate regionally and force exits from the industry. She stressed the importance of safety, recalling a previous incident in which a CFA member had snagged an anchor in an area they believed should have been clear, causing a serious risk to life. She noted that the grounds affected by the proposal were productive and, crucially, offered safe working conditions across a range of weather states. Loss of these areas would require vessels to operate in more hazardous ground. On economic considerations, Ms Whyte noted that while aquaculture provided some local jobs, the fishing sector was deeply embedded in the community, with crews living and spending locally. She urged the committee to consider the precautionary principle where socioeconomic uncertainty existed. She stressed the importance of food security and highlighted that local scallops and langoustine were of exceptionally high quality and in demand. She added that local seafood had played a vital role during COVID-19 when direct sales supported communities. She also stressed environmental considerations, noting that displacement would increase steaming distances, fuel use and conflict with Scotland’s net-zero ambitions. On intergenerational issues, she described the CFA’s work in training young fishermen, which was helping to reverse depopulation trends by creating viable local careers. She cautioned that incremental approvals would set a precedent for continued encroachment into fishing grounds. Ms Whyte concluded by urging the committee to recognise the cumulative displacement of fishermen, the cultural importance of local fishing, and the need for robust and Page 51
Page 52
precautionary planning. She highlighted that the proposal would narrow fishing areas, increase safety risks, and diminish economic resilience, and that these impacts were not adequately reflected in the evidence presented. Kenny McNab, Chair of Clyde Fisherman’s Association Mr McNab addressed the meeting and confirmed that he did not have a formal presentation, relying instead on his 55 years of fishing experience. He stated that he strongly disputed several elements of the Poseidon report. He expressed disbelief that a consultancy would produce such a report without first speaking to local fishermen with direct knowledge of the waters in question, describing this as a significant failure in their approach. He referred to comments made earlier regarding an assessment by a fishing expert who had concluded that the seabed adjacent to the fish farm was unsuitable for towing gear. Mr McNab stated that he completely rejected this conclusion. He explained that historic fishing-track data—from before the fish farm was established—would clearly demonstrate that fishermen had towed gear in that area. He emphasised that Mowi’s decision to examine only the most recent five years had overlooked this evidence. He confirmed that historic positional data could be provided to support the fishermen’s position. Mr McNab went on to outline the pressures faced by the fishing industry over the last 15 years, highlighting the cumulative spatial squeeze affecting fishers. He stated that the Firth of Clyde currently contained 18 fish farms, which he believed was already at maximum capacity. Beyond aquaculture, he noted that fishing grounds had been substantially reduced through other restrictions and designations. He described the severe reduction in the Clyde fleet, explaining that in 2013 there had been 67 vessels over 15 metres, compared with only 15 vessels remaining at present. Scallop dredgers had reduced from 23 vessels to 4, and two-thirds of the under-15-metre fleet had also been lost. He emphasised that this decline was not due to poor fishing performance. He noted that Nephrops—one of the area’s key species—had been Scotland’s second-most valuable wild catch the previous year at £87 million, an increase of 46% since 2015. In his view, these figures demonstrated that fishing productivity remained strong and that the decline of the fleet was caused by the loss of fishing grounds, not by declining stocks. Mr McNab stated that the Clyde fishing area encompassed approximately 3,600 square kilometres, but that about 1,150 square kilometres—roughly one-third—had been lost due to marine protected areas, naval closures, subsea cables, rock-dumping and fish-farm expansion. He argued that although the proposed extension appeared small, it lay within high-value, highly productive prawn-fishing ground, where only limited areas supported viable catches. He explained that even if only six vessels used the area, each of these could gross between £400,000 and £500,000 per year, representing significant income that flowed directly into local communities. He emphasised that this money stayed within the region and supported local businesses. Speaking on community matters, Mr McNab stated that he was born and raised locally, as were five generations of his family who had also fished in the area. He said he had always been committed to supporting the community and had long represented fishermen through the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. He expressed frustration when discussions overlooked the role that fishermen had historically played in establishing and sustaining communities such as Carradale and Tarbert. He stated that fishermen were the “creators Page 52
Page 53
of community,” not people who were “buying community” in modern times. He expressed concern about the gradual loss of fishing heritage and culture. Mr McNab stated that he considered the proposed extension not worth the loss it would impose on the fishing sector. He reiterated that the development did not increase the site’s biomass and therefore did not justify the displacement and economic harm that fishermen would face. In his view, the cost to local fishing and the wider community far outweighed any benefit the proposal might bring. SUPPORTERS No supporters attended the meeting. OBJECTORS Emma Kearns, Whitby Seafoods Ms Kearns addressed the meeting on behalf of Whitby Seafoods, explaining that the company was the largest scampi producer in the world and was therefore heavily dependent on the UK nephrops fishery across the British Isles. She emphasised that the fishing fleet was already under significant pressure due to displacement and increasing spatial squeeze on fishing grounds. She stated that the proposed extension of the aquaculture site had the potential to further impact the supply of seafood to her business by affecting the operations of vessels belonging to members of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. She highlighted that any additional constraints placed on CFA vessels could, in turn, affect the availability of nephrops supplied to Whitby Seafoods. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Paul Kennedy sought clarification on whether the original planning applications for the site had attracted any objections from the local community. He noted that, although the current proposal involved only a small displacement, it appeared to have prompted a significant level of objection at this stage. He commented that the objections seemed substantial given that the purpose of the proposal was to modernise operations in line with new technologies and evolving understanding of fisheries management. He expressed the view that the opposition felt unexpectedly negative in the context of a development intended to improve and update existing facilities, but stated that this was his personal opinion. Mr McNab stated that, to the best of his recollection, the Clyde Fishermen’s Association had submitted an objection to the fish-farm proposal when it was originally brought forward in 2007. Councillor Paul Kennedy asked a further question whether Mowi had installed similar larger pens at other locations in Scotland, noting that he had understood the number to be around twenty sites. He further asked whether any objections had been received from Page 53
Page 54
local communities in those areas regarding the slight relocation and enlargement of pens associated with such installations. Mr MacIntyre stated that he did not recall any other applications having required consideration by a committee. He advised that, as far as he was aware, all similar applications had previously been determined under delegated powers. Councillor Paul Kennedy asked that, as this appeared to be the first application of its type to be brought before a committee, and with further similar proposals anticipated in the pipeline, the decision under consideration was of significant importance to the applicant. Mr MacIntyre stated that Mowi had an ongoing programme of improving infrastructure across its sites in order to secure the benefits outlined within the application. He noted that other sites which had already upgraded to the proposed system had seen improvements in fish-mortality levels. Based on the performance at those locations, he advised that Mowi would anticipate a 5% improvement in mortality rates at Carradale, which would equate to approximately 150,000 additional fish surviving through to harvest. Councillor Green asked a question directed to the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. He referred to an earlier statement in which the CFA had mentioned the total number of fish farms operating within the Clyde area. He requested that this figure be repeated for clarity and advised that he had a supplementary question to follow. Mr McNab advised that there were 18 fish farms in the Clyde Area. Councillor Green asked how many of these fish farm planning applications had the CFA objected to. Mr McNab responded that not all fish-farm applications had been opposed by the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. He explained that, in relation to the original fish farms in Loch Fyne, the CFA had met with the operating companies before any applications were submitted. At that time, the companies had included Landcatch, later Lighthouse, and subsequently the Scottish Salmon Company. He stated that on those occasions the CFA had agreed to give up valuable fishing grounds, but only where the farms could be located in positions that allowed fishermen to continue working safely around them. He added that discussions of this nature remained common practice and confirmed that the CFA was currently in negotiations with another fish-farm operator regarding a separate site, where an agreement had been reached. Mr McNab emphasised that the CFA did not routinely object to all fish-farm developments and wished to see aquaculture succeed, recognising that the sector provided employment. However, he reiterated that fishermen were unwilling to lose further small but highly valuable areas of fishing ground. He noted that the original Carradale site had been located where it was following discussion with the company at the time, but the current proposal sought to alter that agreed position. He concluded by stressing that the CFA did not object to every fish-farm application, but wished to ensure that irreplaceable fishing grounds were not eroded. Councillor Paul Kennedy asked a question regarding the economic viability of the proposed development. He noted that Mowi intended to produce the same volume of fish within the larger pens and therefore would likely generate a similar level of profit. He queried whether, given the significant investment required to install the new pens, there was a point at which operating at this site could become uneconomical. He asked whether the cost of the upgrades might ultimately outweigh the financial return and whether this was a factor under consideration. Page 54
Page 55
Ms Weeks explained that the proposed upgrade formed part of a wider programme of modernisation across the company, which Mowi recognised as necessary to remain current and up to date. Mowi stated that the primary benefit of the investment would arise from increased fish survivability. Mowi noted that, following updated information received from the company’s data analysts earlier that day, Mowi anticipated a 5% improvement in survivability at Carradale, equating to approximately 150,000 additional fish reaching harvest compared with current levels. Councillor Paul Kennedy sought clarification on the economic implications of the proposal. He asked whether, as a result of the anticipated improvements in survivability, the site would remain economically viable in the long term. He queried whether Mowi would continue operating at Carradale as it currently did, or whether financial considerations could eventually affect the feasibility of maintaining the site. Mr MacIntyre stated that the site would not become economically unviable. He explained that as pen and equipment technology continued to evolve, Mowi wished to take advantage of improved systems. He referred to a storm event at Carradale several years earlier, which had resulted in an escape incident. The new pens proposed for installation were significantly more robust, built to higher engineering standards, and fully compliant with the Scottish Technical Standard for aquaculture design. He emphasised that these enhancements would provide additional operational benefits, including reducing the likelihood of future escape incidents at sites exposed to high tidal flows and wave conditions. Councillor Brown sought clarification regarding the updated mortality figures referenced earlier in the meeting. She noted that no specific figure had been provided during the morning session but that an updated figure had now been mentioned. She asked that the expected mortality rate for Carradale, based on the introduction of the new larger pens, be stated again for the record. Ms Weeks explained that Carradale already experienced a low mortality rate, and she described it as a well-performing site. She reported that the current production cycle was operating at a mortality rate of 2.7%, which she stated was very low. The highest mortality recorded at the site within the past five years occurred in 2023, when the rate reached 8.75%. She advised that, based on performance observed at other sites where the new pen technology had been installed, Mowi predicted an improvement in survivability of 5% at Carradale. She stated that this improvement would equate to approximately 150,000 additional fish surviving to harvest. Councillor Brown observed that the expected increase in profit appeared to arise from improved fish survivability resulting from investment in larger, higher-quality equipment. She stated that while the upgrades were intended to benefit fish health and welfare, they also provided a financial benefit to the company, which she noted was an inherent part of its commercial purpose. She commented that enhancing the size and quality of equipment would deliver improvements across the board. Councillor Brown clarified that this had been the information she had sought earlier in the meeting. She expressed appreciation for the response that had now been provided and stated that she was not opposed to the proposal but had wished to obtain a clearer understanding of the financial implications. Mr MacIntyre stated that the company had a duty of care to ensure the welfare of the animals it reared. He noted that while improved profitability was one outcome of the proposed upgrades, the primary consideration was the broader range of benefits associated with enhanced performance throughout the production cycle. Page 55
Page 56
Councillor Brown reiterated her earlier remarks, stating that the company’s commitment to animal welfare was commendable and that she had acknowledged this during the morning session. She noted, however, that while welfare was an important aspect, the company ultimately operated as a commercial entity and was therefore also focused on generating profit. She thanked the presenter for the clarification provided and confirmed her appreciation for the response. SUMMING UP Planning Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Ms. Davies of the Planning Department advised that members had been made aware of arguments both supporting and opposing the proposed replacement of the existing 10 × 120 m circumference pens and 6 × 160 m circumference pens at the marine fish farm site. She reported that members had also been informed of wider concerns relating to the management of shared marine space and the potential for conflict between sectors of the agriculture industry—in this case, salmon farming and local commercial fishing. Ms. Davies noted that members had heard directly from the applicant, who stated that the proposal represented a significant investment in the locality. According to the applicant, the development would retain stable local employment, improve fish health, and enhance operational safety at the site. The proposal was also expected to continue supporting the wider local supply-chain economy, including expenditure within local businesses in Argyll and Bute. She advised that although some local fishermen had objected to the development on the basis of potential loss of fishing grounds, there was limited empirical evidence to quantify this alleged loss. Evidence had also been provided indicating that the seabed adjacent to the site was unsuitable for trawling or dredging activity. For creeling and potting vessels, the applicant had agreed to facilitate safe access to the pens wherever possible, and a planning condition was proposed to secure effective ongoing liaison. Ms. Davies highlighted that the Clyde Fishermen’s Association had been critical of the applicant’s Poseidon report; however, these criticisms appeared to be anecdotal and not supported by evidence. In contrast, East Kintyre Community Council and local fishermen had expressed support for the proposal, noting that it would not adversely affect fishing activities and recognising the applicant’s investment in the area through its community fund, the new shore base, renovation of the pier house, and installation of a new harbour pontoon. The hearing had provided members with an opportunity to seek clarification from consultees, third parties, and the applicant on matters relevant to determining the application. Ms. Davies explained that the proposal concerned an existing operational fish farm and involved only a minor relocation of the site centre from the current mooring boundary to the proposed revised mooring boundary. The development formed part of a wider modernisation programme intended to deliver benefits in fish health, operational efficiency, and health and safety for site workers. She stated that the proposal supported a key local employer and contributed to local, regional, and national economic activity. Page 56
Page 57
She confirmed that commercial fisheries impacts had been fully assessed. The proposal had been redesigned to minimise potential effects, and any remaining impacts would be addressed through mitigation secured by planning conditions. The Local Community Council supported the modernisation as part of the broader investment in Carradale Harbour, recognising the associated benefits for local jobs and the community. In advising members on their decision-making responsibilities, Ms. Davies referred to Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. She outlined the relevant Development Plan policies, including NPF4 Policy 32 and Argyll and Bute LDP2 (2024) Policy 28, which set out the criteria for assessing aquaculture development. Despite the objections lodged by the Clyde Fishermen’s Association and other third parties, officers were of the view that the proposal complied with all relevant policies. She advised that the National Marine Plan was a material consideration in relation to commercial fisheries impacts. Officers considered that the matters raised had been appropriately addressed and that impacts had been mitigated to a level that would not justify refusal of planning permission. Ms. Davies responded to comments from the Clyde Fishermen’s Association regarding planning policy assessment. She stated that the Planning Service, as professionally qualified and chartered RTPI members, was confident that the policy assessment undertaken was robust, reasonable, and provided a sound basis for decision making. Officers also considered the Poseidon report to be an independent and professionally competent document that offered reliable evidence for consideration. Ms. Davies therefore commended the proposal to members for approval, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the Report of Handling dated 1 December 2025, and the revised Condition 18 contained in Appendix C of Supplementary Report 2 dated 26 March. Applicant Stephen MacIntyre, Head of Environment, Mowi Scotland Mr. MacIntyre summarised the reasons for seeking the proposed change and outlining the benefits anticipated for site operations. He stated that the proposal would future-proof the site by enabling the business to take advantage of developing technology, improve operational practices, and produce healthier fish. He emphasised that this would support the maintenance of local employment levels into the future. He highlighted the company’s employment within the Carradale area, noting that although reference had been made to concerns regarding staff numbers, the site employed 20 staff, 18 of whom were based in Argyll, along with their families. He advised that wages earned at Carradale were spent locally, contributing to the Argyll economy. He further reported that in 2024, the company spent £14.5 million with Argyll suppliers and service providers, demonstrating that revenue generated by its operations was reinvested within Argyll and Bute. Mr. MacIntyre acknowledged that conflicting information had been presented during the hearing regarding fishing activity and productivity within the area covered by the proposed Page 57
Page 58
extension. He recognised that this created challenges for members in reaching a decision. However, he referred to the evidence available to the applicant, which included: • the independent professional report produced by Poseidon; • direct engagement with current and former fishermen; • fifteen years of seabed survey data and advice from a local surveyor confirming the unsuitable nature of the seabed substrate for fishing; and • observational data recorded by the company’s staff, who were on-site for most days of the year. He stated that staff did not observe fishing activity within the extension area, although such activity was regularly seen elsewhere in the wider sound. He stressed that this lack of activity was consistent with the evidence on unsuitable seabed conditions. In closing, Mr. MacIntyre stated that MOWI had sought to engage openly and transparently throughout the application process and welcomed the involvement of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, which he described as constructive. He confirmed that the MOWI wished to coexist harmoniously with other marine users and believed that this principle remained achievable through the proposed development. He thanked members for their time and consideration. Consultees Elaine Whyte, Clyde Fisherman’s Association Ms Whyte noted that there had been two supporters of the proposal, while eleven local fishermen had submitted individual objections. She stated that these figures formed the factual basis of the discussion, emphasising that the majority of local fishermen opposed the proposal and had taken the time to write letters. She advised that she had also submitted a letter on behalf of the CFA. Ms Whyte commented that it was not her intention to speak for others, nor did she believe that fishermen should have their views represented by anyone else. She highlighted that there was evidently a problem and stressed that the fishing sector was not trying to be difficult. She referred to Mr McNab’s earlier remarks, agreeing that both sectors wished to see aquaculture develop appropriately, and that relationships had improved over time. However, she stated that each sector had “red lines”. She observed that fishing had been downgraded in the area, though she believed this did not need to be the case and that there remained potential for development. She reflected on visits to Norway, questioning whether a similar situation would occur there, and suggested that the value of fisheries was better understood in that context. She referred to investment funds and other opportunities emerging for the fishing sector and emphasised the desire to see it grow. However, she stressed that the industry could only be sustainable if it was allowed to survive. Ms Whyte reminded the meeting that fishermen had given up ground in 2007 as a compromise and were now being asked to give up more, not only for this project but for several others. She stated that while coexistence was desirable, it should not result in growth in one sector at the expense of another. She highlighted that the fishing businesses at risk were small, family-owned, indigenous vessels already under significant pressure. She reported that some members with young families were considering leaving Page 58
Page 59
Kintyre and potentially moving to New Zealand due to the growing pressures, and she expressed concern about the prospect of such families being forced to relocate. She stressed the importance of recognising both aquaculture and wild fishing as important and of supporting the development of both. In relation to the Poseidon Report, Ms Whyte stated that, drawing on her experience as a consultant, she would normally speak directly to those involved before reporting on socioeconomics or fishing activity. She noted that the CFA had very short notice to comment on the report initially and emphasised that the organisation was small compared with Mowi. Despite this, they had worked hard to submit responses and engage constructively. She reiterated that the Mowi Report itself acknowledged limitations in the available data. She expressed continuing concern about safety, warning that increased overlap of activity increased the risk of entanglement, which had implications for life and safety at sea. She suggested that maintaining the current working relationship was the safest approach. Regarding references to the planning committee and related criticism, she recognised that policy could be open to interpretation. She advised that, with experience in planning and governance and familiarity with the National Marine Plan, she considered that policy conflicts existed and required recognition. Ms Whyte concluded by thanking the committee for listening to the presentation twice in one day and expressed appreciation for their time. Kenny McNab, Chair of Clyde Fisherman’s Association Mr McNab began by thanking the Council, the Councillors, the officers present, and Mowi for the discussion, noting that it had been badly needed. He stated that he was unsure of the eventual outcome but expressed hope that the Council would support the smaller local operators and allow them to survive. He highlighted that the fishing industry had contributed many millions of pounds to Argyll and Bute over the years. He noted that landings recorded in Argyll the previous year amounted to approximately £30 million from live fisheries, with most of this money remaining within Argyll and supporting local businesses. He stated that the sector had been consistent in delivering this level of economic contribution, particularly over the last seven or eight years. Mr McNab stressed that he would not wish to see this economic benefit jeopardised for what he described as a small corner of a fish farm site. He explained that the seabed in the area in question was regularly surveyed through camera trials carried out by both the industry and Marine Scotland. These surveys counted the number of burrows and assessed prawn density, contributing to the annual quota-setting process. He reported that in some areas the density of burrows was particularly high, making the location especially important for the fishing sector. He stated that the fishing community would not normally dispute a small extension to a fish farm, and that they did not object to all aquaculture developments. However, he emphasised that this specific location represented a red line for fishermen due to its significance for stock and livelihoods. Supporters Page 59
Page 60
