An appeal has been lodged against Comhairle nan Eilean Siar’s decision to refuse planning consent for a proposed salmon farm off the east coast of Lewis. Bakkafrost Scotland wanted to install five 200 metre circumference pens with a maximum stocked biomass of 4,680 tonnes at the North Gravir site, but the council’s planning board unanimously rejected the application last December.
The refusal centred on Bakkafrost’s failure to demonstrate that the development would not result in an unacceptable exclusion of commercial fishing activity from what is described as a historically important and economically productive fishing ground. The Western Isles Fishermen’s Association had warned it would impose “the biggest ever loss to the Scottish fishing industry of prolific commercial fishing grounds.”
The numbers tell the story of the tension. Bakkafrost argued the site represented just 0.06 per cent of the affected sea area and that displacement of fishing activity would be “negligible.” The company said the development would provide five permanent jobs and an estimated direct economic benefit of £606,000 annually. But the fishermen countered that up to 20 prawn trawlers fish within the proposed site boundary, with each estimating annual income of £50,000 from it.
Critically, planning staff noted that Bakkafrost’s assessment relied on publicly available data rather than the vessel monitoring system tracks held by local fishermen. The fishermen said they had provided this data, but the disconnect between the two claims contributed to the board’s decision to refuse consent.
Councillor Susan Thomson raised a fundamental point: the development could bring economic benefit “by displacing an industry that’s already providing an economic benefit to the Western Isles.” This is the core of the fish farming debate across the Highlands and Islands. Five permanent jobs and £606,000 in annual benefit sounds appealing until you weigh it against 20 working fishing boats and the livelihoods they support. The appeal process will determine whether Bakkafrost’s argument carries more weight on review.