The applicants, Offshore Farm Developments Ltd (OFD), and Argyll and Bute Council received news on Tuesday of reporter Michael Culshaw's recommendation that the fish farm, to the north of Inchmarnock, should not be allowed to proceed - and the final
blow to the project came when the Crown Estate confirmed it had endorsed Mr Culshaw's conclusions.
Mr Culshaw's report runs to 35 pages and can be read in full
here, but a short summary follows of his assessment of the fish farm on each main subject area raised during the public inquiry into OFD's appeal, held in Rothesay in February.
Landscape and visual impact"From viewpoints such as St Ninian's Point, which has a 360 degree view and a sense of remoteness brought about by its relative isolation, the impact of the fish farm would be significant and adverse.
"In my view the character of the waters north of Inchmarnock would be significantly altered by the presence of a fish farm of this scale, and the design changes introduced by the applicants are not sufficient to bring the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal within acceptable limits.
"SNH have judged this proposal on its merits and I do not understand their stance to suggest that the waters west of Bute are a 'no-go' area for fish farm development, but rather that this particular location is particularly unsuited to the proposed development. In broad terms I agree with that assessment."
On tourism "Green tourism is clearly an area where Bute has the potential for growth, and as objectors pointed out the relatively unspoilt nature of the west coast of Bute is a resource on which such developments would depend.
"However, while I accept the evidence of SNH that landscape and visual impact would be significant and adverse, it is less easy to substantiate a direct link to harmful effects on tourism, and I suspect that the market for green, outdoor and activity based tourism is less sensitive to developments of this nature than was submitted by objectors.
"The potential effects would not justify withholding a lease".
On seals"While I note the expressions of concern over the possible impact of the development on a seal haul-out on Inchmarnock, the size of the seal population was disputed, and in my opinion there is insufficient compelling evidence that a fish farm would be harmful to the population for this to be a matter which would count significantly against the proposal.
On wild fish"The risk that wild fish would be deterred from entering the Glenmore Burn is not quantified in the evidence I have before me, and I have concluded that compliance with the AMA regime would ensure that risks were satisfactorily minimised."
On the historic environment"While my conclusions on the landscape and visual impact of the proposal on St Ninian's Point are set out above, it is clear that from a national perspective the impact of the fish farm on the setting of St Ninian's Chapel as a Scheduled Ancient Monument."
Noise and light "I am satisfied that conditions could be imposed on operations which would provide adequate assurance that disturbance would be avoided."
Other impacts"Although it is clear from the evidence that commercial fishing activity which currently takes place over the proposed lease area would be curtailed by the existence of a fish farm, I am not convinced that the removal of this single area would significantly harm wider commercial fishing interests.
"I heard no evidence to convince me that sailing activities or kayaking in the area as a whole would be physically adversely affected in a way which would merit withholding the lease."
Economic benefits"It is clear that the proposal would bring direct economic benefit to Bute in terms of employment for six persons, which is an important benefit bearing in mind the narrow economic base of Bute and its high dependency on the public sector and tourism.
"While I accept that the health of the aquaculture industry is a matter of national importance, there is no evidence that the granting or refusing of a lease in this case would have any impact on the aquaculture industry as a whole. The employment and economic benefits of this development are local in scale. In terms of policy LP ENV 10 they are not regional or national in scale and do not outweigh the significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape which I have identified."
Summary"The supportive stance of both national and local government to fish farming activity is a strong factor in favour of this proposal, as is the tangible, though limited, economic benefit which it would bring in terms of employment. The significant harm to landscape and visual amenity interests of this proposal outweighs those benefits.
"It is clear to me that the proposal would conflict with Policy LP RUR1 of the extant Bute Local Plan and with Policies LP AQUA 1 and LP ENV 10 of the emerging Argyll and Bute Local Plan. Although SPP22 refers to the need for community acceptance and understanding of fish farming, the opposition of local people expressed in this inquiry is not of itself conclusive in this case, and other considerations put before me, while they may add some weight to the case against the granting of a lease in this case, would not be sufficient in themselves to justify refusal."
Following the publication of Mr Culshaw's report, Christine McArthur, the secretary of the Stop The Inchmarnock Fish Farm (STIFF) pressure group, said: "This is fantastic news - we're all delighted.
"We've always thought there shouldn't be a fish farm there. The people of Bute have spoken, and now they've been listened to."
Councillors from Bute and Cowal took an 'unfavourable view' of OFD's proposal in February 2008, but the company appealed against that decision - leading to a public inquiry, under the auspices of the Scottish Government's department for planning and environmental appeals (DPEA), which took place over three and a half busy days in February of this year.
"I think common sense has prevailed at last," Mrs McArthur continued.
"The benefits to Bute from this project would have been minimal, but what we would have lost would have been irreplaceable.
"If it hadn't been for John McGhee (the QC who represented the objectors without charge], we would have been well stuffed - we're so grateful to him for representing us.
"To be honest we thought it was maybe 50-50 whether the reporter would go for or against the plans. Maybe we shouldn't have thought that, though, because more than a thousand people objected, either initially or by becoming STIFF members.
"It's just a huge relief - we're all over the moon."
Mr Culshaw also recommended that an application by OFD to have the inquiry's expenses awarded against Argyll and Bute Council should be denied.
OFD director Donald Fowler said: "Our appeal was rejected by the reporter on landscape issues; however, we still do not see any reasoned evidence in the report to support the assessment of adverse impact on the landscape.
"The council's policies relating to fish farming are at best confusing and unclear, and we find it difficult to interpret these in the way the reporter has, particularly as the council also presented no supporting evidence in their report or at the enquiry and admitted at the enquiry they could not defend their report.
"We also note that SNH has no policy basis to support their objection on landscape grounds, particularly as their own guidance shows no aquaculture sensitivity on landscape in the area of the proposal.
"We note that none of the other objections stood up to independent scrutiny by the reporter."
What do you think of the fish farm decision? Sign in or register below to post your views here.