There were no supporters in attendance. Objectors Emma Kearns, Whitby Seafoods Ms Kearns advised that she had already provided all relevant information in her previous statement. She stated that offering further comments at this stage would only repeat what she had already set out and felt it was therefore best not to add anything further. When asked, all parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Armour advised the Chair that, should the Chair be minded to move the recommendations, he would bring forward an amendment. He stated that if the recommendations were not moved, he would instead move a motion. The Chair advised that the meeting had moved into the debate stage. The Chair stated that they were content with the comments made during the discussion, noting in particular that the applicant had been consistent and compliant with the range of relevant policies. The Chair acknowledged the concerns raised regarding displacement, but considered that the proposal offered an opportunity for the business to expand while continuing dialogue with local fishermen. The Chair indicated that, on this basis, they were content to move the recommendations and associated conditions presented in the paper today. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle began by recognising the significant amount of work, resources and effort that had been put into both applications considered by the committee. She also acknowledged the professionalism of the planning officers involved. Having listened to the arguments and presentations, Councillor Kennedy-Boyle stated that she was minded to reach a different conclusion regarding the proposal for the North site. She referred to the National Marine Plan, noting in particular the sections relating to coexistence (4.16 and 4.17), which she felt carried considerable weight and required careful consideration. She further highlighted National Planning Framework 4, specifically Policies 29 and 32, which she felt were highly relevant in light of the evidence heard, particularly from the fishing sector. She also drew attention to Local Development Plan 2, noting that Policy 28 spoke strongly to her concerns. Councillor Kennedy-Boyle advised that, on the basis of these policy considerations, she was not able to support the application. She acknowledged the work undertaken to revise Condition 18, recognising that it represented an attempt to address areas of tension and conflict. However, she expressed the view that its application only after a positive decision would not be helpful. She concluded by stating that she wished to set out clearly the reasons underpinning her position. Councillor Amanda Hampsey noted that her comments echoed those she had made earlier that morning. She stated that several credible points had been raised regarding the national framework that had just been discussed, and she confirmed that she agreed with those points. Councillor Hampsey then addressed Mr. McNab directly. She remarked that Mr. McNab was “a truly fascinating man” and emphasised that she meant this sincerely, Page 60
Page 61
acknowledging him as a champion of the local fishermen. She stated that the insight he had provided to the committee was firmly rooted in lived experience and deep local knowledge, which she described as genuinely valuable and deserving of a wider audience. She added that everyone should hear the words he had shared with the committee. She stressed the importance of the community voice, particularly when decisions had such a direct impact on people’s livelihoods. She commented that Mr. McNab’s contribution had brought this sharply into focus. Councillor Hampsey thanked him for his input, noting that it provided a clear understanding of local knowledge, practical, historical, and based on real working experience, and highlighted how meaningful the area was to local fishermen. MOTION That the Committee support the application as per the recommendation of officers. Moved by Councillor Gordon Blair, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie. AMENDMENT From the concerns raised by the Clyde Fishermen’s association I am of the view that existing commercial fishing opportunities have not been sufficiently safeguarded and this application should be refused as the increase in the total area of the development, encroaches into a valuable creel and commercial fishing area which will result in an unacceptable exclusion of commercial fishing activity from this important fishing ground which will result in a significant direct adverse effect on the commercial interests of the fishermen in this area and as such the application can be considered to be contrary to LDP2 Policy 28 and the relevant provisions of the National Marine Plan. Moved by Councillor John Armour, seconded by Councillor Reeni Kennedy Boyle. As the meeting was being held on a hybrid basis, the vote required to be taken by calling the roll and members voted as follows: Motion Amendment Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor John Armour Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Paul Kennedy Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Reeni Kennedy Boyle Councillor Peter Wallace DECISION The Amendment was carried by 6 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 4 December 2025 and supplementary report 1 dated 16 December 2025, supplementary report 2 dated 26 March 2026 and supplementary report number 3 dated 26 March 2026, submitted) The Chair thanked all attendees for their participation, noting that it had been a long day and expressing appreciation for members being present in person. The Chair also extended thanks to the officers supporting the meeting. Page 61
Page 62
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 63
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 22 APRIL 2026 CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In terms of Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Local Authority requires to fix maximum fares and other charges in connection with the hire of taxis operating in their area and to review the scales for taxi fares and other charges on a regular basis. The fares were last reviewed by members on 18th December 2024 and took effect on 22nd April 2025. A letter will be issued to all taxi operators on week commencing 27th April 2026 inviting their comments by 1st June 2026. A further report will be placed before the Committee at their meeting on 17th June 2026 detailing the comments received from the taxi operators. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee are asked to: a) Agree to commence the review of fares in order that this can be completed within the 18 months required in terms of the Act. b) Agree that the consultation required in terms of the Act will be in writing. Page 63 Agenda Item 4
Page 64
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 22 April 2026 CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW 1. 1.1 1.2 2. 2.1 3. 3.1 SUMMARY In terms of Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Local Authority requires to fix maximum fares and other charges in connection with the hire of taxis operating in their area and to review the scales for taxi fares and other charges on a regular basis. The fares were last reviewed by members on 18th December 2024 and took effect on 22nd April 2025. A letter will be issued to all taxi operators week commencing on 27th April 2026 inviting their comments by 1st June 2026. A further report will be placed before the Committee at their meeting on 17th June 2026 detailing the comments received from the trade. RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee are asked to a) Agree to commence the review of fares in order that this can be completed within the 18 months required in terms of the Act. b) Agree that the consultation required in terms of the Act will be in writing. DETAIL Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 states that “the licensing authority must fix scales for the fares and other charges within 18 months beginning with the date on which the scales came into effect”. In terms of the last review the fares came into force on 22nd April Page 64
Page 65
3.2 3.3 3.4 2025. The next fares scale will need to come into force in October 2026. Therefore the review process would require to commence in April 2026. At the meeting on 18th December 2024 the committee agreed that there be a 10% increase to existing scales and that this will take effect from 22nd April 2025; In terms of Section 17 of the Act in carrying out a review of taxi fares, the licensing authority must – a) Consult with persons or organisations appearing to it to be, or to be representative of, the operators of taxis operating within its area. b) Following the consultation – (i) Review the existing scales (ii) Propose new scales (whether at altered rates or the same rates. The Act does not stipulate how the consultation should be effected. 4. 4.1 A) B) 5. CONCLUSION Members are invited to agree that; The next taxi fare review should commence in order that it can be completed within 18 months as required by the 1982 Act. and Agree that the consultation required in terms of the Act will be in writing. IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy- None 5.2 Financial - None 5.3 Legal – The Council require to review taxi fares in terms of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 5.4 HR - None 5.5 Customer Service – None Page 65
Page 66
5.6 Risk – None 5.7 Climate Change - None 5.8 Fairer Scotland Duty - None 5.9 Equalities - Protected Characteristics - None 5.10 Consumer Duty - None 5.11 Island Communities - None 5.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing - None Douglas Hendry Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Policy Lead: Cllr Gordon Blair For further information contact: David Walker, Solicitor Tel: 01436 658720 Email : david.walker@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 66
Page 67
Argyll & Bute Council Development & Economic Growth This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on the Section 36 application for West Torrisdale Wind Farm comprising of up to 9 wind turbines with a tip height of up to 149.9 metres with a predicted output of up to 6 MW per wind turbine, installation of battery energy storage system (BESS) of up to 20 MW of energy storage and ancillary infrastructure on land at Torrisdale Reference No: 25/00043/S36/ECU00002224 Applicant: ESB Asset Development (UK) Ltd Proposal: Section 36 Consultation for West Torrisdale Wind Farm comprising of up to 9 wind turbines with a tip height of up to 149.9 metres with a predicted output of up to 6 MW per wind turbine, installation of battery energy storage system (BESS) of up to 20 MW of energy storage and ancillary infrastructure Site Address: Torrisdale (A) THE APPLICATION The Section 36 Application comprises the following key elements: • Up to 9 wind turbines, each up to a maximum tip height of 149.9 m (6 MW) • Permanent foundations supporting each wind turbine. • Associated crane hardstanding at each wind turbine location. • An external transformer at each wind turbine location • A series of new on-site access tracks (approx. 4.9 km) with associated watercourse crossings where necessary, upgraded sections of existing access track (approx. 18.7 km) and a layover area. • Underground electrical cabling • A compound containing control building, substation (including transformer) a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) (of up to 20 MW) and LiDAR compound. • Temporary compounds including for construction, security, and materials handling. • Search areas for five borrow pits. The expected operational life is 35 years from the date of commissioning. Access to the proposal would be taken from the existing Beinn an Tuirc Wind Farm track network. Connection to Electricity Grid - The details of the grid connection route are unknown at this stage and have not been included within the assessment in the EIAR. (B) RECOMMENDATION: That the ECU be notified accordingly that: Page 67 Agenda Item 5
Page 68
(1) Argyll & Bute Council objects on the grounds that the proposal will have an unacceptable significant landscape and visual impact upon residents and the integrity of the East Kintyre Local Landscape Area contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 4d and 11e and Argyll & Bute LDP2 Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas and ABLWECS. (2) Argyll & Bute Council objects on the grounds that the Applicant has failed to resolve SEPA’s holding objection and that the proposal will therefore have an adverse impact on peat contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. In the event that consent is granted it is expected that any conditions recommended by NatureScot, SEPA, RSPB Scotland, the Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board and the Local Biodiversity Officer are attached to the consent. (3) Argyll & Bute Council objects on the grounds that the Applicant has failed to resolve Highlands & Islands Airports holding objection and that the proposal will therefore have an adverse aviation impact contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes, of the LDP2. (4) Argyll & Bute Council objects on the grounds that the Applicant’s Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment has failed to satisfy Ironside Farrar and that the proposal will have an adverse Peat Landslide Hazard contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. (5) Argyll & Bute Council objects on the grounds that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Scottish Forestry and that the proposal will have an adverse impact on Forestry contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2 (6) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to archaeological impact, subject to a condition to secure a written scheme of investigation being attached to any grant of consent. (7) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer on the Revised Outline Habitat Management Plan and the Species Protection Plan being attached to any grant of consent. (8) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to suitably worded conditions to secure a BS4142 assessment for the BESS, limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation (operational turbine noise and amplitude modulation conditions) to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Council’s Noise Consultant. Page 68
Page 69
(9) Argyll & Bute has no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any grant of consent: • Watercourse crossings should be designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change (56% allowance) flood event. • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre- development surface water run-off, the surface water drainage should be in operation prior to construction (10) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Access subject to a condition to secure the recommendation of the Access Manager being attached to any grant of consent: • Outdoor Access Plan to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Council prior to the commencement of development. (11) Argyll & Bute Council requests that all conditions recommended by other consultees are included in any Consent. NOTE – Should any of the above matters be resolved to the satisfaction of the relevant consultees Argyll & Bute Council’s objection may be treated as withdrawn. (C) CONSULTATIONS ENERGY CONSENTS UNIT RESPONSES NatureScot (Landscape & Visual) (27th February 2026) – have advised the ECU that the proposal will have significant adverse effects on the Special Landscape Qualities (SLQs) of the North Arran National Scenic Area (NSA) such that the objectives of the designation and overall integrity of the area would be compromised. NatureScot therefore object. They consider that the proposal would result in significant adverse effects on two SLQs of the North Arran NSA in relation to the west coast: an exceptional area for outdoor recreation; and a distinctive coastline with a rich variety of forms. NatureScot are unable to reach a firm conclusion on the effects on the ‘An exceptional area for outdoor recreation’ SLQ in relation to the NSA hill areas without an onsite visit. This has not been possible during the consultation period. They will update their advice when it has been possible to conduct an onsite visit to these areas. NatureScot have considered other interests and taken them into account in reaching their conclusion. NatureScot (Ornithology and Ecology) (12th December 2025) – advised the ECU that the proposal could be progressed with appropriate mitigation. However, because it could affect internationally important natural heritage interests, NatureScot object to this proposal unless it is made subject to conditions so that the works are done strictly in accordance with the mitigation detailed in their appraisal relating to timing of disturbing works and vehicular movements. NatureScot offer advice only to the ECU on other ornithological and ecological matters. Additional Information - NatureScot additional comments (26th March 2026) advised the ECU that in relation to the North Arran NSA Western Hills and Southern Mountains, the proposal will significantly affect Special Landscape Qualities (SLQ) 7 – An exceptional area for outdoor recreation. However, NatureScot consider that Page 69
Page 70
impacts would not be to a degree where the integrity of these areas would be compromised. The conclusions stated in their previous response (27th February 2026) in relation to impacts on the West Coast of the North Arran NSA remain unchanged in that there would be significant adverse effects on SLQ 5 - A distinctive coastline with a rich variety of forms and SLQ 7 - An exceptional area for outdoor recreation such that the objectives of the designation and overall integrity of the area would be compromised. As such, they maintain their objection on this basis. RSPB Scotland (18th April 2025) – advised the ECU they note that the majority of the proposal’s infrastructure is sited within commercial forestry (a habitat generally considered to be of low biodiversity value). RSPB consider the proposals for the delivery of biodiversity enhancement should be improved. Details are provided regarding the following issues: the proposal’s shared boundary with Beinn an Tuirc wind farm and Deucheran Hill wind farm Habitat Management Plan area units, intended to support breeding Golden Eagle; the grid connection route for the proposal; and the delivery of biodiversity enhancement in line with NPF4. Additional Information - RSPB Scotland (16th October 2025) – advised the ECU they have no comment. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (13th January 2025) – advised the ECU they are concerned that that the proposal could potentially have some impact on migratory salmonid fish habitat downstream of the site. Although they do not have good information, the lower reach of the Torrisdale Water may be accessible to migratory salmonid fish. They therefore urge that in the event of the proposal being granted consent that monitoring of Water quality, macroinvertebrates, and fish should be undertaken to Scottish Government guidelines which include sites within the reaches of habitat where salmon may be present. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (17th February 2025) – advised the ECU they do not object, however they consider the conclusions reached within the cultural heritage chapter of the EIAR have underestimated the severity of impacts upon several heritage assets and their setting. Additional Information – Historic Environment Scotland (23rd September 2025) – advised the ECU they note the cumulative baseline has been updated to accurately present the updated cumulative position. Whilst these updates have not been reflected in any updates to the cultural heritage visualisations, they confirm they do not have any additional comments. Scottish Forestry (3rd March 2025) – advised the ECU that compensatory planting should be secured by a condition. Furthermore, that the appropriate consenting route for the management felling required to accommodate construction, including infrastructure and management felling, totalling 89.8ha would be the S36 consent. Restocking of management felling areas and compensatory planting relating to permanent woodland loss would also be via the S36 consent. Any felling and restocking not required for the development should follow the usual consenting routes under the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018. The expectation is that the Forest Plan will be renewed in 2026 when it is due to expire, to allow continued forest restructuring. Age Structure – the baseline felling plan of the FSA amounted to 24% in phase 1, 19% in phase 2 and 18% in phase 3 which represented a balanced felling pattern for a relatively even-aged crop. Table 13.8 outlines the proposed Felling Plan for the FSA which increases the Phase 1 felling area by 54% and reduced both the Phase Page 70
Page 71
2 and 3 felling to 5%. This is disproportionate to the forest area and does not exhibit Sustainable Forest Management as age-class diversity is not being implemented suitably. Consideration should be made for phased restocking to ensure age-class diversity is improved in line with the UK Forestry Standard by delaying restocking until adjacent restocked crop reaches a height of 2m. Additional Information – Scottish Forestry (16th October 2025) – advised the ECU the proposal should demonstrate full compliance with the UK Forestry Standard. Furthermore, that the Applicant considers their Felling and Restocking in the context of the Argyll & Bute LDP 2 and associated policies on Forestry and Forestry Removal in line with the adopted Forest and Woodland Strategy; and the Applicant clarifies the total area of permanent woodland loss to ensure that the correct area of Compensatory Planting is applied and Compensatory planting for the woodland lost should be secured by a condition. Applicant Response to Scottish Forestry (16th February 2026) – provided a response to Scottish Forestry’s requested clarifications in respect to compliance with UKFS 5th Edition, Beinn an Tuirc Extension Wind Farm Substation, total area of woodland loss, and phased restocking plan. Transport Scotland (TS) (14th February 2025) – advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions being attached to any consent to secure, the route for abnormal loads, abnormal load accommodation measures required, and any necessary additional signing or temporary traffic control measures. In addition, advisory notes are provided relating to works within the trunk road boundary. Additional Information – Transport Scotland (30th September 2025) – advised the ECU they have no comment to make on the Additional Information and the conclusions of their previous response remain valid. Network Rail (13th February 2025) - advised the ECU the proposal will have no impact on railway infrastructure and they have no comment. Additional Information – Network Rail (16th October 2025) – advised the ECU the proposal will have no impact on railway infrastructure and they have no comment. British Horse Society (18th February 2025) – provided advice to the ECU on outdoor access, the importance of off-road riding, and the horse and the rural economy. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (14th February 2025) – advised the ECU that due to a lack of information in relation to avoidance of peat and impacts on the water environment they submit a holding objection and request that determination is deferred until more information is provided on impacts on peat and impacts on the water environment has been provided for their assessment. SEPA also ask that the conditions for the submission of detailed finalised plans for borrow pit management and restoration prior to commencement of construction on site, a condition requiring all watercourse crossings to be designed as bottomless box/ arches or span bridges to protect the bed and banks of all watercourses, further details on potential forestry wastes be secured by condition prior to commencement of construction works, and a decommissioning plan condition be applied with any grant of consent. If any of these issues is not covered by condition, then SEPA’s position should be considered to be one of objection. Additional Information – SEPA (13th October 2025) advised the ECU due to impacts on peat and carbon rich soils, SEPA submit a holding objection and request that Page 71
Page 72
determination is deferred until further information and modifications have been provided for their assessment. They also request a micrositing condition that includes a caveat that micrositing will not be permitted into areas of greater peat depths or watercourse buffers further reduced. If this condition is not applied, then please consider this to be an objection. SEPA also note that further conditions have been requested in their previous response of 14 February 2025 Applicant response to SEPA (27th March 2026) – provided a response to the points raised by SEPA in relation to planning policy (NPF4 Policy 5 (Soils) and peat depth, disturbance, loss, restoration, carbon balance calculations, benefits of the proposal and mitigation. In conclusion, the Applicant believes they have demonstrated that the proposal fully accords with NPF4 Policy 5. SEPA (10th April 2026) – provided a further response to the Applicant and advise that Policy 5 of NPF4 states that “Where development on peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat is proposed, a detailed site-specific assessment will be required…. This assessment should inform careful project design and ensure, in accordance with relevant guidance and the mitigation hierarchy, that adverse impacts are first avoided and then minimised through best practice.” SEPA has developed a Planning Advice Note which summarises their approach to assessing the impact of developments on peatland and carbon rich soils. SEPA request clear justification as to why the modifications they requested in their response of 13 October 2025 cannot be accommodated. District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) (13th January 2025) – advised the ECU they are concerned that that the proposal could potentially have some impact on migratory salmonid fish habitat downstream of the site. Although they do not have good information, the lower reach of the Torrisdale Water may be accessible to migratory salmonid fish. They therefore urge that in the event of the proposal receiving consent that monitoring of Water quality, macroinvertebrates, and fish should be undertaken to Scottish Government guidelines which include sites within the reaches of habitat where salmon may be present. Scottish Water (18th February 2025) – advised the ECU they have no objection. They provide advice on Drinking Water Protected Areas and Surface Water. Additional Information – Scottish Water (22nd October 2025) – advised the ECU the Additional Information does not affect their original response. Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), Stage 1 Checking Report (PLHRA) (25th February2025) – advised the ECU the PLHRA requires resubmission as there are significant shortcomings throughout and reworking of the report is required to support a robust assessment. Whilst much of the PLHRA is considered to be reasonable, there are a number of issues requiring further attention. These include a lack of probing relative to published guidance and lack of detailed site-specific mitigation proposals for areas considered to be at potential risk of peat slide. Additional Information - Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), Stage 2 Checking Report (PLHRA) (3rd November 2025) – advised the ECU the developer’s response has addressed most of the queries raised in the Stage 1 Checking Report. However, there are some queries that require a further response in relation to: peat depth mapping with all probing points from both phases of investigation and provide interpolated peat depths accordingly, Figure 9.2.5 Geomorphology shows that there are areas of artificial drainage and forestry Page 72
Page 73
across the proposal but these do not appear to have been taken into consideration
as part of the likelihood assessment. Comment is required on if the likelihood
assessment can be considered suitably robust without their inclusion.
