Scottish Sea Farms refile plans for UK’s biggest salmon farm in Yell Sound
Developers Scottish Sea Farms (SSF) have resubmitted plans for what would be the UK's largest salmon farm – accusing animal welfare groups of skewing lice statistics, fishing representatives of being “highly misleading” and NatureScot of making mistakes in their objections.
In a packet of documents filed with the council earlier this month, SSF make no changes to the Fish Holm plans they submitted in spring but include a new seabed survey and seek to address NatureScot's concerns about the proposed site's impact on endangered birds.
It was NatureScot's objection in May which first sent the plans back to the drawing board. These new filings now initiation a period of re-consultation for regulators and third parties to comment until November 15th.
While SSF have in the past declined to comment on ongoing planning applications, the company has spent some of its time since NatureScot's objection discussing the plans with regulators.
It is understood SSF met with council officials to consider Fish Holm earlier this month. In its filings the developer also mentions a response from NatureScot to the latest documents, which the regular described as “informal” and declined to share.
While continuing to pursue Fish Holm, SSF are also progressing plans for other potential farms around the isles.
Earlier this year the company put tide gauges in Whalsay, Skerries and off Lunning. In a private briefing seen by The Shetland Times earlier this month, the company have also begun assessing fishing efforts in Dury Voe for a site off Billister.
Billy Reid, a scallop fisherman who objected during Fish Holm's first consultation, said he worried the industry were “bulldozing” over a “complete pushover” council.
Animal Equality, a welfare group who also objected in the spring, said Fish Holm represents “one of the largest and riskiest fish farms Scotland has ever seen and “an experiment in industrial expansion”.
Fishing Conflict
When plans for Fish Holm were first submitted in February they drew vociferous opposition from a number of scallop fishermen in particular.
In a “clarification note” SSF used data provided by the Shetland Fishermen's Association to claim that losing the site would cost local fishermen little more than £500 annually.
Mr Reid disagreed with that calculation.
“I don't know where they came with that figure from,” said Mr Reid, who shared a log of his earning more than £7,500 from the site per week during a fortnight of fishing last winter.
“It's just lies to get what they want,” he added. “It's the usual.”
SSF in turn describe the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) as “highly misleading” for suggesting they purposefully spurned a conflict resolution meeting in the spring.
“There was insufficient time between SSF being notified and the meeting date for arrangements for attendance to be made,” the note explains.
The Centre for Good Relations, which ran the meeting, did not respond to a request for comment. It is understood all invitees were given the same notice.
SSF go on to say that they considered other sites in the area but that only Fish Holm was suitable – and that initially contracting the size of their plans was a meaningful concession not, as the SFA described it, a “token gesture”.
The company commit to “regular engagement sessions” with the fishing groups and “provision of potential areas of interest... at an early stage”.
It is unclear whether this will be enough to mend relationships with the fishing sector.
“I still believe that we can have salmon farming and fishing, but there need to be concessions from the salmon farmers,” said Sheila Keith, SFA executive officer.
“We have clearly communicated that it is our desire for developments not to happen on known scallop grounds, but they continue to present proposals to us that they know are on scallop grounds.”
SSF acknowledged the crossover and said that certain at-sea conditions made it largely unavoidable.
“The environmental conditions required for successful fish farming can coincide with areas that are also valuable to inshore fisheries,” the note concludes.
“This overlap is not intentional but reflects the limited availability of marine space that meets the technical and ecological requirements for fish farm development.”
Red-throated divers
The most significant objection during Fish Holm’s first consultation came from NatureScot — a statutory consultee with a more meaningful procedural stake than third parties.
In it NatureScot shared concerns that the site, located with a designated special protection area (SPA), might affect endangered red-throated divers.
In another “clarification note” SSF write that NatureScot’s concerns are based on a “peak” count of 13 birds, when the usual average is lower and that the regulators’ concern is based on “highly precautionary” calculations.
The amount of waste produced by the farm, spread by tidal currents, runs the risk of compromising up to 30,000 square metres of foraging habitat for red-throated divers (a third of a per cent of the total SPA), according to SSF’s calculations.
NatureScot did not respond to a request for comment, but said it expected to file a formal response shortly.
Animal Equality’s executive director, Abigail Penny, said it was all the more important to act precautionarily with vanguard development’s like Fish Holm.
“This proposal would create one of the largest and riskiest fish farms Scotland has ever seen,” she said.
“The precautionary principle exists precisely for cases like this, where uncertainty is high and the potential for irreversible damage is real. Scotland’s fragile marine ecosystems, and the welfare of millions of fish, should never be treated as an experiment in industrial expansion.”
In response to requests from Shetland Islands Council, the reapplication also include a new seabed survey for horse mussels. While the survey found large numbers of shells in some parts of the site, none were dense enough to qualify as protected horse mussel beds. In other places the seafloor was covered with too many brittle starfish to see on an underwater camera.
The Scottish government’s marine directorate also requested SSF resubmit it’s emergency handbook for the site after it identified incorrect contact details for officials. The resubmitted emergency procedures still twice incorrectly list an SSF staff member who left the company in January.