Applicant Response to Ironside Farrar PLHRA Stage 2 Checking Report (5th
December 2026) – the Applicant provided a response to the matters raised in Ironside
Farrar’s Stage 2 Checking Report.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (20th January 2025) – advised the ECU
that, subject to conditions to secure Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and
Safety Management they have no objection.
Additional Information – Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (5th
November 2025) – advised the ECU their position remains that, subject to conditions
relating to aviation safety lighting, and charting data being applied to any consent
they have no objection.
NATS Safeguarding (17th January 2025) – advised the ECU the proposal does not
conflict with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited
Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection.
Additional Information – NATS Safeguarding (24th September 2025) advised the
ECU they have no further comment.
Glasgow Airport (12th February 2025) – advised the ECU the proposal does not
conflict with safeguarding criteria. They, therefore, have no objection.
Additional Information – Glasgow Airport (27th October 2025) – advised the ECU
that their position remains as stated in their previous response – they have no
objection.
Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) (13th January 2025) – advised the ECU the
proposal is terrain shielded from the Primary Surveillance Radar at GPA and is well
clear of all Instrument Flight Procedures and associated protected surfaces.
Consequently, they have no comment or objection.
Highlands & Islands Airport (13th February 2025) – advised the ECU their
preliminary assessment shows that, at the given position and height, the proposal
may impact the safeguarding criteria and operation of Campbeltown Airport. HIAL
request that an Aviation Impact Feasibility Study (AIFS), is undertaken to understand
any impact on the infrastructure and operation of Campbeltown Airport. HIAL
currently submit a holding objection until the AIFS has been submitted to and
reviewed by them.
Additional Information - Scottish Fire & Rescue Service (15th October 2025) –
have advised the ECU they are assessing all BESS site applications at the moment
and there has been a working group established to consolidate all their departments
and provide unified responses to applications. Until this group completes its work,
National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) Best Practice guidance on BESS should be
followed.
Health & Safety Executive (21st January 2025) – advised the Energy Consents Unit
HSE’s interest in applications for consent to construct and operate electrical storage
stations such as this one is very limited. Health and safety issues are mainly dealt
with under health and safety law. HSE's Land Use Planning team have no comments.
Page 73Page 74
Additional Information - Health & Safety Executive (15th September 2025) – advised the ECU they have no comment. Office for Nuclear Regulation (10th January 2025) – advised the ECU they have no comment. The proposal does not lie within a consultation zone around a GB nuclear site. Additional Information – Office for Nuclear Regulation (15th September 2025) – advised the ECU they have no comment on this proposal as it does not lie within a consultation zone around a GB nuclear site. National Gas Transmission (14th January 2025) – advised the ECU there are no National Gas assets affected in this area. Scotia Gas Networks (SGN) (10th) – advised the ECU they do not have any High- Pressure assets within the vicinity of the above consultation and as such would have no comment/objection. Additional Information - Scotia Gas Networks (11th September 2025) – advised the ECU they do not have any High-Pressure assets within the vicinity of the proposal and have no comment/objection. SSEN Transmission - Land Team (10th January 2025) – advised the ECU that upon review of the proposal's location relative to their existing operational transmission assets, they do not foresee the proposal having an adverse impact on their critical national infrastructure's continued safe operation. Therefore, SSEN Transmission has no objection to this S36 ELA 1989 application. SSEN Transmission – Land Team (12th September 2025) – advised the ECU that the site is c. 2.5km away from their nearest existing operational asset, Carradale substation, and therefore they do not have any concerns about its impact on existing operational assets. West Kintyre Community Council (25th February 2025) – have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of visual and landscape concerns, noise pollution, community disruption, tourism, and economic considerations. Additional Information – West Kintyre Community Council (17th October 2025) - have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of visual and landscape concerns, noise pollution, community disruption, tourism, and economic considerations. Arran Community Council (19th February 2025) – advised the ECU they wish to object on the grounds of adverse visual effect that the project will have on the West coast of the Isle of Arran, from Lochranza to below Blackwaterfoot, adverse impact on tourism, without benefitting the local areas amenities or economic sustainability. Additional Information - Arran Community Council (15th October 2025) – advised the ECU their position remains the same. East Kintyre Community Council (20th January 2025) – advised the ECU they object on the grounds of visual, economic, and inefficient net-zero impact. Additional Information – East Kintyre Community Council (15th September 2025) – raised concerns with the ECU in regard to the adverse impact the proposal will Page 74
Page 75
have on the East Kintyre APQ; proposed location on the highest hill in Kintyre and wind shear – proposal will not produce the power claimed; the Applicant has done nothing (again) to mitigate the APQ destruction and advise all previous points raised in their initial objection still stand. BT (17th January 2025) - have studied the proposal with respect to EMC and related problems to BT point-to-point microwave radio links. The conclusion is that the proposal should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. Additional Information – BT (19th September 2025) – advised the ECU they have studied the additional information with respect to EMC and related problems to BT point-to-point microwave radio links. The conclusion is that the Project indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio network. Joint Radio Company (14th January 2025) – advised the ECU this proposal is cleared - subject to 75m Micrositing - with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. Additional Information – Joint Radio Company (18th September 2025) – advised the ECU the proposal is *cleared* - subject to 50m Micrositing - with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. Scotways (18th March 2025) – advised the ECU they have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions being attached to any grant of consent to ensure that OR SA162 and the Kintyre Way remain free from obstruction; to secure an Access Management Plan; and to control temporary closure or diversion to SA162, the Kintyre Way or any clearly define access routes within the site to be agreed with Argyll & Bute Council; design of gates to permit access by all non-vehicular user categories (walkers, cyclists and equestrians); turbines to be sited at least the maximum blade tip height away from access routes within the site; new and upgraded tracks to be blinded with whin dust; installation of appropriate signage warning of passing vehicular traffic; and extension of the access track to Turbine 1 to the western boundary of the site and signposted as a route to the summit of Beinn an Tuirc. Additional Information - Scotways (5th November 2025) – advised the ECU they have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions being attached to any grant of consent to ensure that OR SA162 and the Kintyre Way remain free from obstruction; to secure an Access Management Plan; and to control temporary closure or diversion to SA162, the Kintyre Way or any clearly define access routes within the site to be agreed with Argyll & Bute Council; design of gates to permit access by all non-vehicular user categories (walkers, cyclists and equestrians); turbines to be sited at least the maximum blade tip height away from access routes within the site; new and upgraded tracks to be blinded with whin dust; installation of appropriate signage warning of passing vehicular traffic; and extension of the access track to Turbine 1 to the western boundary of the site and signposted as a route to the summit of Beinn an Tuirc. North Ayrshire Council (20th March 2025) – advised the ECU that the proposal has the potential to result in significant adverse impacts on the Special Qualities of the North Arran NSA. It is requested that full consideration of the potential impacts on the Special Qualities is undertaken when determining the suitability of the proposal. Additional Information – North Ayrshire (10th October 2025) - advised the ECU that the proposal has the potential to result in significant adverse impacts on the Page 75
Page 76
Special Qualities of the North Arran NSA. It is requested that full consideration of the potential impacts on the Special Qualities is undertaken when determining the suitability of the proposal. Argyll & Bute Council Consultee Responses Consultant Landscape Architect (2nd April 2025) – concludes that the proposal is discretely placed within the wider ranging overall landform of the Study Area with little theoretical visibility shown over much of Kintyre but the fact that the site is located close to the undeveloped eastern coastline of Kintyre results in local significant landscape and visual effects to the scenic east coast of Kintyre in locations which are currently have no views of wind farm development. The arrangement of the turbines is considered generally appropriate for the site and decreasing the size of the turbines or removing a small number would be unlikely to lessen the significance of effects. Landscape - There would be limited visibility of the wind farm from the East Kintyre APQ due to screening by landform and vegetation, but the areas of the APQ from which there would be visibility to the turbines currently have no visibility of existing wind development. Important vistas from Saddell Abbey, Saddell Castle and House, Saddell Bay with the Anthony Gormley statue, Torrisdale Estate, Torrisdale Bay and Carradale Bay and Carradale Point would all have visibility introduced of the West Torrisdale turbines. The EIAR finds that the integrity of the East Kintyre APQ would not be significantly affected however, my view is that the proposals would significantly affect key views and important landscape qualities of the APQ. The proposal does not comply with guidance provided in ABLWECS, particularly on the height of the turbines and the “need to also avoid introducing significant areas of new visibility and intrusion into the sensitive Carradale/Saddell area on the east coast of Kintyre.” This protection for the Carradale/Saddell area within ABLWECS is not discussed within the LVIA despite it clearly being an issue with this development. The development would also affect views from the North Arran NSA and North Arran WLA but this was not found to be significant in the EIAR and I found in agreement with this. However, the larger scale of the turbines and their proximity to the east coast of Kintyre means that the proposal would be more noticeable in views from Arran than other wind developments, particularly from the A841 coastal road. The West Torrisdale turbines would be seen in long distance views as part of the Beinn an Tuirc group, appearing noticeably larger than others in this group, but this may be a temporary effect if repowering of the existing wind farms takes place in the future. There is a danger of gradual encroachment on wild qualities of both the North Arran NSA and WLA from further developments in Kintyre. This cumulatively risks a ‘pin cushion’ / ‘windfarm landscape’ effect for the entire Kintyre peninsula when seen from Arran. Development is currently restricted to the central spine of the peninsula where views are more contained within Kintyre, with the more sensitive southern and eastern coasts having a measure of protection provided by the APQs. Visual - Close range views to the proposal will affect secluded highly scenic east coast settlements such as Port Righ, Torrisdale and Saddell which do not currently have visibility of any wind farm development. It is considered that the effects upon the settlements of Carradale and Saddell are downplayed within the report and in particular residents at the picturesque settlement of Port Righ would experience Page 76
Page 77
direct views to the wind farm above them on the hills to the west and this has not been recognised within the LVIA. The LVIA finds the effects on views experienced at Torrisdale, Carradale Golf Club and Carradale Fort significant. The effect experienced at viewpoint 9 at Saddell is found to be not significant which I am not in agreement with. Additionally, I consider that if an LVIA viewpoint from Saddell Bay had been included (Cultural Heritage viewpoint10) the effect would have been found significant. LVIA and RVAA - The ZTVs provided are not sufficiently detailed and additional ZTV figures at a higher resolution focussed on the inner study area would allow for a more accurate review of the assessments of landscape and visual effects. The RVAA is not fully comprehensive and supplementary material (detailed ZTV, photography and wirelines) is required for a professional review of RVAA judgements. Key Viewpoints to be considered by the Planning Committee • Fig 4.9: Vp1 B842, Torrisdale Bay • Fig 4.10: Vp2 Dougarie Point, Arran • Fig 4.11: Vp3 Summit of Beinn Tarsuinn, Arran • Fig 4.14: Vp6 Carradale Fort • Fig 4.15: Vp7 Kintyre Way, Torrisdale • Fig 4.16: Vp8 B879 at Carradale • Fig 4.25: Vp17 Carradale Golf Club • Fig 5.12: Cultural Heritage Vp10 Saddell Bay Additional Information – Consultant Landscape Architect (Jacobs) (21st October 2025) – concludes that the Applicant has provided a revised Planning Statement and Additional Information in connection with cumulative effects, RVAA and the North Arran NSA. However, the following concerns raised by the Jacobs L&V review of the SLVIA in April 2025 have not been addressed: • The inadequate legibility of ZTV material supplied. • Visibility of the scheme and lack of assessment from the settlements of Port Righ, Torrisdale and Saddell. • Significant effects upon the integrity of the East Kintyre Local Landscape Area (referred to as an APQ in the report and here). • Non-compliance with ABLWECS regarding the need to avoid introducing significant areas of new visibility and intrusion into the sensitive Carradale/Saddell area on the east coast of Kintyre. • Insufficient RVAA submission material required for full analysis of whether the Residential Visual Amenity Threshold has been exceeded. Applicant Response to Jacobs (17th February 2026) – the Applicant submitted a letter and accompanying figures to provide clarification on the matters raised by the Councils Landscape Consultant (Jacobs) review of the Additional Information Report. Consultant Landscape Architect (Jacobs) (30th March 2026) - Jacobs’ Overall Conclusion - Following a review of the additional information, figures and appendix that Ramboll have provided in the letter, Jacobs believe that there will be the following additional effects from the West Torrisdale scheme to those reported in the Ramboll Page 77
Page 78
SLVIA and the additional information supplied: Significant effects upon the integrity of the East Kintyre LLA; The West Torrisdale development will run counter to advice in ALBWECS to protect the sensitive east coast of Kintyre from wind development; and Settlements at Carradale, Torrisdale and Saddell will experience significant effects. In addition to the effects upon the LLA and settlements, increasing the spread of wind development across an additional part of the Kintyre peninsula which currently has no wind development is likely to reduce the scenic qualities of the Kintyre peninsula as a whole, decreasing the economic benefits from tourism for this remote mainland area of natural beauty. Additional Information - West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) (4th December 2025) – no objection subject to a condition to secure a written scheme of investigation to be agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeological Service. Local Biodiversity Officer (1st May 2025) – provides advice and recommendations on Designated Sites (Torrisdale Cliffs SSSI, Tangy Loch SSSI, Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA, RAMSAR, SSSI), Habitat, Peatland, European Protected Species (Bats, Otter, Badger, Red Squirrel, Water Vole, Wildcat, Pine Marten, Reptiles and Amphibians, Fish, and Macroinvertebrates), Ornithology (Moorland Bird Species, Black Grouse, Golden eagle, Osprey, Hen Harrier, and Golden Plover), Bird Protection Plan, Habitat Management Plan, Brown Trout and European eels, Species Protection Plan, and Construction Environmental Management Plan. Additional Information – Local Biodiversity Officer (23rd September 2025) – has provided advice on the revised outline Habitat Management Plan, Species Protection Plan, and Bird Protection Plan. Noise Consultant (2nd April 2025) – advised that the desktop review and site survey conclude that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the Applicant, with a few issues identified. The most significant of these issues are: • The measured background noise levels that are relied upon by the Applicant to inform the noise limits should be reprocessed (in accordance with Institute of Acoustics Good Practice Guide) to eliminate the influence of the Beinn an Tuirc wind farm and its extensions, which operational at the time of the survey • The EIAR Chapter 11 Section 11.2.7 presents noise emission data for the Vestas V136 4.2 MW candidate turbine that is used as a basis for the assessment of operational noise impacts. However, the Project Description Chapter 2 Proposed Development Section 2.3.1 states that the candidate will be rated up to 6 MW. Furthermore, Chapter 11 Noise Section 11.2.4 gives a value of 5 MW. A turbine rated at 6 MW is likely to produce noise that is greater than a 4.2 MW turbine. Therefore, there is a risk that predicted noise levels underestimate the impact of the Proposed Development • Confirmation of the correction of predicted LAeq to give LA90 by subtracting 2 dB is not stated. • Confirmation that there are no derelict residential properties within the study area is not given. • There is no discussion on noise from the 20 MW Battery Energy Storage System and its proximity to noise sensitive receptors to justify the absence of a qualitative or quantitative assessment. It is likely to be low risk but some justification should be given. Minor observations include: Page 78
Page 79
• The receptors at Dippen and Greenhill, which were requested by East Kintyre Community Council during scoping to be included in the assessment, are shown to fall within the 25 dB LA90 contour used to define the study area but have not been considered. However, the noise impacts at these receptors are expected to be well below the noise limits. Following a satisfactory response to the above issues from the Applicant, it is considered that there would be no reasons to object to the proposed development on noise grounds. A suitably worded condition to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation should be applied to control noise levels from the Proposed Development. Additional Information - Noise Consultant (2nd October 2025) – reviewed the additional information provided by the applicant, and responded as follows: • They have reprocessed the background noise levels to eliminate the influence of the Beinn an Tuirc wind farm – this is considered to be acceptable. • They have updated the noise modelling to consider a worse-case wind turbine (Enercon E136 EP5 4.65 MW instead of Vestas V136 4.2MW) – this is considered to be acceptable. • They have confirmed the correction from LAeq to LA90– this is considered to be acceptable. • They have confirmed that there are no derelict residential properties within the study area – this is considered to be acceptable. • They have provided new derivations of noise limits based on full ETSU-R-97 values for each affected receptor – these are fine, subject to the note below regarding lower fixed limits and partial levels. They have not addressed the following: • There is no justification on noise from the 20 MW BESS – the risk of this becoming a problem remains low. • They have not considered the receptors at Dippen and Greenhill which were requested by East Kintyre Community Council – again, this is not considered to be an issue as these receptors are outside the study area. • Lower fixed limits – the Council has requested that 38 dB lower limit at night be used – this can be dealt with in the condition’s discussion. • They have not provided apportioned limits for this wind farm specifically (to allow headroom for other developments) – this can be dealt with in the condition’s discussion. To summarise, the clarifications provided by the Applicant are largely satisfactory, and therefore their previous conclusions remain valid. The Noise Consultant would recommend that consideration is firstly given to the adoption of the 38 dB lower fixed limit at night, and that noise limits for the scheme are set using partial levels as opposed to full ETSU-R-97 limits, to allow headroom for other future schemes. A reduction of 1dB daytime and 3dB nighttime to the full ETSU-R-97 derived limits would appear to still allow this scheme to come forward with sufficient headroom and allow headroom for another scheme. ABC Roads and Amenity Services (2nd May 2025) – no objection. The site connects directly to the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road, Transport Scotland should be notified. The B842 is not suitable to support this construction or delivery of infrastructure components. Page 79
Page 80
Additional Information – ABC Roads and Amenity Services (23rd September 2025) – no objection. The site connects directly to the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road, Transport Scotland should be notified. The B842 is not suitable to support this construction or delivery of infrastructure components. Flood Risk Assessor (12th May 2025) – no objection subject to conditions to ensure watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change (56% allowance) flood event; surface water drainage should be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensure that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water run-off. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to construction. Additional Information – Flood Risk Assessor (2nd October 2025) – no objection subject to conditions to ensure watercourse crossings are designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change (56% allowance) flood event; surface water drainage should be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensure that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water run-off. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to construction. Additional Information - Access Manager (28th November 2025) – has no objections to the proposed development. However, they have advised the application does not include an Outdoor Access Plan as required by Policy 32 – Active Travel in the Local Development Plan. Should consent be granted for this proposal it is recommended that a condition is attached to secure the provision of an Outdoor Access Plan to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Please note: the above are summaries and the full consultee responses can be viewed on the Energy Consent Unit and Argyll & Bute Council websites. (D) HISTORY: 21/00341/SCOPE - S36 Scoping consultation for proposed wind farm (12no turbines up to 149.9m high to blade tip), West Torrisdale Wind Farm Approx 4km South West Of Carradale Kintyre, Argyll & Bute – Opinion Issued 20th April 2021. (E) PUBLICITY: As the Council is not the Determining Authority the ECU oversees the Publicity of the application. Public Consultation – Whilst not a statutory requirement for Section 36 applications, the applicant has undertaken Public Consultation. Public exhibitions were held on the 9th, 10th, and 11th December 2021. A summary of the representations received during the public exhibitions is provided in the Statement of Community Consultation which accompanies this Section 36 application available on the ECU website (reference ECU00002224). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: As the Council is not the determining Authority any letters of representation are considered by the ECU. At time of writing, the ECU are in receipt of 27 objections. The main concerns raised relate to: Page 80
Page 81
• Adverse Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact • Adverse Impact on Residential Amenity • Adverse Cultural Heritage Impact • Adverse ornithological impact – golden eagles, hen harrier, osprey, peregrine falcons, and other protected species • Adverse hydrological impact – concerns proposal will contribute to flooding. • Adverse Ecological Impact – peatland and wildlife • Adverse Impact on Tourism and Economy • Adverse Traffic, Roads Safety and Construction Impact • Adverse Noise Impact and Shadow Flicker • Adverse Impact on Private Water Supplies • Adverse Impact Walking routes and the Kintyre Way • Adverse Impact of Grid Connection – Landscape & Visual concerns, concern that grid connection is treated as a separate application though impacts are linked. • Adverse Cumulative Impact – Kintyre has reached saturation in terms of wind farm developments. • Contrary to Planning Policy • Concern proposal will set a precedent for development on the East Kintyre side of the ridge. • Battery Storage Safety and fire risk • Efficiency of wind turbine technology and energy output • Grid Capacity and curtailment. • Lack of Local Employment Benefit • Limited Community Benefits • Scotland no longer needs more renewable energy of this type. • Support for East Kintyre Community Councils Objection Note: The comments raised above are addressed in the assessment of the proposal at Appendix A of this report. Note: Please note that the representations above have been summarised, and the full letters of representation are available on the ECU website. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR): Yes The EIAR (November 2024) comprises the following volumes: • Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary • Volume 2: Main Report • Volume 3a: Figures • Volume 3b: Visualisations • Volume 4: Technical Appendices • Volume 5: Confidential Key topics covered in the EIAR include: • Chapter 1 Introduction • Chapter 2 Proposed Development Page 81
Page 82
• Chapter 3 Design Evolution • Chapter 4 Seascape, Landscape and Visual Amenity • Chapter 5 Cultural Heritage • Chapter 6 Ecology • Chapter 7 Ornithology • Chapter 8 Hydrology and Hydrogeology • Chapter 9. Geology and Soils • Chapter 10 Traffic, Transport and Access • Chapter 11 Noise • Chapter 12 Aviation and Telecommunications • Chapter 13 Forestry • Chapter 14 Shadow Flicker • Chapter 15 Schedule of Environmental Commitments In addition, the following documents are also provided in support of the application: • Planning Statement • Design and Access Statement • Statement of Community Consultation Additional Information was submitted on the 8th of September 2025 The Additional Information (AI) Report (August 2025) has been prepared to address information requests from consultees during the statutory application consultation period. The AI Report should be read in conjunction with the EIA Report (EIAR), and together both documents ensure all relevant information is available to Scottish Ministers and consultees when considering the application. The AI Report includes the following: • Volume 1: Additional Information - Main Report • Volume 2a: Additional Information – Figures • Volume 2b: Additional Information – Visuals • Volume 3: Additional Information - Technical Appendices In addition, the Planning and Energy Policy Statement has also been updated in support of the application. The AI Report comprises three volumes: • AI Volume 1: Main Report: - Chapter 1: Introduction. - Chapter 2: Seascape, Landscape and Visual. - Chapter 3: Ecology. - Chapter 4: Ornithology. - Chapter 5: Hydrology and Hydrogeology. - Chapter 6: Geology and Soils; and - Chapter 7: Noise. • AI Volume 2a: Figures. • AI Volume 2b: Visualisations; and • AI Volume 3: Technical Appendices. (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: NatureScot will advise the ECU Page 82
Page 83
(iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: Yes (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04): Not required proposal accompanied by full EIAR. (v) A report on the impact of the proposal e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: All relevant reports are encompassed within the EIAR. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been considered in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations considered in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 33 – Minerals Annex B – National Statements of Need 3. Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) (Adopted 2024) Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Policy 31 – Minerals Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Page 83
Page 84
Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 56 – Land Erosion Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Policy 70 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact on Sites of International Importance Policy 75 - Development Impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Policy 76 - Development Impact on Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 80 - Geodiversity (ii) List of all other relevant planning considerations considered in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013 • Scottish Energy Strategy (2017) • Onshore Wind Policy Statement (2022) • Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan (2023) • Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Renewable Energy Developments, Scottish Government, 2019 • Onshore Wind Turbines: Planning Advice, Scottish Government (May 2014) • The Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, 2017 (LWECS) • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment – Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (2013) • Scottish Natural Heritage – Visual Representation of Wind Farms Guidance (Version 2.2, 2017) • Scottish Natural Heritage - Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance (Version 3a, 2017) • Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (2019) • Scottish Government, Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity, 2023 • The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 • Managing Change in the Historic Environment • PAN 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’ (March 2011) • Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) • UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) • PAN 60 – Planning for Natural Heritage (Jan 2008) • Views of statutory and other consultees • Planning history of the site • Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an EIAR: No, an EIAR was required. Page 84
Page 85
(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No - PAC is not required for S36 applications. (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: No (O) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No (P) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 9th April 2026 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 9th April 2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 85
Page 86
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/00043/S36 COMMITTEE REPORT PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME 1.1 Any application for an onshore power generating station with an installed capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any authorisation given includes a deemed planning permission. Consequently, there is no need for a planning application to be made to the Council. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee. 1.2 The Development Plan is not the starting point for considering S36 applications. The reason for this is that sections of the Planning Act which establish the primacy of Development Plan Policy in decision making are not engaged. NPF4 and LDP2 form the Development Plan. Whilst they do not have primacy in S36 decision making, they remain an important consideration to inform the Council’s consultation response. 1.3 Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act requires the applicant and the decision maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the developer shall have regard to: (a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings, and objects of architectural, historical, or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings, or objects. 1.4 It obliges the Scottish Ministers as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at (a) and the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty at (b). 1.5 Assessment of the proposal against the policies of NPF4 and LDP2 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent that the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties. 1.6 The Council can either support or object and recommend conditions to be imposed if consent is granted by Scottish Ministers. If an objection is raised by the Council on or after 18.02.26, (due to changes brought in by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025) the Scottish Ministers are no longer obliged to automatically hold a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they are minded to grant consent as was previously the case. The application will be referred to the DPEA, and the appointed Reporter would determine whether a Public Inquiry, Hearing or Written Representation Procedure is considered by them to be the appropriate procedure. Page 86
Page 87
1.7 If consent is granted the Council as Planning Authority is responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, ongoing monitoring, and enforcement. 1.8 The recent Raeshaw v Scottish Ministers decision concluded that the grid connection should be considered in the EIAR for onshore wind. This may have implications for this application but is a matter for the ECU as Determining Authority. 1.9 This report considers the relevant policy considerations, planning merits, views of consultees and representations. It recommends views to be conveyed to the ECU for consideration before a decision is made. 2. SPATIAL AND SETTLEMENT STRATEGY 2.1 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas establishes acceptable scales of development in three different zones. The wind farm site is located within Remote Countryside, which only supports specific categories of development. This includes renewable energy related development. In principle, Policy 02 supports renewable energy and ancillary development in these areas, providing they are consistent with all other relevant LDP2 Policies. With respect to the requirement for developments to accord with all other relevant policies, particular attention is drawn to Policies 70 to 76 with respect to landscape and the natural environment. Proposals must also demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (individual or cumulative) on natural heritage, built and/or cultural heritage, and landscape and visual amenity. 2.2 Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA) - requires that proposals in or affecting a LLA must demonstrate that: a) any significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community wide importance; b) The proposal is supported by a landscape and visual impact assessment and has taken account of the content of any relevant Argyll & Bute Landscape Capacity Assessment; and c) The location, scale, design, materials and landscaping would be of a high standard and would safeguard or enhance the special qualities and character of the Local Landscape Area. 2.3 Policy 04 – Sustainable Development requires that in preparing new proposals developers should demonstrate the following sustainable development principles (where relevant) such as: maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services; conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets; respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; avoid places with significant risk of flooding, or ground instability and avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air and water environment. This application is supported by an EIAR which sets out in detail the measures proposed to ensure the proposal is ‘Sustainable Development.’ 2.4 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP2 provide the primary policy framework for assessing renewable energy proposals. In this case, due to the objections from NatureScot, SEPA and Page 87
Page 88
Highlands & the Islands Airport, and lack of confirmation from Ironside Farrar and Scottish Forestry that the proposal meets their requirements and the advice of the Councils Landscape Consultant Landscape Architect the proposal is contrary to development plan policy relating to the spatial and settlement strategy which requires proposals to be consistent with all relevant policies. 2.5 Having due regard to the above, this proposal is contrary to the provisions of LDP 2 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas and LDP Policy 04 – Sustainable Development. 3. ENERGY & SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF RENEWABLES 3.1 Argyll & Bute Council is keen to ensure that Argyll & Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, reinforced by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development, and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects. 3.2 This proposal has been assessed primarily against the two lead Statutory Development Plan policies relating to renewable energy, Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2. Other policies are referred to where relevant. 4. LOCATION, NATURE, AND DESIGN OF PROPOSAL 4.1 The overall application boundary covers an area of approx. 391ha. The area where the wind turbines are located covers an area of approximately 221 ha and is located east of the A83 and west of the B834 approx. 4km southwest of Carradale. 4.2 The site covers an area if approx. 391 hectares (ha) and is located east of the A83 and west of the B834 approx. 4km southwest of Carradale. Operational wind farms are an existing feature of the surrounding landscape. The operational Beinn an Tuirc I, II and III are located approx. 0.87km and 2.19km west and 3.9km southwest of the wind turbine array. These wind farms have tip heights of 64m, 100m, and 126m, respectively. 4.3 The Proposed Development includes the following key components: • Up to 9 wind turbines, each up to a maximum tip height of 149.9m (of up to 6 MW) • Permanent foundations supporting each wind turbine. • Associated crane hardstanding at each wind turbine location. • An external transformer at each wind turbine location • A series of new on-site access tracks (approx. 4.9 km) with associated watercourse crossings where necessary and upgraded sections of existing access track (approx. 18.7 km) • Underground electrical cabling within the Wind Turbine Array Page 88
Page 89
• A compound containing control building, substation (including outdoor transformer and control equipment) a BESS (of up to 20 MW) and LiDAR • Temporary construction compounds including for construction, security, and materials handling. • Search areas for three borrow pits. 4.4 Access to the proposal would be taken from the existing Beinn an Tuirc Wind Farm track network. It is estimated that construction would take approx. 22 months. The expected operational lifetime of the proposal is 35 years from the date of commissioning following which decommissioning of the wind turbines and other infrastructure would be undertaken. Infrastructure 4.5 Connection to Electricity Grid – The grid connection would be the responsibility of the transmission licence holder (Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN)) and would be subject to a separate consenting process. The details of the grid connection route are unknown at this stage and have not been included within the assessment in the EIAR. 4.6 Scottish Water – have advised the ECU that they have no objection. Advice is provided on Drinking Water Protected Areas, and Surface Water. 4.7 Drinking Water Protected Areas – they have confirmed there are no Scottish Water drinking water catchments or water abstraction sources, which are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas under the Water Framework Directive, in the area that may be affected by the proposal. 4.8 Surface Water – for reasons of sustainability and to protect customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water have advised that they will not accept any surface water connections into their combined sewer system. 4.9 Private Water supplies (PWS) – SEPA have advised the ECU that the EIAR states that “Mitigation to prevent pollution impacts on any downstream PWS (Private Water Supply) would be set out in a Water Management Plan which would form part of the CEMP.” The EIAR states that “The nearest Private Water Supply (PWS) (Torrisdale Castle) is located approximately 540m east of the Wind Turbine Array.” As this is out with 250m buffer zone of any excavations, SEPA are content for further assessments to be set out in the Water Management Plan and need only be consulted on this should any assessments demonstrate impacts. 4.10 Network Rail have advised the ECU the proposal will have no impact on railway infrastructure and they have no comment. 4.11 Health & Safety Executive have advised the Energy Consents Unit HSE’s interest in applications for consent to construct and operate electrical storage stations such as this one is very limited. Health and safety issues are mainly dealt with under health and safety law. HSE's Land Use Planning team have no comments. The Office for Nuclear have advised the ECU they have no comment. The proposal does not lie within a consultation zone around a GB nuclear site. National Gas Transmission have advised the ECU there are no National Gas assets affected in this area. Scotia Gas Networks (SGN) have advised the ECU Page 89
Page 90
they do not have any High-Pressure assets within the vicinity of the above consultation and as such would have no comment/objection. SSEN Transmission - Land Team have advised the ECU that upon review of the proposal's location relative to their existing operational transmission assets, they do not foresee the proposal having an adverse impact on their critical national infrastructure's continued safe operation. Therefore, SSEN Transmission has no objection. 5. NET ECONOMIC IMPACT, INCLUDING LOCAL AND COMMUNITY SOCIO- ECONOMIC BENEFITS 5.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 states that proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio- economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP 2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed in terms of net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. 5.2 Socio-Economic Impact – the proposal would deliver a series of economic benefits during its construction and development phase, namely, £4.8 million Gross Value Added (GVA) and 70 years of employment in Argyll & Bute; £13.1 million GVA and 190 years of employment in Scotland; and supporting 120 jobs in Scotland at its peak. 5.3 The economic benefits associated with this proposal relating to job creation and benefits to the local economy from the influx of construction workers, by spending on accommodation, eating out and visiting local attractions are a relevant consideration, which has been considered. Community Benefit is not however, a ‘material planning consideration’ in the determination of planning applications, as there is no planning mechanism available to secure it. If consent were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process. 5.4 West Kintyre, East Kintyre and Arran Community Councils have all advised the Energy Consents Unit that they object to this proposal on the grounds of tourism and economic considerations. 5.5 Having due regard to the above it is considered a degree of net economic impact including local and community socio-economic benefits typical of such developments will be provided. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewable of LDP2 in this regard. 6. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY, VISUAL IMPACT, NOISE AND SHADOW FLICKER 6.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including residential amenity, visual impact, noise, and shadow flicker have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires Page 90
Page 91
all applications for renewable developments to be assessed in terms of impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity noise, and shadow flicker (including cumulative). Noise 6.2 ABC Noise Consultant - Additional Information - reviewed the additional information provided by the applicant, and responded as follows: • They have reprocessed the background noise levels to eliminate the influence of the Beinn an Tuirc wind farm – this is considered to be acceptable. • They have updated the noise modelling to consider a worse-case wind turbine (Enercon E136 EP5 4.65 MW instead of Vestas V136 4.2MW) – this is considered to be acceptable. • They have confirmed the correction from LAeq to LA90– this is considered to be acceptable. • They have confirmed that there are no derelict residential properties within the study area – this is considered to be acceptable. • They have provided new derivations of noise limits based on full ETSU-R-97 values for each affected receptor – these are fine, subject to the note below regarding lower fixed limits and partial levels. They have not addressed the following: • There is no justification on noise from the 20 MW BESS – the risk of this becoming a problem remains low. • They have not considered the receptors at Dippen and Greenhill which were requested by East Kintyre Community Council – again, this is not considered to be an issue as these receptors are outside the study area. • Lower fixed limits – the Council has requested that 38 dB lower limit at night be used – this can be dealt with in the condition’s discussion. • They have not provided apportioned limits for this wind farm specifically (to allow headroom for other developments) – this can be dealt with in the condition’s discussion. 6.3 To summarise, the clarifications provided by the Applicant are largely satisfactory, and therefore our previous conclusions remain valid. Please note that we would recommend that consideration is firstly given to the adoption of the 38 dB lower fixed limit at night, and that noise limits for the scheme are set using partial levels as opposed to full ETSU-R-97 limits, to allow headroom for other future schemes. A reduction of 1dB daytime and 3dB nighttime to the full ETSU-R-97 derived limits would appear to still allow this scheme to come forward with sufficient headroom and allow headroom for another scheme. Shadow Flicker 6.4 Shadow flicker is caused by the moving shadow of the turbine rotor being cast over a narrow opening, such as a window or open door. The assessment considered the potential impacts on residential amenity resulting from shadow flicker during operation of the proposal. Page 91
Page 92
6.5 The assessment indicates that there are two properties within the shadow flicker Study Area. The potential effect at both properties is considered to be not significant due to the shadow flicker not breaching more than 30 hours of shadow flicker per year. 6.6 Therefore, no significant residual effects from shadow flicker are assessed during the operation of the proposal. Based on wind turbine locations and shadow length, it is also assessed that there would be no cumulative operational effects from shadow flicker. 6.7 West Kintyre Community Council have advised the Energy Consents Unit that the object on the grounds of noise pollution and community disruption 6.8 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Councils Noise Consultant being attached to any grant of consent it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 in this respect. 7. SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS 7.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how significant landscape and visual impacts have been addressed, recognising that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy. Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable. Policy 4 a) - Natural Places of NPF4 states that proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments are assessed against landscape and visual impacts. 7.2 The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architects Jacob’s – in their most recent response have provided the following advice. 7.3 Introduction - In April 2025 Jacobs prepared a review on behalf of Argyll & Bute Council of the Seascape Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (SLVIA) accompanying this S36 application. Jacobs subsequently prepared an Additional Information Review (October 2025). The Applicant’s landscape consultant Ramboll responded to the above Jacobs reviews in a letter dated 17th February 2026. This responds provides Jacobs’ comments on Ramboll’s most recent response to Argyll & Bute Council. 7.4 The first matter raised by Jacob’s was that Higher resolution Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) figures should be provided. Detailed ZTVs have now been supplied as requested by Jacobs. Landscape Effects upon the East Kintyre (Coast) Local Landscape Area (LLA) 7.5 Landscape Effects upon the East Kintyre (Coast) Local Landscape Area (LLA) – The Applicant provided the following comments: “LLA Special Qualities East Kintyre LLA is a non-statutory landscape designation. The area has been designated by ABC for its scenic qualities. There is no published description of Page 92
Page 93
the special qualities or qualifying features of the LLA or a description of key views. There is a coastal focus to the LLA and views are mainly out into Kilbrannan Sound and across to the Isle of Arran or along the coast. In the absence of a citation and list of Special Landscape Quality (SLQ), the SLVIA has used descriptions of the key characteristics of landscape character types (LCT) that coincide with the LLA. The SLVIA has also used five assessment viewpoints located in the LLA and field survey work to understand the landscape and visual character of the whole LLA and the implications of visibility of the Proposed Development which is located outside the designated area. “ 7.6 In response, Jacob’s have advised: East Kintyre LLA is not a nationally designated landscape but its integrity and qualities have protection within both NPF4 and LDP2. NPF4 states in Policy 4 d) “Development proposals that affect a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where: I. Development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified; or II. Any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area are clearly outweighed by social, environmental, or economic benefits of at least local importance.” 7.7 LPD2 states in Policy 71 – “Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA) - Argyll & Bute Council will resist development in, or affecting, a Local Landscape Area where its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. All development proposals in or affecting a Local Landscape Area must demonstrate that: …c) The location, scale, design, materials, and landscaping would be of a high standard and would safeguard or enhance the special qualities and character of the Local Landscape Area.” 7.8 Guidance on how to identify the special qualities for a LLA is provided in Guidance on Designating LLAs (NS & HES 2002) which provides a Range of Evaluation Criteria. These criteria include ‘Scenic, Cultural, Natural, Recreation and Enjoyment, Local Distinctiveness & Sense of Place, Health & Wellbeing and Important Spatial Function.’ Additionally, the Landscape Institute provide Technical Guidance Note LITG 20/02: Assessing Landscape Value Outside National Designations which gives a range of factors with explanations and examples to consider when identifying landscape value. These factors include ‘Natural heritage, Cultural heritage, Landscape condition, Associations, Distinctiveness, Recreational, Perceptual (scenic), Perceptual (wildness and tranquillity) and Functional.’ 7.9 Ramboll’s approach of using the Landscape Character Types (LCT) as a substitute for the special qualities of the LLA results in a repeat of the EIAR landscape character assessment and does not fully consider crucial factors such as the specific local distinctiveness and sense of place, scenic & cultural value, local key views and the setting of important heritage assets of the LLA. The SNH LCT study used for this purpose comprises a typology of landscape character areas with descriptions that broadly apply to various areas across Scotland, thus giving little specifically local analysis of the East Kintyre LLA. Extent of Visibility from the Local Landscape Area Page 93
Page 94
7.10 The Applicant provided the following comments on the “Extent of Visibility from LLA Figure 4.5b, Volume 3a of the EIAR shows theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development to hub height or 82 m. The ZTV is bare earth and does not show the screening effects of buildings and areas of woodland. This represents a ‘worst case’ and the actual extent of visibility would be less, particularly in blocks of forestry and woodland and in nearby surrounding areas where forestry and woodland blocks and intervening trees interrupt views. Where the ZTV shows no potential visibility, it is predicted that no wind turbines or associated infrastructure would be seen. Figure 4.5b, Volume 3a of the EIAR, shows small areas of theoretical visibility in the LLA as follows: • Between Carradale Harbour and Carradale Point including the eastern part of Carradale village, Port Righ and Carradale Golf Course. SLVIA VP 6: Carradale Point, SLVIA VP 8: B879 above the Millennium Bench, and SLVIA VP 17 Carradale Golf Course are located in this area. Potential visibility of up to nine hubs is shown from this area. • At Torrisdale Bay and in woodland to the southwest of the Bay. SLVIA VP 1: Torrisdale Bay Parking Area shows a 360-degree view from this area of visibility. Visibility of up to three hubs is shown from open locations in this area with visibility of between six and nine hubs shown from wooded areas. • At Saddell Bay and the area of woodland and agricultural land between the B842, Pluck Wood to the East and Home Covert to the west extending a short distance south to Bunlarie Wood. SLVIA VP 9: Saddell Play Park and CH VP 12: Saddell Bay are in this area. Figure 4.5b, Volume 3a of the EIAR shows visibility of up to three hubs from this area. 7.11 As shown on Figure 5, the ZTV indicates theoretical hub height visibility of the proposed turbines from approx. 25% of the LLA. Approx. 50% of that area of visibility would be of five hubs or less with a proportion of that coinciding with areas of forestry and woodland where views would be extensively screened or filtered. 7.12 Figure 4.5b, Volume 3a of the EIAR shows that visibility of the Proposed Development to hub height is absent in the following areas: • On the eastern side of Carradale Point. • Between Carradale House and the north side of Dippen Bay. • Between Creag Creamha to the south of Torrisdale Bay and Lephinmore Farm to the north of Saddell. • Between Port na Cuthaig on the south side of Saddell Bay and Ballymenach at the southern end of the LLA. “ 7.13 In terms of Extent of Visibility from LLA – Jacob’s response to the Applicant is as follows: Ramboll state that hub height theoretical visibility within the LLA is. limited to 25% of the LLA and Jacobs agree that this is the case. Tip height visibility within the LLA would be slightly more extensive (see Fig 5). 7.14 However, the three areas Ramboll identify which would experience visibility of the turbines at hub height are key locations within the LLA and are locally very important and include many of the criteria used to identify special qualities. Thus, Page 94
Page 95
the theoretical visibility of the turbines at these highlighted locations is particularly relevant to the assessment of impacts upon the special qualities and integrity of the LLA. 7.15 Intervening woodland would screen views from some locations within the LLA which display theoretical visibility, but this would not be the case at the scenic local beaches at Saddell, Torrisdale and Carradale Bay or Carradale Golf Course all of which have an open character and would experience direct visibility to the West Torrisdale turbines in a landscape which previously had no large- scale development. Assessment of Effects 7.16 In terms of Assessment of Effects, the Applicant provides the following comments: The Proposed Development would be located out with the LLA with the nearest proposed turbine (T9) approx. 1.75 km to the west. As stated in Technical Appendix 4.2, Volume 4 of the EIAR, the physical landform and environmental assets of the LLA would not be affected by the Proposed Development. The Proposed Development would therefore only have the potential to affect visual amenity and be an influencing factor on the way the landscape is perceived or experienced. 7.17 The SLVIA assessed Viewpoints 1, 6, 8, 9 and 17 which are situated in the LLA. These viewpoints are representative of people who would experience views across the LLA in the direction of the proposal and in all other directions. ABC had the opportunity to respond on viewpoint selection during Scoping and Gatecheck and did not request any additional viewpoints to inform their assessment of impacts on the LLA. The viewpoints have also been used to assess impacts on landscape character which, as discussed above, informs the assessment of impacts on the LLA. Appendix 1 to this letter provides a detailed description of how the LLA is perceived and experienced from each of the five viewpoints. 7.18 Regarding the setting of heritage assets in the LLA, the assessment of heritage assets is not the subject of the SLVIA. The assessment of heritage assets is described in Chapter 5, Volume 2 of the EIAR and was completed by a competent expert on that topic. The scope of that assessment was agreed with consultees. The SLVIA has considered the importance of cultural heritage assets in the evaluation of landscape value and sensitivity. 7.19 The SLVIA therefore provides a complete and proportionate assessment of East Kintyre LLA and the analysis of impacts and reasoning described in the AI Report is robust. “ 7.20 Assessment of Effects on East Kintyre LLA - in response Jacobs notes that Ramboll state that five SLVIA VPs are located within the East Kintyre LLA, however only three SLVIA viewpoints actually lie within the LLA boundary – VP1 Torrisdale Car Park, VP6 Carradale Fort and VP17 Carradale Golf Course and these were all found to have significant effects. VP8 B879 and VP9 Saddell Play Park were found not significant and are stated in the letter to be within the LLA but both lie slightly outwith the boundary of the LLA. VP8 B879 is located on the main road leaving Carradale approx. 100m north of the northern boundary of the LLA with views to the turbines encompassing the northern edge of the LLA. VP9 Saddell Play Park lies 200m west of the western LLA boundary, and there are Page 95
Page 96
no areas of the LLA visible in any direction from this location, this viewpoint is not representative of views from the LLA. 7.21 The photomontage within the Cultural Heritage chapter of the EIAR (CH VP 5.12) demonstrates visibility of the turbines from the shoreline of Saddell Bay adjacent to the Antony Gormley statue looking across Saddell Castle and Sadell House. This location is a popular visitor attraction, and Jacob’s consider it a key viewpoint, and arguably the most iconic vista within the whole of the LLA with the scenic beach, castle, house, and famous shoreline statue. Appendix 1 to the Ramboll letter contains a description (but no VP assessment rating) on how the LLA is perceived and experienced from this viewpoint. The effect experienced from the location is likely to be significant, however, it is not assessed in the SLVIA. Other key locations such as the Torrisdale Bay beach and Carradale beach would also experience close visibility of the turbines (respectively 2.5km and 3-4km) where there are currently no views to large scale development, and so Jacobs consider visual impacts at these locations would also result in significant effects. 7.22 Whilst the setting of Heritage Assets is covered in Chapter 5, this is also pertinent to the SLVIA and the integrity of the LLA. The Landscape Institute provides guidance in TGN LITG 20/02 and states that the range of factors to be considered include “Cultural heritage” defined as “Landscape with clear evidence of archaeological, historical or cultural interest which contribute positively to the landscape” with examples of indicators of landscape value as “Landscape which contributes to the significance of heritage assets, for example forming the setting of heritage assets.” Recent Development Decisions 7.23 Applicant - “Recent Development Decisions - Development in or nearby the LLA does not necessarily conflict with the objectives of the designation or lead to significant impacts on the integrity of the designated area. The recent decision in February 2024 by Scottish Ministers to refuse consent for Lethen Wind Farm (ECU00002216) is useful with regard to the way in which Policy 4 (d) of NPF4 is interpreted. The Lethen Wind Farm was proposed in the Highland Council area and comprised of 17 wind turbines up to 185 m in tip height along with a battery energy storage system (BESS). The proposals would be situated entirely in the Drynachan, Lochindorb and Dava Moors Special Landscape Area (SLA). The SLA is a local landscape designation and in the same category as East Kintyre (Coast) LLA in the context of NPF4. In the Decision Letter Scottish Ministers stated that: “In terms of the proposed Development’s impacts on the SLA’s special qualities, in the context of NPF4 Policy 4(d), the Scottish Ministers consider that these impacts would have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area and the qualities for which it has been identified but that these effects would be outweighed by the environmental and economic benefits of the proposed development.” Significant adverse effects on the integrity and qualities of Drynachan, Lochindorb and Dava Moors SLA were not a reason for refusal. 7.24 The Airigh Wind Farm decision (ECU00000471), although preceding NPF4, is pertinent in the context of impacts on LLA in ABC area. The Airigh Wind Farm was proposed in Knapdale/Melfort APQ/LLA and would have direct impacts on the LLA. The introduction of Airigh Wind Farm to Knapdale/Melfort LLA would physically change the underlying character of part of the LLA and it would Page 96
Page 97
become a visible feature of that area. Scottish Ministers noted there would be no visibility of Airigh Wind Farm from the northern Melfort part of the LLA. They also noted that Airigh Wind Farm would not affect views out from the LLA and agreed that there would be significant impacts on views to the LLA from some locations. 7.25 Breackerie Wind Farm application (DPEA Reference WIN-130- 09) comprises 13 wind turbines of 200 m tip height and up to 5 MW of battery storage. The Breackerie Wind Farm site is entirely in the Mull of Kintyre LLA. ABC commissioned Carol Anderson of Carol Anderson Landscape Associates to undertake a detailed Landscape and Visual Review of the application. Carol Anderson found that “…there would be significant adverse effects on some of the qualities likely to have formed the reason for designation of the LLA but having appraised the nature and extent of these effects, I do not consider that the integrity of the designated area would be compromised.” Informed by the findings of Carol Anderson and comments from NatureScot, ABC planning officers and the Head of Development and Economic Growth at ABC recommended to elected members that the Council should not oppose the scheme. 7.26 The Lethen and Airigh Wind Farm decisions and analysis of the impacts of Breackerie Wind Farm, demonstrate that local landscape designations can accommodate wind farm development without compromising integrity of the designated area. 7.27 Also of relevance is Cnoc Buidhe Wind Energy Hub application (ECU Reference ECU00004767) which comprises of 29 wind turbines up to 200 m to blade tip, and battery storage. The Cnoc Buidhe site is situated on the western side of the Kintyre peninsula approximately 8.2 km northwest of Campbeltown. Jacobs was appointed by ABC to undertake a review of the landscape and visual effects of Cnoc Buidhe. Jacobs’ report of findings was issued to ABC on 21st August 2025. 7.28 Part of the Cnoc Buidhe site (the site entrance) coincides with West Kintyre (Coast) LLA and the nearest proposed Cnoc Buidhe turbine would be 1.75 km to the east. The ZTV shown on Figure 5.6b of the Cnoc Buidhe EIAR indicates visibility of that proposed development from parts of the LLA. Viewpoint 1 Bellochantuy, Viewpoint 3 Killegreur Caravan Site, A83 and Viewpoint 16 Rhunahaorine Point are situated in the LLA. These two viewpoints indicate that proposed turbines of Cnoc Buidhe would be very noticeable in landward views and views along the coast cumulatively with consented Tangy IV Wind Farm. Chapter 5 of the Cnoc Buidhe EIAR assesses the impacts at Viewpoint 1 as moderate (significant), at Viewpoint 3 as moderate (significant) and at Viewpoint 16 as moderate (significant). 7.29 The assessment of effects on the West Kintyre (Coast) LLA in the Cnoc Buidhe EIAR concluded that: “The proposed development will be perceived to introduce wind turbines to inland views from a limited geographical extent of the LLA, seen above the steep coastal slope immediately to the east, or on rare occasions, above the more distant plateau landform. Key views along the coast and westwards towards the open sea and islands will be largely unaffected. Based upon the assumed characteristics of the LLA as described above, the introduction of the proposed development will not affect the integrity of the LLA.” Page 97
Page 98
7.30 Jacobs’ report to ABC, having considered Viewpoints 1, 3 and 16, all of which are in the LLA and from where the effects were found by the EIAR to be significant, agrees with this conclusion, given that “theoretical visibility would be restricted to a [sic] small parts of the West Kintyre (Coast) LLA”., 7.31 Considering the larger scale of Cnoc Buidhe and the wider influence on views, with significant effects reported at distances of more than 15 km in West Kintyre (Coast) LLA, there appears to be inconsistency in the advice provided by Jacobs when compared to West Torrisdale.” 7.32 Jacobs provided the following response in respect to Recent Development Decisions - Recent decisions by Scottish Ministers for wind farm developments cannot be equated or compared as like-for-like. Each EIAR relating to a project has been considered individually. The specific circumstances for each development encompass multiple factors, including study areas, existing baseline conditions, visibility and nature of the proposed developments, varying impacts, and the environmental and economic consequences, and all of these will vary from project to project 7.33 Some of the recent projects which come under NPF4 and which are cited by Ramboll, serve to illustrate this variation of circumstance within individual projects: For the Cnoc Buidhe application, which is cited as an example in Ramboll’s response, views from the linear and generally open West Kintyre LLA include nearby large-scale operational wind development at Beinn an Tuirc, Tangy, Blary Hill and Auchadaduie and turbines from these wind farms thus contribute to the LLA’s existing character. In contrast to this developed context for Cnoc Buidhe, for the West Torrisdale application, the East Kintyre LLA is a small-scale enclosed landscape with no views to large scale development or wind turbines despite the widespread proliferation of wind development across the central ridge of the Kintyre peninsula. The introduction of visibility to the elevated West Torrisdale turbines at key locations within the East Kintyre LLA such as Carradale and Saddell would eliminate this undeveloped character which currently forms a special quality of the LLA. 7.34 Similarly, the individual project circumstance needs to be considered with Ramboll’s citation of the Breackerie Wind Farm application. Carol Anderson Landscape Associates’ report on Breackerie Wind Farm states “I do not consider that the integrity of the designated area would be compromised.” In contrast to this Jacob’s consider that the West Torrisdale proposal would compromise the integrity of the East Kintyre LLA. Large scale wind development on the scenic eastern side of the Kintyre peninsula has so far been restricted and visual impacts from existing turbines are absent within the LLA. This has helped to retain the remote, tranquil, and secluded nature of the LLA which results in a special quality which attracts tourists and visitors to the area. This quality would be lost by the introduction of large-scale turbines to the landscape of the LLA, which would compromise the LLA’s integrity. Local Landscape Area Conclusion 7.35 Applicant’s Local Landscape Area Conclusion - the SLVIA within the EIAR and AI Report adopted a robust approach to assessment of impacts on the LLA. The underlying landscape characteristics, visual and scenic qualities have been analysed with reference to published LCT descriptions. This has been augmented with field survey work throughout the LLA, analysis of sensitivity in Page 98
Page 99
accordance with guidance and analysis of viewpoints from locations where the proposed development would theoretically be visible. The analysis of impacts and reasoning described in the AI Report is robust. The clarifications provided in this letter confirm the findings of the SLVIA that effects on East Kintyre (Coast) LLA, which would be localised, affecting a small part of the designated area at discreet locations, and that the overall experience of the LLA and underlying qualities and character would be unaffected. Given the limited number of special qualities/characteristics, and extent of the LLA adversely affected by the proposed development which lies outside the designated area, no significant overall effect on the integrity of the LLA was predicted in the EIAR and AI Report. 7.36 Jacob’s Local Landscape Area Conclusion - Ramboll’s approach of using the Landscape Character Types (LCT) as a substitute for the special qualities of the LLA results in a repeat of the EIAR landscape character assessment and Jacobs feel that this approach combined with assessment of their 3 VPs within the LLA is not sufficient to fully follow guidance regarding factors to consider when understanding the integrity and special qualities of the LLA. 7.37 Substantial wind development on the Kintyre peninsula has been so far limited to the spine of the Kintyre peninsula with long distance views to turbines obtained from locations to the west and south of the Kintyre peninsula and from the Isle of Arran in the east. Thirteen large-scale wind farms are operational or have been consented within the Kintyre peninsula and it could be argued that the area is now reaching a saturation point. 7.38 The absence of wind development adjacent to the scenic east coast of the peninsula covered by the small-scale enclosed landscape of East Kintyre LLA has ensured that its character remains untouched by views to large scale development unlike the more open West Kintyre LLA. The West Torrisdale development on this undeveloped eastern coastline of the Kintyre peninsula would be likely to result in a significant negative effect to the overall integrity of the East Kintyre LLA. This would be due to the loss of the LLA’s special qualities including its tranquil and secluded nature and impacts upon key viewpoints at Saddell beach, Torrisdale beach and open areas within Carradale. Interpretation of the Argyll and Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2017). 7.39 Applicant - ABLWECS Chapter 4, Volume 2 of the EIAR explains in detail that “mitigation of seascape, landscape and visual effects associated to [sic] the operation of the proposed development is primarily concerned with the siting and design of the proposed development.” In addition, Chapter 4, EIAR Volume 2 of the EIAR refers to NatureScot guidance Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape, Version 3a (2017) and the Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2017) (ABLWECS). Chapter 2, Volume 1 of the AI Report provided clarification about the purpose of the ABLWECS with reference to NatureScot guidance. NatureScot’s guidance on landscape sensitivity indicates that sensitivity and capacity studies such as the ABLWECS should only be used to inform strategic judgements in relation to landscape sensitivity and not overall capacity or lack of capacity to accommodate development. The purpose of the ABLWECS is to provide guidance, as opposed to criteria against which the impacts of individual developments should be assessed. Page 99
Page 100
7.40 The Scottish Ministers decision to grant consent for Airigh Wind Farm in March 2020 is also pertinent to interpretation of the ABLWECS. The Airigh Wind Farm application (ECU00000471) is for 14 wind turbines with tip heights between 131m and 149.9 m. The application site is on the Kintyre Peninsula, approx. 8.4km southwest of Tarbert in the Knapdale/Melfort LLA. NatureScot (then Scottish Natural Heritage) was of the opinion that the Airigh Wind Farm may be contrary to some of the guidance set out in the ABLWECS. The decision letter states: “However whilst this study is generally acknowledged to be a material consideration, Scottish Ministers also acknowledge the study is strategic in nature and a more detailed LVIA of specific proposals also requires to be considered by consultees and determining authorities when reaching a decision on the acceptability or otherwise of wind farm development.” 7.41 The closing statement of the Applicant in Breakerie Wind Farm PLI also references NatureScot guidance: “Taking account of the NatureScot guidance, LWECS should only be regarded in respect of strategic judgements made in relation to landscape sensitivity and not capacity or lack of capacity. Consequently, there is no requirement for new wind farm development to avoid this area or to match an existing or perceived pattern of wind farm development, although there is a requirement to assess the individual and cumulative effects of a proposed development and avoid the creation of unacceptable cumulative or visual effects (NPF4 Policy 11 e).” 7.42 The proposed development has taken into consideration the NS guidance and ABLWECS and a detailed description is provided in the EIAR and AI Report. The guidance in those two documents, field survey work and analysis of key design viewpoints such as Viewpoint 1 Torrisdale Bay Parking Area, Viewpoint 6 Carradale Fort and Viewpoint 17 Carradale Golf Course has informed design. This has resulted in a compact layout of turbines set back from the coastal edge behind intermediate hills and occupying a small area mainly backdropped by landform in key views. The design corresponds well to underlying landform and the height of the turbines has been a consideration relative to the scale of the landscape and the avoidance of lighting. Bearing in mind that open views from Carradale, Torrisdale and Saddell are limited, the design has focussed on presenting the best image possible from those locations from which it may be seen and with full consideration of the wider context of such views as described in Appendix 1 to this letter. However, landscape and visual matters are not the only consideration in the overall site selection and design process. 7.43 Jacob’s responded to the Applicant as follows: ABLWECS is mentioned in A&BC LDP2 Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA) “All development proposals in or affecting a Local Landscape Area must demonstrate that: ….b) The proposal is supported by a landscape and visual impact assessment and has taken account of the content of any relevant Argyll & Bute Landscape Capacity Assessment.” 7.44 ABLWECS guidance is clearly not always pertinent to the modern wind development situation with turbines having developed to heights beyond what was envisaged when the guidance was written in 2017. However, the overall intent of the guidance is still relevant and protection of the east coast of Kintyre from wind development is explicitly mentioned within ABLWECS in several places. This has not been discussed within the SLVIA. For example: Page 100
Page 101
• ABLWECS Vol 2 p74: Landscape Character Type 6c: Mull of Kintyre Upland Forest-Moor Mosaic “tall turbines could detract from the diverse coastal scenery [of the LLA] if sited within or if visible from the coastal edge and/or intruding on views of the wider seascape.” • ABLWECS Vol 2 p287: Landscape Character Type 20: Rocky Mosaic “Large scale turbine typology would dominate the scale of small-scale landform features and the narrow extent of this character type. Turbines of this size [80-130m] would also appear very large in relation to the scale of buildings and small-scale field pattern, woodland and other landcover features in this relatively well-settled landscape.” • ABLWECS Vol 1 p253 Conclusion “a need to also avoid introducing significant areas of new visibility and intrusion into the sensitive Carradale/Saddell area on the east coast of Kintyre” 7.45 After studying the ZTV and viewpoints supplied Jacobs do not agree that ‘open views from Carradale, Torrisdale and Saddell are limited.’ Further commentary on this is included below. Visual Effects on settlements of Port Righ, Torrisdale and Saddell 7.46 Applicant - Effects on Port Righ, Torrisdale and Saddell “ABC LDP 2 categorises Port Righ and Saddell as Villages and Minor Settlements. Torrisdale does not fall within a category of settlement as defined in LDP2. The Torrisdale area is instead defined as ‘Countryside Area.’ 7.47 The SLVIA described in Chapter 4, Volume 2 of the EIAR includes an assessment of effects on the following main settlements in the SLVIA study area with the following conclusions: • Glenbarr – 8.75 km west of the proposed development: Moderate/Minor and Not Significant. • Carradale – 4.3 km northeast of the proposed development: Moderate and Not Significant. • Torbeg (Arran) - 14.2 km southeast of the proposed development: Moderate and Not Significant. 7.48 Chapter 4, Volume 2 of the EIAR also includes an assessment of 22 viewpoints which were agreed with ABC and NS and considered to be representative of the main sensitive receptors in the Study Area. In accordance with Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3 (GLVIA3), the viewpoints are intended to be representative of visual amenity experienced at the viewpoint and its environs. The visualisations show representative or ‘worst case’ scenarios, and the assessment of effects is based on this accordingly. As such, effects will not be uniform throughout the study area and, from some locations, effects will be less than those stated in the assessment. The viewpoint assessment identifies the sensitive receptors represented by the viewpoints. The viewpoint assessment and the assessment of all visual receptors described in the SLVIA provide an understanding of the geographical extent of significant effects. Page 101
Page 102
7.49 Table 1, Technical Appendix 4.3, Volume 4 of the EIAR lists the viewpoints relevant to the assessment of effects on the visual amenity of residents and settlements. 7.50 In the Torrisdale area there are scattered residential properties set within woodland. These properties are orientated in different directions and have varying outlooks. VP1: Torrisdale Bay Parking Area is not representative of individual residential receptors in that area but may be used to represent views from public locations in that community. All the individual residential properties in the Torrisdale area are included in the assessment of effects on residential visual amenity described in Technical Appendix 4.4, Volume 4 of the EIAR. 7.51 Port Righ is defined in LDP2 proposals map as a settlement area contiguous with Carradale, in addition to being in the category of ‘village’ or ‘minor settlement’. It comprises of a group of approx. 20 to 25 properties most of which are orientated with their main outlooks facing northeast toward the sea. Properties in the north of Port Righ are orientated with their main outlooks to the southwest with oblique views towards the site. Properties in the south of Port Righ are orientated with main outlooks facing the sea with views towards the site from the rear. Given the outlooks from the properties, the distance to site, the available views and context, it is considered that VP17: Carradale Golf Course is sufficiently representative of views from public places in Port Righ. The magnitude of change would be no greater than Moderate as assessed from public places in the settlement of Port Righ and effects would be no greater than Major/Moderate (Significant) noting that effects will vary depending on the orientation and outlook from dwellings in the settlement. 7.52 The settlement of Saddell, as defined in the proposals map of LDP2 comprises of a group of approx. 16 properties most of which are orientated southwest- northeast with oblique views to the site or with views in that direction interrupted by landform, buildings, and vegetation. VP9: Saddell Play Park is representative of views from public locations at Saddell. Views from dwellings would be oblique and restricted by vegetation in gardens with the proposed development appearing separated from Saddell and the glen by landform and perceived in a different landscape of upland character. VP9 represents clear, uninterrupted views from Saddell and reflects the worst-case situation from public areas and dwellings in the settlement. The assessment of effects on VP9: Saddell Play Park described in Technical Appendix 4.3 is a balanced and accurate evaluation of impacts given the mitigating factors described above. 7.53 In conclusion, the EIAR SLVIA Chapter, Technical Appendices and visualisation from viewpoints agreed with consultees and field survey work provide sufficient information for the potential effects on Port Righ, Saddell and Torrisdale area to be evaluated. Note that the assessment of effects on settlements is undertaken from public places and represents ‘worst case.’ Visibility of the proposed development would vary according to orientation of dwellings, outlooks, the nature of available views and degree of screening by buildings, landform, and vegetation. The residual effects stated in the EIAR would not be uniform throughout the settlements assessed and, as described in paragraphs 4.6.72 and 4.6.73 Chapter 4, Volume 2 of the EIAR, views from Carradale would be limited by buildings, landform, and vegetation throughout the settlement. The judgements provided in the settlements assessment in Chapter 4, Volume 2 of the EIAR and the viewpoint assessment in Technical Appendix 4.3, Volume 4 of Page 102
Page 103
the EIAR give a balanced and accurate evaluation of impacts when all factors mentioned above are considered.” 7.54 Jacobs’s provided advice on the Effects on Carradale, Port Righ, Torrisdale and Saddell. LITGN-2024-01 states in paragraph 6(1) that “GLVIA3 is clear that people living in the area of the proposed development have to be considered as receptors (paragraph 6.13) and that views from settlements should be considered (paragraph 6.20). 7.55 An LVIA should consider views from local communities focusing on the way that a community currently experiences views from public locations such as streets and open spaces and how those will change.” 7.56 This guidance makes clear that visual effects from the development should be considered for all settlements within the area. How the settlement is categorised in the LDP2 should not be used as a reason for exclusion from assessment. 7.57 Properties in Carradale are generally single storey and orientated away from the turbines and would not experience views to the development but some properties on Broomfield Road are orientated towards the development and would experience views from their west facing windows to the turbines, seen on the skyline above the hills to the west. Some public spaces within Carradale would also experience visibility to the turbines which would be seen above the village on the skyline of the hills to the west which overlook Carradale, with visibility from the centre of the village on a stretch of the B879 from the junction with Broomfield Road to outside the Ashbank Hotel. There would also be partial views to the turbines as the B879 leads southwest out of the village. VP8: B879 above Millenium Bench illustrates this visibility. 7.58 The SLVIA found that Carradale would experience a slight magnitude of impact leading to a moderate effect which would not be significant. A slight magnitude of impact is defined in the SLVIA methodology (p4-27) as ‘Discernible loss or alteration to one or more key elements, features, or characteristics of the baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss/ alteration would be discernible but underlying landscape character or view composition would be broadly consistent with baseline.’ The turbines are of a large scale, would be seen from public spaces within the village against the skyline and would be noticeable due to their movement within the previously rural long-distance views to the Kintyre hills from the village. The character of Carradale would be changed by the development and thus the baseline altered and the magnitude of impact in Carradale would likely be moderate and effects on visual amenity from Carradale significant 7.59 The new assessment of the settlement of Port Righ in the Ramboll letter is welcome and the significant effects that would be experienced by residents at this settlement should be included in considerations. Most of the residents in Port Righ would experience direct views to the turbines from their windows either from the front or rear of their properties, with the turbines prominent, seen against the skyline of the hills to the west. Ramboll consider that VP17: Carradale Golf Course is representative of views from public places in Port Righ, however the elevation of VP17 results in the turbines partially seen against a background of the hillside and sky. From Port Righ the turbines would be viewed mostly against the sky and thus appear slightly more prominent than in VP17. Page 103
Page 104
Ramboll finds that effects from Port Righ would be significant and Jacob’s agree with this. 7.60 There has not been an assessment undertaken of the settlement at Torrisdale which Jacobs had suggested, but these properties are covered individually by the RVAA. Views from the public spaces within Torridale are illustrated by VP1: Torrisdale Car Park. Ramboll found that VP1 had a moderate magnitude of impact and a significant effect, which Jacob’s would agree with. 7.61 At Saddell not all of the housing within the village is fully represented by Ramboll’s additional settlement assessment with no inclusion of properties along Saddell Glen or the Landmark Trust rental properties at Saddell Bay including Saddell Castle and Saddell House. The Cultural Heritage viewpoint 12: Saddell Bay is representative of some of the properties at Saddell Bay and demonstrates that 3 turbines hubs would be visible seen against the sky to the northwest. It is likely that when the Landmark Trust properties are considered that the Saddell settlement assessment magnitude of impact would be moderate and the effect significant. Residential Visual Amenity Assessment 7.62 Applicant - Technical Appendix 4.4, Volume 4 of the EIAR and Chapter 2, Volume 1 of the AI Report describe the effects on these properties as follows: • RVA013 Rubha Darach – Moderate (Significant): Does not reach the RVA Threshold. • RVA014 Glen Croft – Moderate (Significant): Does not reach the RVA Threshold. • RVA015 Glenhead – High/Moderate (Significant): Does not reach the RVA Threshold. 7.63 Figures 6 - 10 provide detailed ZTV maps and aerial imagery that show the extent of theoretical visibility from Glen Croft and Glenhead. These figures are simply a more detailed presentation of the graphics in Figures 4.4.1, 4.4.16 and 4.4.17, Technical Appendix 4.4, Volume 4 of the EIAR. Detailed ZTV maps are not provided for Rubha Darach as intervening distance to the proposed turbines and the available view from the property means there would be no incidence of overbearing, overwhelming, oppressive, or pervasive effects as set out in paragraph 2.8.9, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of the AI Report. 7.64 Following a review of the information submitted in the EIAR and AI Report and site survey work undertaken in January 2026 it is concluded that the effects at RVA014 Glen Croft, taken as a ‘worst case’, would be High/Moderate (Significant) but would still not reach the RVA Threshold and therefore the outcome is the same as stated in the EIA and AI Report. The increase in effect takes account of a secondary outlook from the dwelling that was not described in detail in the EIAR or AI Report. This outlook is from part of the main living area in the dwelling and provides views in the direction of the proposed development through glazed double doors. The scale of change would be as described in the EIAR although in winter without leaves on trees at the property, the proposed development would appear more noticeable than in summer. The views from the main entrance and primary outlook to the southeast from the dwelling would be unaffected. As mentioned above this change in level of effect does not change Page 104
Page 105
the conclusions on residential visual amenity drawn in relation to Glen Croft and in not reaching the RVA Threshold as reported in the EIAR and AI Report. The effects at RVA013 Rubha Darach and RVA015 Glenhead remain as reported in the EIAR and AI Report. For the reasons stated in the EIAR and AI Report none of the three properties is expected to experience Overbearing, Overwhelming, Oppressive or Pervasive effects. Consequently, the impacts experienced at these properties would not reach the RVA Threshold. 7.65 Jacob’s - Residential Visual Amenity Assessment - Three properties were found to have significant visual effects in the initial stage of the RVAA: RVA013 Rubha Darach, RVA014 Glen Croft and RVA015 Glenhead. and it was requested by Jacobs in Oct 2025 that detailed ZTVs and photography should be supplied with the RVAA to support judgement on whether these properties had reached a ‘threshold’. 7.66 Ramboll have since supplied detailed tip and hub height ZTV for two of these properties (RVA014 Glen Croft and RVA015 Glenhead) but have not supplied any photography for these properties to support the RVAA. Illustrative photography of the properties and views from their curtilage would be a useful tool as both properties are in remote locations and views are not available from Google maps 7.67 Ramboll have also not provided a detailed ZTV of Rubha Darach stating that “Detailed ZTV maps are not provided for Rubha Darach as intervening distance to the proposed turbines and the available views from the property means there would be no incidence of overbearing, overwhelming, oppressive or pervasive effects as set out in paragraph 2.8.9, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of the AI Report.” 7.68 The lack of photographic evidence of the nature of views to and from properties makes it difficult to validate the RVAA Step 4 ‘threshold’ assessment from two of properties that were found to have significant effects at Step 3. Jacobs’ Overall Conclusion 7.69 Following a review of the additional information, Jacob’s consider that there would be the following additional effects to those reported in the SLVIA and the additional information supplied: • Significant effects upon the integrity of the East Kintyre LLA. • The West Torrisdale development would run counter to advice in ALBWECS to protect the sensitive east coast of Kintyre from wind development. • Residents of settlements at Carradale, Torrisdale and Saddell would experience significant effects 7.70 In addition, increasing the spread of wind development across an additional part of the Kintyre peninsula which is currently has no wind development would be likely to reduce the scenic qualities of the Kintyre peninsula as a whole, decreasing the economic benefits from tourism for this remote mainland area of natural beauty 7.71 NatureScot – have advised the ECU that they object to the proposal on the grounds that it will have an adverse impact on the North Arran NSA. NatureScot Page 105
Page 106
defer to Argyll & Bute Council and North Ayrshire Council in terms of effects on locally designated landscapes. 7.72 North Ayrshire Council - advised the ECU that consideration should be given to the potential impacts of the North Arran NSA when determining the application. 7.73 West Kintyre, East Kintyre and Arran Community Councils have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of visual and landscape concerns, Officer’s Conclusion 7.74 Based on the advice of the Council’s Landscape Architect, it is concluded that this proposal will have an unacceptable significant landscape and visual impact and warrants an objection on landscape and visual grounds. 7.75 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 4 – Natural Places of NPF4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect. 8. IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION 8.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 does not require impacts on tourism to be considered. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on tourism and recreation. 8.2 Tourism – Policy 11 of NPF4 does not include a requirement for the impact of proposals on tourism to be assessed. However, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP does. In Argyll & Bute the landscape is regarded as being a particularly valued asset both in terms of its intrinsic qualities and in terms of its value to the tourism economy. For all types of development, the maintenance of landscape character is an important facet of decision-making in the countryside in Argyll & Bute, regardless of the scale of development proposed. 8.3 As Tourism and Landscape & Visual matters are intrinsically linked, and there is little evidence to demonstrate whether wind farms adversely affect tourism, it is considered that such impacts are covered in the landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. 8.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 04 – Sustainable Development and 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of ABLDP2 in this respect. 9. PUBLIC ACCESS 9.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on public access are addressed, including impact on long distance walking, and cycling routes and scenic routes. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind Page 106
Page 107
turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in NPF4. Policy 32 – Active Travel of LDP2 requires active travel and recreation to be integrated in developments from the start of the wider design process and existing active travel networks should be safeguarded and integrated with the development. 9.2 The Council’s Access Manager has no objections to the proposed development. However, they have advised the application does not include an Outdoor Access Plan as required by Policy 32 – Active Travel in the Local Development Plan. Should consent be granted for this proposal it is recommended that a condition is attached to secure the provision of an Outdoor Access Plan to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. 9.3 Scotways have advised the ECU they have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions being attached to any grant of consent to ensure that OR SA162 and the Kintyre Way remain free from obstruction; to secure an Access Management Plan; and to control temporary closure or diversion to SA162, the Kintyre Way or any clearly define access routes within the site to be agreed with Argyll & Bute Council; design of gates to permit access by all non-vehicular user categories (walkers, cyclists and equestrians); turbines to be sited at least the maximum blade tip height away from access routes within the site; new and upgraded tracks to be blinded with whin dust; installation of appropriate signage warning of passing vehicular traffic; and extension of the access track to Turbine 1 to the western boundary of the site and signposted as a route to the summit of Beinn an Tuirc. 9.4 British Horse Society have provided advice to the ECU on outdoor access, the importance of off-road riding, and the horse and the rural economy. 9.5 Having due regard to the above subject, to the condition to secure an Outdoor Access Plan and those recommended by Scotways being attached to any grant of consent it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; and Policy 32 - Active Travel of the LDP2. 10. AVIATION AND DEFENCE INTERESTS INCLUDING SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING 10.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed. Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations. 10.2 Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) – advised the ECU that, subject to the conditions to secure Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and Safety Management, they have no objection. Page 107
Page 108
10.3 Highlands & Islands Airport have advised the ECU their preliminary assessment
shows that, at the given position and height, the proposal may impact the
safeguarding criteria and operation of Campbeltown Airport. HIAL request that
an Aviation Impact Feasibility Study (AIFS), is undertaken to understand any
impact on the infrastructure and operation of Campbeltown Airport. HIAL
currently submit a holding objection until the AIFS has been submitted to and
reviewed by them.
10.4 National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) have advised the ECU the
proposal does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En
Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection.
10.5 Glasgow Prestwick Airport and Glasgow Airport have advised the ECU they have
no objection.
10.6 Having due regard to the fact that there is an outstanding objection from
Highlands & Islands Airport due to the requirement for submission of an
Aviation Impact Feasibility Study (AIFS) it is concluded the proposal is
contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 –
The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of
Aerodromes, of the LDP2.
11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS
11.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation
demonstrate how impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting
installations, have been addressed particularly, ensuring that transmission links
are not compromised. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of
LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed
against impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations,
particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised.
11.2 BT advised the ECU that the proposal should not cause interference to their
current and presently planned radio network. Joint Radio Company - advised the
ECU the proposal is CLEARED - subject to 50 Micrositing - with respect to radio
link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks.
11.3 Having due regard to the above subject to the micrositing condition
recommended the Joint Radio Company it is concluded that the proposal
will not have any adverse impacts on telecommunications, broadcasting
installations and transmission links (including cumulative impacts) and is
consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30
– The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect.
12. ROAD TRAFFIC AND ADJACENT TRUNK ROADS
12.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation
demonstrate how impacts on road traffic and on adjacent trunk roads have been
addressed, including during construction. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of
Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to
be assessed against impacts on road traffic and impacts on adjacent trunk roads.
Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access
Regimes of LDP2 acceptance of development utilising new and existing public
Page 108Page 109
roads, private roads and private access regimes is subject to road safety and street design issues being addressed to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority and the Planning Authority. Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads requires that accesses which connect to or impact significantly on a Trunk Road require consultation with Transport Scotland. 12.2 Transport Scotland (TS) have advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions being attached to any consent to secure, the route for abnormal loads, abnormal load accommodation measures required, and any necessary additional signing or temporary traffic control measures. In addition, advisory notes are provided relating to works within the trunk road boundary. 12.3 ABC Roads and Amenity Services - have advised they have no objection. The site access connects directly to the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road, Transport Scotland should be notified. The B842 is not suitable to support this construction or delivery of infrastructure components. 12.4 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by Transport Scotland it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads in this regard. It is recommended that the conditions required by Area Roads and Amenity Services are attached to any consent granted by the ECU. 13. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 13.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on the historic environment have been addressed. Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4 intent is to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings. Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment, Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments, Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes, and Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance support the key policies and provide guidance on assessing development proposals against heritage impacts. 13.2 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) have advised the ECU they do not object, however they consider the conclusions reached within the cultural heritage chapter of the EIAR have underestimated the severity of impacts upon several heritage assets and their setting. 13.3 West of Scotland Archaeology Service – advised that the degree of advance consultation from the Applicant was high, and their response to comments was positive. The Archaeologist has reviewed the submitted documents provided with particular reference to the chapter on Cultural Heritage in the EIAR. The Archaeologist has confirmed that the archaeological assessment of potential indirect and direct impacts of the proposals conducted in relation to this Page 109
Page 110
application has been conducted in accordance with current guidance and professional best practice, and they are broadly in agreement with its findings. 13.4 The summary of the current baseline state of the cultural heritage assets within the study areas previously agreed is a fair and accurate assessment of the known archaeological and cultural features in the areas defined. The more detailed assessment of the more significant assets in the study areas has been conducted to the current procedural norms, and the Archaeologist considers that its conclusions lie within the normal range of professional opinion on the known assets discussed. 13.5 Consequently, the Archaeologist is content that the assessment presented is a fair representation of the potential impacts that would result from the proposed development, and agrees with the conclusion that with reference to current planning policies at local and national government level there is no predicted archaeological impact that would be so severe as to warrant an objection from the Council to the application on historic environment grounds alone. 13.6 Setting impacts - with regard to indirect setting impacts, the various iterations of the design delivered some improvements, but an impact on landscape setting with a significant effect with relevant to current planning policy has still been predicted for a key cultural heritage receptor, Saddell Abbey ruins. The factors contributing to this impact are discussed in detail in Section 5.4 of Chapter 5 of the EIAR, and appropriate visualisations were provided as Figures 5.5a-f. Having reviewed the documents the Archaeologist agrees with the authors’ assessment that the adverse effect is not so severe as to significantly impinge on the overall integrity of the setting of the abbey ruins. Also, of relevance to setting issues, the Archaeologist disagrees with the assessment of the predicted magnitude of the visual impact of the proposals on Carradale Fort which lies less than 4km to the east of the proposed development. While the EIAR predicts an impact of low magnitude, leading to an effect of minor significance, the Archaeologist would assess the magnitude of change from the current baseline as rather higher due to proximity and the backdropping effect of the position of some of the turbines. Although this assessment would perhaps result in a predicted effect of moderate significance, the particular circumstances of the site and its location would lead me to suggest that the overall significance of the effect would not be so severe as to exceed the threshold which would trigger an objection to the proposed development on those grounds. 13.7 Direct physical impacts - The EIAR provides a good summary of currently known historic environment assets within the application area, based on comprehensive desk-based information gathered from a variety of sources including the 13.8 Council’s own Historic Environment Record (HER), maintained by the West of Scotland Archaeological Service. That desk-based summary was further enhanced by fieldwork survey of the known sites and the areas of available open space within and around the application area, conducted in 2021. Consequently, the Archaeologist has increased confidence in the accuracy of the baseline report on the assets affected, and on the proposed mitigation measures set out by the Applicant. 13.9 The mitigation measures set out in the EIAR would in the Archaeologists opinion adequately address any remaining archaeological issues raised by the application’s proposed development. The Archaeologist concurs with the Page 110
Page 111
Applicants view that such matters could be addressed through the attachment of a suitable archaeological condition on any consent that the ECU might grant. 13.10 The Archaeologist understands that the ECU may have a draft archaeological condition which it has consulted on with planning authorities, seeking consistency across the country. As the Archaeologist understands it, this draft would provide a similar range of elements as the condition that the West of Scotland Archaeology would normally recommend but split into two or more separate clauses to improve sequential delivery of each element. Should such a condition be proposed, the Archaeologist is confident that it would be serviceable and would be happy to give further advice on its wording, but in the absence of any other suggestion the Archaeologist would recommend that the Council offer its usual negative suspensive condition as a suitable alternative for use should consent be granted. 13.11 The West of Scotland Archaeology Service’s usual recommended condition in such circumstances is as follows: “No development shall take place within the development site as outlined in red on the approved plan until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the Applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service” 13.12 Having due regard to the above subject to the condition recommended by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service to secure a written scheme of archaeological investigation it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy and Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment; 19 – Scheduled Monuments; 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes; and 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance of the LDP2 14. HYDROLOGY, THE WATER ENVIRONMENT AND FLOOD RISK 14.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk have been addressed. Policy 30 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk (including cumulative). Policy 55 - Flooding of LDP2 provides guidance on the type of development that will be permissible within specific flood risk areas. Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals requires flood risk assessments, and drainage impact assessments, to accompany applications where required. 14.2 The Council’s Flood Prevention Officer – has advised that they have no objection subject to conditions watercourse crossings should be designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change (56% allowance) flood event, and surface water Page 111
Page 112
drainage should be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensure that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water run-off, the surface water drainage should be in operation prior to construction. 14.3 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Flood Prevention Officer it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 55 – Flooding; and Policy 57 Risk Appraisals of LDP2. 15. BIODIVERSITY 15.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on biodiversity, including birds have been addressed. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering all proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 3 – Biodiversity of NPF4 requires proposals to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 5 – Soils of NPF4 supports the generation of energy from renewable sources that optimises the contribution of the area to GHG emissions reduction targets on peatland, carbon-rich soils, and priority peatland. A detailed site-specific assessment will be required for development on peatland which will include the net effects of the development on climate emissions and loss of carbon. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on the natural heritage, including birds and to be assessed against impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator (including cumulative). Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity requires proposals to incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity wherever possible. NatureScot 15.2 Summary of NatureScot Advice - Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA - This proposal could be progressed with appropriate mitigation. However, because it could affect internationally important natural heritage interests, NatureScot object unless it is made subject to conditions so that the works are done strictly in accordance with their recommended mitigation. They offer advice only on other ornithological and ecological matters. Assessment of Impacts on Key Natural Heritage Interests Designated Sites 15.3 Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA - The proposal could affect Kintyre Goose Roosts, a Special Protection Area (SPA) designated for non-breeding Greenland white- fronted goose. Approx. 1.2 km of access track to the proposal is within a 500 m disturbance buffer of Lussa Loch, a component roosting loch of the SPA. The site’s status means that the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) apply or, for reserved matters, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Consequently, ECU is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SPA Page 112
Page 113
before it can be consented. Kintyre Goose Roosts Ramsar site may also be affected but the interests of this designation are fully addressed as part of the following consideration of the site. It appears from the information available, that in this case the proposal is not connected with or necessary for the conservation management of the site. Hence, further consideration is required 15.4 Disturbance Effects - In respect of disturbance effects, NatureScot’s advice is that this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on non-breeding Greenland white-fronted goose of the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA. Consequently, the ECU, as competent authority, is required to conduct an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interest. To help the ECU do this, they advise that on the basis of the information provided, if the proposal is conducted strictly in accordance with the following conditions, their conclusion is that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site: 1 Any potentially disturbing works (e.g. vegetation clearance and ground works) on the access corridor within 500 m of Lussa Loch should be undertaken outside of the wintering season which is October to March inclusive. If the wintering period cannot be avoided, any works should be undertaken during daylight hours when the roosting geese will not be present at Lussa Loch (i.e. works can commence at least one hour after Kintyre sunrise and must cease at least one hour prior to Kintyre sunset). 2. There shall be no overnight movement of vehicles associated with the construction and operation of the proposal within the access corridor adjacent to Lussa Loch during the winter season (October to March inclusive). All winter vehicle movements in the access corridor adjacent to Lussa Loch must cease at least one hour prior to sunset in Kintyre and not re-commence until at least one hour after sunrise in Kintyre. Reason: To avoid significant disturbance of wintering Greenland white-fronted goose roosting on Lussa Loch. 15.5 NatureScot do not consider that the proposed mitigation of applying speed limits to all vehicles using the access corridor adjacent to Lussa Loch or the supervision of an Ecological Clerk of Works (as detailed in Technical Appendix 7.3) will adequately reduce the risk of disturbance of the roosting geese so as to avoid a significant effect on the site integrity. 15.6 Other Effects on the SPA - In Kintyre, NatureScot are starting to observe that wind farms are having a barrier effect on Greenland white-fronted geese i.e. preventing them from accessing roosting and/or fielding areas and thereby displacing them from these areas and/or affecting migratory flights into and out of Kintyre. This proposal will form an east – west band of wind farm development across the spine of Kintyre with the operational Auchadaduie turbines, Blary Hill and Beinn an Tuirc wind farms as well as the proposed Allt Domhain wind farm. 15.7 NatureScot note that the flight activity surveys only recorded one flight by unidentified geese, however this flight was not within the turbine array and therefore no collision risk modelling was undertaken for this species. NatureScot consider that the proposal is not located on any known flight paths between the main feeding areas at Laggan, Clachan, Tayinloan and Glenbarr and SPA and non-SPA roosting lochs. As such, NatureScot are content that the proposal will Page 113
Page 114
not significantly alter the distribution of the species within the SPA, nor will it impact on a) the distribution or extent of habitats which support the species or b) the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats which support the species. The proposal could also affect Kintyre Goose Lochs Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Non-breeding Greenland white-fronted goose is the only notified feature of this site and, as such, they have been fully considered in the above appraisal for the SPA. Ecology 15.8 NatureScot are generally in agreement with the ecological assessment of the proposal and the proposed mitigation measures and note that the proposal does not raise issues of national interest with respect to ecological receptors. NatureScot note and welcome the proposed mitigation for bats and suggest that if the post construction monitoring for bat carcasses indicates that the curtailment measures at T7 and T9 are not sufficient to avoid multiple mortalities, the Applicant should be prepared to refine this further with targeted (‘smart’) curtailment, as necessary. Outline Habitat Management Plan (OHMP) 15.9 Outline Habitat Management Plan (OHMP) - In the Additional Information Main Report, it is noted that the assessment on peatland habitats has now been revised by the Applicant so that only direct impacts on peatland habitats are included in the baseline area to be mitigated and it is estimated that the direct loss of peatland habitats will be 0.49 ha. However, this is not consistent with NatureScot guidance and NatureScot consider both direct and indirect impacts on peatland in the same way, as both will result in the loss of peatland. As such, the restoration figures for peatland restoration should also include areas indirectly affected by the proposal (the indirect area of blanket and modified bog amounts to 1.21 ha). Therefore, the direct and indirect impacts on priority peatland habitats as a result of this proposal amounts to 1.7 ha. 15.10 The Applicant has committed to restore 5.38 ha of peatland – this equates to a lost: restored peatland ratio of approximately 1: 3.2. NatureScot’s current recommendation is that restoration to achieve offsetting should be in the order of 1:10 (lost restored). For priority peatland habitats, NatureScot would expect additional restoration measures beyond those required to achieve the 1:10 offsetting ratio to be applied. This should be in the region of an additional 10% of the baseline assessment of the extent of priority peatland habitat. 15.11 NatureScot, therefore, recommend that the Applicant considers expanding the proposed extent of peatland restoration in line with their guidance in order to meet the mitigation and enhancement requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. NatureScot also have concerns regarding the proposed location of restoration of peatland habitats around the turbine bases. It is proposed that peatland restoration works could be undertaken in the Wind Protection Zone (WPZ) as shown on Figure 3.1: Revised Outline Habitat Management Plan. The WPZ is defined as the area around the turbine bases where the existing conifer woodland will be felled to accommodate the proposal. The restoration of peatland habitat within the WPZ may potentially make the wind farm site more attractive for hunting golden eagles and hen harriers thereby increasing collision risk. Furthermore, limiting restoration to the clear-felled areas around the Page 114
Page 115
turbines means that hydrological connectivity of the restored areas will be limited by the surrounding commercial woodland and the restored areas are also at risk from invasion by Sitka spruce which will invade and dry out restoration areas (see Figure 13.8: Development Restocking Plan). 15.12 The OHMP identifies opportunity for the creation of 10.2 ha of native woodland planting which will help to connect areas of existing native woodland within the site, however due to high deer pressure in the region, appropriate deer management will be required as part of the HMP. 15.13 The OHMP also includes measures to control bracken and NatureScot would like to highlight that the use of Asulox is now prohibited for use in the UK. Furthermore, the use of chemicals to control bracken on uncultivated or semi- natural land may be subject to an EIA and NatureScot do not consider that the use of glyphosate is appropriate on natural /semi – natural habitats (particularly blanket bog and wet heath habitats). As such, NatureScot advocate that if bracken control goes ahead, this should be via mechanical means. Ornithology 15.14 NatureScot also provide advice to the ECU on further mitigation work that should be incorporated by the Applicant to minimise impacts on sensitive bird species that would otherwise constitute an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended): • It is noted that surveys were hampered by covid restrictions, however it appears that full surveys for key species were only undertaken in 2021. It is also unclear as to whether the forestry was surveyed for breeding raptors given the hen harrier activity recorded. • Given the golden eagle activity adjacent to the proposal, NatureScot advise that Turbines 7 and 9 are moved to minimise impacts on the future availability of alternative nest sites for the G/KM3 golden eagle territory. • Similarly, Turbine 9 is also located within disturbance distance of a black grouse lek and should be relocated to avoid disturbing lekking birds. • Pre-construction surveys will be required as mitigation covering both the wind farm site and the access route as well as for golden eagles (roost and nest sites), black grouse, hen harriers and breeding osprey in order to comply with the Wildlife Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). • It should be noted that, given the close proximity of known breeding sites for sensitive bird species, NatureScot would expect similar mitigation measures to be required during the operation of the proposal in order to avoid wildlife disturbance offences. • NatureScot are also of the opinion that the proposed Outline Habitat Management Plan provides only minimal benefit for birds. 15.15 RSPB Scotland – advised the ECU they note that the majority of the proposal’s infrastructure is sited within commercial forestry (a habitat generally considered to be of low biodiversity value). RSPB do however consider that proposals for the delivery of biodiversity enhancement should be improved. Details are provided regarding the following issues: The proposal’s shared boundary with Beinn an Tuirc wind farm and Deucheran Hill wind farm Habitat Management Plan area units, intended to support breeding Golden Eagle; The grid connection route for the proposal; and the delivery of biodiversity enhancement in line with Page 115
Page 116
NPF4. RSPB have advised the ECU that: they strongly recommend that T7 and T9 are either removed or relocated; provision should be made of high-quality hen harrier nesting and foraging habitat; further consideration of the grid connection route; further detail should be submitted for the Outline Habitat Management Plan (OHMP); more collaboration and strategic effort in HMP delivery with Deucheran Hill; and the current outline proposals for peatland restoration are non-compliant with NatureScot guidance; 15.16 SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) have advised the ECU that due to a lack of information in relation to avoidance of peat and impacts on the water environment they submit a holding objection and request that determination is deferred until more information is provided on impacts on peat and impacts on the water environment has been provided for their assessment. SEPA also ask that the conditions for the submission of detailed finalised plans for borrow pit management and restoration prior to commencement of construction on site, a condition requiring all watercourse crossings to be designed as bottomless box/ arches or span bridges to protect the bed and banks of all watercourses, further details on potential forestry wastes be secured by condition prior to commencement of construction works, and a decommissioning plan condition be applied with any grant of consent. If any of these issues is not covered by condition, then SEPA’s position should be considered to be one of objection. 15.17 Additional Information – SEPA advised the ECU due to impacts on peat and carbon rich soils, they continue to submit a holding objection and request that determination is deferred until further information and modifications have been provided for their assessment. They also request a micrositing condition that includes a caveat that micrositing will not be permitted into areas of greater peat depths or watercourse buffers further reduced. If this condition is not applied, then please consider this to be an objection. SEPA also note that further conditions have been requested in their previous response of 14 February 2025 15.18 Applicant response to SEPA – provided a response to the points raised by SEPA in relation to planning policy (NPF4 Policy 5 (Soils) and peat depth, disturbance, loss, restoration, carbon balance calculations, benefits of the proposal and mitigation. In conclusion, the Applicant believes they have demonstrated that the proposal fully accords with NPF4 Policy 5. 15.19 SEPA provided a further response advising Policy 5 of NPF4 states that “Where development on peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat is proposed, a detailed site-specific assessment will be required…. This assessment should inform careful project design and ensure, in accordance with relevant guidance and the mitigation hierarchy, that adverse impacts are first avoided and then minimised through best practice.” SEPA has developed a Planning Advice Note which summarises their approach to assessing the impact of developments on peatland and carbon rich soils. 15.20 SEPA assess each application against National Policy using their guidance. Each site is however different and what may be considered as acceptable on a particular site may not be acceptable on another and will depend on local conditions and justification of approach. 15.21 In their response of 14th February 2025, they stated “These surveys should demonstrate how areas of peat over 1m have been avoided. If there are clear nearby alternatives where relocating the footprint of the turbines would result in Page 116
Page 117
less peat excavations, then they would expect these to be considered to fulfil the mitigation hierarchy in NPF4. This is especially relevant should lesser impacts on peat be found within the 50m micro sighting distances.” 15.22 As quoted in the Applicants letter, 82.8% of the site recorded peat depths of < 1m and based on the peat depth surveys provided, in this specific case it appears that all proposed turbine infrastructure could be positioned to avoid deeper areas of peat, including peat depths over 1m. In line with NPF4’s mitigation hierarchy, SEPA would therefore expect careful project design to be used to avoid the deepest areas of peat. SEPA may accept positioning of infrastructure on deeper areas of peat if suitably justified and it is demonstrated to be the best overall environmental outcome in relation to their interests. 15.23 SEPA therefore request clear justification as to why the modifications they requested in their response of 13 October 2025 cannot be accommodated. 15.24 Regarding the requested modifications of access tracks over peat depths of 1m, while these areas of deeper peat should be avoided by design, SEPA would accept mitigation in the form of floating tracks if it were demonstrated at this stage where floating tracks can be feasibly built and this was shown on a clear plan. If a floating track design cannot be accommodated, then further justification will be required, and the design should be reconsidered to avoid these deeper areas of peat. Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment 15.25 Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), Stage 2 Checking Report advised the ECU that the developer’s response has addressed most of the queries raised in their Stage 1 Checking Report. However, there are some queries that require a further response in relation to: peat depth mapping with all probing points from both phases of investigation and provide interpolated peat depths accordingly, Figure 9.2.5 Geomorphology shows that there are areas of artificial drainage and forestry across the proposal but these do not appear to have been taken into consideration as part of the likelihood assessment. Comment is required on if the likelihood assessment can be considered suitably robust without their inclusion. 15.26 The Applicant provided a response to Ironside Farrar PLHRA Stage 2 Checking Report. At time of writing no further response has been received from Ironside Farrar to confirm whether or not their concerns have now been addressed. 15.27 The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer (LBO) – initially provided advice and recommendations on Designated Sites (Torrisdale Cliffs SSSI, Tangy Loch SSSI, Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA, RAMSAR, SSSI), Habitat, Peatland, European Protected Species (Bats, Otter, Badger, Red Squirrel, Water Vole, Wildcat, Pine Marten, Reptiles and Amphibians, Fish, and Macroinvertebrates), Ornithology (Moorland Bird Species, Black Grouse, Golden eagle, Osprey, Hen Harrier, and Golden Plover), Bird Protection Plan, Habitat Management Plan, Brown Trout and European eels, Species Protection Plan, and Construction Environmental Management Plan. Page 117
Page 118
15.28 Additional Information – the Local Biodiversity Officer has provided further advice on the revised outline Habitat Management Plan, Species Protection Plan, and Bird Protection Plan. 15.29 Revised Outline Habitat Management Plan – the Local Biodiversity Officer notes that the applicant suggests the use of chemical treatment for bracken control and advised that this is not a recommended treatment due to the negative environmental impact it can cause. The LBO asks that no chemical treatment is used for the control of bracken. It is also asked that the Applicant ensures that no chemical treatment is used with the native tree planting. Discussions should continue with SEPA and NatureScot regarding peatland restoration. The Local Biodiversity Officer has confirmed they are satisfied with the proposed planting of native species. Species Protection Plan (SPP) 15.30 Due to the impact on bats, they should be included in the SPP. Mitigation measures should include feathering in accordance with NatureScot guidance. Reduced rotation speed while idling may reduce fatalities by up to 50%. As this option does not result in any loss of output, as best practice, it is recommended wherever it is practically possible and there remains uncertainty over the risk posed to bats. It can be applied at any site with a blade pitch control system which can be automated using SCADA data. Research has shown that feathering and curtailment are effective methods in reducing impacts in some bat species. 15.31 The Local Biodiversity Officer also requests a programme of monitoring fatalities that may occur from collision. Furthermore, that post-construction surveys are conducted to aid the monitoring process. This information will feed into further mitigation measures which can be altered accordingly to ensure any negative impacts to foraging / commuting bats is minimal. It is also noted that a Bird Protection Plan is still to be submitted. 15.32 Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) – have advised the ECU they are concerned that that the proposal could potentially have some impact on migratory salmonid fish habitat downstream of the site. Although they do not have good information, the lower reach of the Torrisdale Water may be accessible to migratory salmonid fish. They therefore urge that in the event of the proposal being granted consent that monitoring of Water quality, macroinvertebrates, and fish should be undertaken to Scottish Government guidelines which include sites within the reaches of habitat where salmon may be present. 15.33 Having due regard to the fact that there is an outstanding objection from SEPA, and that confirmation has yet to be received from Ironside Farrar that the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment is acceptable it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. In the event that consent is granted it is expected that any conditions recommended by NatureScot, SEPA, RSPB Scotland, the Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board and the Local Biodiversity Officer are attached to the consent. Page 118
Page 119
16. TREES, WOODS, AND FORESTS 16.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on trees, woods and forests have been addressed. Policy 6 – Forestry, woodland, and Trees of NPF4 intent is to protect and expand forests, woodland, and trees. Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees of LDP2 states that there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources. Policy 78 – Woodland Removal of LDP2 states that proposals that involve the removal of woodland resources will be assessed against the criteria for determining the acceptability of woodland removal, in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. Where this assessment concludes that compensatory planting would be appropriate, developers will need to provide for this in accordance with the advice in the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. 16.2 Scottish Forestry’s most recent response to the ECU on the Additional Information advised that the proposal: should demonstrate full compliance with the UKFS; that the Applicant considers their felling and restocking in the context of the Argyll & Bute LDP 2 and associated policies on Forestry and Forestry Removal in line with the adopted Forest and Woodland Strategy; and the Applicant clarifies the total area of permanent woodland loss to ensure that the correct area of Compensatory Planting is applied; and compensatory planting for the woodland loss should be secured by a condition. 16.3 The Applicant provided a response to the points of clarification sought by Scottish Forestry in respect to compliance with UKFS 5th Edition, Beinn an Tuirc Extension Wind Farm Substation, total area of woodland loss, and phased restocking plan. 16.4 At time of writing no further response has been received from Scottish Forestry to confirm whether or not the Applicant has addressed their concerns. 16.5 Having due regard to the above and the fact that Scottish Forestry have not yet confirmed that they are satisfied with the proposal it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2 17. MINERALS 17.1 Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 states that proposals for borrow pits will only be supported where the proposal is tied to a specific project and is time-limited, the proposal complies with the mineral extraction criteria in Policy 33 taking into account the temporary nature of the development, and appropriate restoration proposals are enforceable and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 states that proposals for mineral extraction will generally be supported for borrow pits where the proposal is found to be acceptable after being assessed against NPF4 Policy 33 criterion e). 17.2 Borrow pit search areas have been identified covering a total of approximately 42,051 m2 to supply material to construct the proposal. The use of all of these Page 119
Page 120
borrow pits would provide a greater volume of rock than would be needed for the construction of the proposal but allows for the current uncertainty of the quality of the rock at these locations. It is likely that only some of the borrow pit search areas would be required. For the purposes of the assessment all three borrow pit search areas will be assessed (Technical Appendix 9.1, EIAR Volume 4). Stone would be required for various purposes, primarily track and hardstanding construction. If the stone onsite is found to be suitable then a proportion of this could be won from foundation excavation and the remainder will be sourced from onsite borrow pits or from offsite quarries 17.3 Having due regard to the above taking into account that the proposed borrow pits are tied to the proposal and subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pits and a borrow pit restoration plan being attached to any consent it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 in this regard, subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pit and a borrow pit restoration plan. 18. DECOMMISSIONING, SITE RESTORATION AND QUALITY OF SITE RESTORATION PLANS 18.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration have been addressed. It also requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the quality of site restoration plans have been addressed including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 requires consideration to be given to the long-term environmental management of the site. 18.2 The expected operational lifetime of the proposal is 35 years from the date of commissioning, following which decommissioning of the wind turbines and other infrastructure would be undertaken as required. Any alternative to this action would be subject to a further consenting process. 18.3 At the end of the proposal’s operational life, a decision will be made as to whether to refurbish, remove, or replace the wind turbines. If a decision were to be taken to decommission the proposal, this will entail the removal of all the wind turbine components, transformers, the substation and BESS and associated buildings. Access tracks and underground cables will be left in place and foundations removed to a depth of 0.5 m below ground level to avoid environmental effects from removal. A Decommissioning Plan will set out environmental protection measures and restoration principles which will be implemented. This plan will be required to be agreed with Argyll & Bute Council. 18.4 An assessment of the decommissioning phase of the proposal has not been undertaken as part of the EIA as: i) the future baseline conditions (environmental and other developments) cannot be predicted accurately at this stage, and ii) the proposals for refurbishment/decommissioning are not known at this stage. However, an outline decommissioning strategy is included in the OCEMP (Technical Appendix 2.1 (EIAR Volume 4)). It is assumed that the significance of impacts of decommissioning will be no greater, or less than the impacts of construction. Page 120
Page 121
18.4 Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to an appropriate condition being attached if the proposal receives consent the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 - The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 19. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 19.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how cumulative impacts have been addressed. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 also requires cumulative impacts to be addressed. Any cumulative impacts which have been identified are covered in the preceding sections of this report. 20. RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TARGETS AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS. 20.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that, in considering the impacts of the proposal, significant weight will be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all renewable developments to be assessed against the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions. 20.2 Renewable Electricity Generation - Both UK and Scottish Government energy policy recognises the need for substantial increases in renewable energy generation if the transition towards net zero is to be achieved. The proposal would involve generation of up to 54 MW of clean renewable energy and 20 MW storage via the BESS. The BESS enables the storage of electricity generated by the wind farm when it cannot be transferred to the electricity grid, and then released when most needed, resulting in reduced wastage of clean energy generation. A reduction in emissions from the electricity grid of around 55,584 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) per year, making a valuable contribution to the Scottish Government’s energy targets and legally binding climate change reduction targets. 20.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – the proposal would contribute to providing renewable electricity, in turn displacing emissions associated with fossil fuel- based electricity generation elsewhere. The construction of the proposed infrastructure, and subsequent operation and decommissioning of the proposal would include activities that either directly or indirectly result in CO2 emissions. Technical Appendix 2.2 (EIAR Volume 4), calculates the greenhouse gas emissions and carbon payback times for wind farm developments in Scottish peatlands and concludes that the proposal would ‘pay back’ the carbon emissions associated with its construction, operation, and decommissioning in a 2.2-year period. 20.5 East Kintyre Community Council have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of inefficient net-zero impact. Page 121
Page 122
20.6 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crisis and 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 04 – Sustainable Development of LDP2 in respect to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. 21. GRID CAPACITY & ENERGY STORAGE 21.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that grid capacity should not constrain renewable energy development. It is for developers to agree connections to the grid with the relevant network operator. Furthermore, that proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported, which include energy storage. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires the Council to have regard to the opportunities for energy storage. 21.2 Grid Capacity - Connection to Electricity Grid – the EIAR states that a connection to the electricity grid network would be made at Carradale substation, located approx. 3 km northeast of the Wind Turbine Array. The grid connection would be the responsibility of the transmission licence holder (Scottish and Southern Electricity Network (SSEN)) and would be subject to a separate consenting process. 21.3 Energy storage – the proposal includes a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) of up to 20 MW of energy storage. The Scottish Fire & Rescue Service have advised the ECU they are assessing all BESS site applications at the moment and there has been a working group established to consolidate all their departments and provide unified responses to applications. Until this group completes its work, National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) Best Practice guidance on BESS should be followed. 21.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the ABLDP2 in respect to Energy Storage. 22. PERPETUITY 22.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that consents for proposals may be time limited. Areas identified for wind farms are, however, expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. It is acknowledged that areas identified for wind farms are expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. However, as the expected operational life of the proposal is 35 years from the date of commissioning, should consent be granted, Officers would expect it to be time limited to 35 years to reflect the life of the wind farm as detailed in the EIAR. 23. CONCLUSION 23.1 This proposal is classed as “Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation” - a National Development, in terms of the Spatial Strategy given its capacity to generate and store more than 50MW. In principle, there is support for this scale Page 122
Page 123
of development given its importance in the delivery of Scotland’s Spatial Strategy. However, such projects are still required to be assessed against the provisions of the Development Plan, which consists of NPF4 and LDP 2. 23.2 The lead Development Plan policies support renewable energy development in principle but require proposals to be assessed against the criterion detailed in this report. While the weight to be given to each of the considerations is a matter for the decision maker, NPF4 is clear that significant weight will require to be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. However, a balance still requires to be reached in terms of the impact of the development. 23.3 In relation to landscape and visual impacts NPF4 advises that where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied such effects will be considered acceptable. However, NPF4 must be read as a whole, and detailed consideration given to linked policies. Policy 4 (Natural Places) – sets out that proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. 23.4 The Scottish Government gives considerable commitment to renewable energy and encourages Planning Authorities to support the development of wind farms where they can operate successfully in appropriate locations. This is not however blanket support without qualification. In considering the appropriateness of the development, significant weight has been given to these matters. 23.5 In conclusion, it is recommended by Officers that the Council objects to this proposal on the grounds that the proposal will have an unacceptable adverse: landscape and visual impact, impact on peat, aviation impact, peat landslide hazard and forestry impact contrary to the provisions of Development Plan Policy 24. RECOMMENDATION 24.1 That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) Argyll & Bute Council objects on the grounds that the proposal will have an unacceptable significant landscape and visual impact upon residents and the integrity of the East Kintyre Local Landscape Area contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 4d and 11e and Argyll & Bute LDP2 Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas and ABLWECS. (2) Argyll & Bute Council objects on the grounds that the Applicant has failed to resolve SEPA’s holding objection and that the proposal will therefore have an adverse impact on peat contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. In the event that consent is granted it is expected that any conditions recommended by NatureScot, SEPA, RSPB Scotland, the Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board and the Local Biodiversity Officer are attached to the consent. (3) Argyll & Bute Council objects on the grounds that the Applicant has failed to resolve Highlands & Islands Airports holding objection and that Page 123
Page 124
the proposal will therefore have an adverse aviation impact contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes, of the LDP2. (4) Argyll & Bute Council objects on the grounds that the Applicant’s Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment has failed to satisfy Ironside Farrar and that the proposal will have an adverse Peat Landslide Hazard contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. (5) Argyll & Bute Council objects on the grounds that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Scottish Forestry and that the proposal will have an adverse impact on Forestry contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2 (6) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to archaeological impact, subject to a condition to secure a written scheme of investigation being attached to any grant of consent. (7) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer on the Revised Outline Habitat Management Plan and the Species Protection Plan being attached to any grant of consent. (8) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to suitably worded conditions to secure a BS4142 assessment for the BESS, limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation (operational turbine noise and amplitude modulation conditions) to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Councils Noise Consultant. (9) Argyll & Bute has no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any grant of consent: • Watercourse crossings should be designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change (56% allowance) flood event. • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development surface water run-off, the surface water drainage should be in operation prior to construction. (10) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Access subject to a condition to secure the recommendation of the Access Manager being attached to any grant of consent: • Outdoor Access Plan to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Council prior to the commencement of development. (11) Argyll & Bute Council requests that all conditions recommended by other consultees are included in any Consent. Page 124
Page 125
NOTE – Should any of the above matters be resolved to the satisfaction of the relevant consultees Argyll & Bute Council objection may be treated as withdrawn. • Page 125
Page 126
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 127
© Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to; 25/00043/S36 O 0 1,900 3,800950 Meters Application Site Page 127
Page 128
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 129
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE (PAN) _________________________________________________________________________ Reference: 26/00366/PAN Applicant: Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc (SSEN Transmission) Proposal: Development of electricity substation on a new site to replace the existing Ardnadam substation. Site Address: Dunoon Electricity Sub Station, High Road, Sandbank, Dunoon INTRODUCTION Proposal of Application Notices only relate to National and Major Application, as defined by the Government’s planning hierarchy, and are a statutory requirement prior to the submission of a further associated planning application, in line with the provisions of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. The PAN submission marks the start of a minimum 12-week period to allow for community consultation before an application can be lodged. This PAN submission was made valid on 05 March 2026.Therefore, the earliest date an application could be lodged is 28 May 2026. In considering this item, Members should restrict comments to issues relating to the material considerations which may be relevant in the determination of the proposed development in advance of any subsequent application being presented for determination. Any opinions or views expressed by Councillors at the pre-application stage must be mindful of the overarching requirements of fairness, impartiality and of keeping an open mind. The process provides opportunity for Officers to give feedback to the prospective applicant on issues which Members would wish to see addressed within the planning application submission. The submitted information includes: • Proposal of Application Notice • Location Plan • Copy of newspaper adverts The applicant has confirmed the following consultation steps have been undertaken: Copies of the PAN and supporting information were issued on 19 February to the following parties: - Community Councils Dunoon Community Council Page 129 Agenda Item 6
Page 130
Hunters Quay Community Council Community Organisations Sandbank Community Development Trust Scenic Sandbank Council Leader Councillor Jim Lynch Ward Councillors Councillor Audrey E. Forest Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Ross Moreland Officer comment: The site lies within the Cowal Ward area. However, the Councillors noted above represent the Dunoon Ward which is located to the south of the site. The applicant has been advised of this and officers have requested that Cowal Ward councillors are included in any further communications, namely: Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Yvonne McNeilly Councillor William Sinclair. MSP Jenni Minto MP Brendan O’Hara In addition, the following consultation steps are proposed to be undertaken: Two in-person public consultation events 17 March 2026 (14:00 – 19:00) – Dunoon Burgh Hall, 195 Argyll Street, Dunoon PA23 7DD 25 August 2026 (14:00 – 19:00) – Dunoon Burgh Hall, 195 Argyll Street, Dunoon, PA23 7DD Newspaper advert in respect of these events were placed in the Dunoon Observer on 27 February and 06 March in respect of the first event and 07 and 14 August in respect of the second event. The proposed site falls within the Sandbank Community Council area. However, the Council’s Democratic Services team have confirmed that this Community Council is currently inactive. The applicant has therefore contacted other community-based organisations in relation to the PAN including the Sandbank Community Development Trust and Scenic Sandbank. Officers consider that the steps set out in the PAN are acceptable and in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations to ensure appropriate community consultation is undertaken. Page 130
Page 131
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed construction and operation of a new 132/33kV Grid Supply Point electricity substation on a new site to the east of A885 High Road, this replacing the existing Ardnadam Substation which would be decommissioned on completion on the new facility. The proposed development would comprise platform and buildings, associated infrastructure including new vehicular access to the A885, parking, landscaping, boundary treatments, screening and SuDS. Indicative locations of temporary construction laydown areas are also identified. A Cable Sealing End Connection would be developed on land adjacent to the existing Ardnadam Substation, this connecting new substation via an underground cable. A site selection process has been undertaken which considered environmental, cost and engineering factors. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposal site (9.5 hectares) lies to the west and south east of the villages of Sandbank and Ardnadam, Cowal, approximately 2.5 km to the north west of Dunoon. The site comprises two distinct parts – these linked by the A885, High Road, which is also included as part the red line boundary. Western part of the site This part of the site (3.05 ha) lies to the west of Sandbank and Ardnadam villages, being situated on sloping land above the settlement area. Land levels rise steeply to the west. This location forms the existing Ardnadam Substation which is served by a vehicular access track from the A885. The site boundary also includes rough grazing land to the north west of substation. Land immediately to the south west forms the site of the proposed Dunoon Grid Battery Energy Storage Facility (Reference 22/01788/PP). Various residential properties lie immediately outwith the site to the north west. The southern edges of the site are defined by Ancient Woodland (of semi natural origin). The LDP2 designates this land as Countryside Zone. Southern part of the site This part of the site (5.29 hectares) lies to north east of the existing junction with the A885 High Road and Ferry Road. This location is identified for the proposed new substation including temporary construction laydown areas. The land is currently undeveloped, comprising open, rough grassland with land levels rising towards the northern edges. LDP 2 identifies this land as a Strategic Economic Investment Location for industry, business and storage (Allocated Business Site BI-AL-2/2). These are key locations to promote HIE Priority Sectors to be safeguarded from inappropriate uses. Page 131
Page 132
The Sandbank Business Park, which comprises a range of established business, a former Travelling Person Site which is now in business use, the Cowal Cemetery and Sandbank Primary School, are situated to the north east of the site. An area of woodland (referred to as the Brenvaar Strip) and Allocated Business Site (LDP2 reference BI-AL-2/1) are located immediately to the north east. Loch Loskin lies approximately 300 metres to the south. The immediate context of the site is characterised by its woodland setting. This includes long established woodland (of plantation origin) to the south and east, which is also covered by a Tree Preservation Order. Woodland also provides screening to much of the urban development in the locality of the site including the business park, some residential properties and the Hunters Quay holiday park is situated with woodland approximately 200 metres to the east of the site. A885/ High Road The site includes the extents of the A885 for 775 metres, this linking the access track to the existing Ardnadam Substation to the proposed substation site. This route is bounded open grassland and woodland, the Sandbank Primary School and Sandbank Business Park, with the suburban development of Sandbank Ardnadam village lying to the north. DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY This is not a planning application and therefore does not require assessment and determination in accordance with Section 25 of the Planning Act against the Development Plan and its policies. However, in considering the merits of this PAN, a number of Development Plan Policy considerations are relevant National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 2023) Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises Policy 2 – Climate mitigation and adaptation Policy 3 – Biodiversity Policy 4 – Natural Places Policy 5 – Soils Policy 6 – Forestry, woodland and trees Policy 7 – Energy Policy 14 – Design, quality and place Policy 19 – Heat and cooling Policy 20 – Blue Green infrastructure Policy 22 – Flood risk and water management Policy 23 – Health and Safety Policy 26 – Business and industry Policy 29 – Rural development Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Page 132
Page 133
Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green and Blue Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 22 – Economic Development Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 61 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Other Relevant Policy Considerations ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct 2023) TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct 2023) ABC Landscape Studies ABC Economic Development Action Plan POTENTIAL MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS It is considered that the following matters would be material considerations in the determination of any future application: - • Principle of development, acceptability of proposed use on land restricted to business and industrial enterprises (Use Classes 4, 5, 6 and other sui generis industrial or business type uses) • Principle of development, NPF4 identifies infrastructure directly supporting on and offshore high voltage electricity lines including substations as national development • Potential impacts to woodland, trees • Potential impact to biodiversity and protected species • Site layout including location, design and appearance of structures and transmission equipment, temporary construction laydown areas • Landscape design and visual mitigation including response to local landscape character, design of site edges and boundary treatments • Noise impacts including amenity of neighbouring residential uses • Vehicular access and parking • Views of statutory consultees in respect of any formal planning application • Any other material consideration raised in representations CONCLUSION This report sets out information submitted to date as part of the PAN. Summarised are the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received Page 133
Page 134
to date. The list is not exhaustive, and further matters may arise as and when a planning application is received and in light of public representations and consultation responses. RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of this PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the applicant in finalising any future planning application submission. Author of Report: Francis Newton Date: 30 March 2026 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 07 April 2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 134
Page 135
© Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan relative to; 26/00366/PAN O 0 140 28070 Meters Application Site Page 135
Page 136
This page is intentionally left blank