Many of the representations made in support of an application for an extension of fish farming operations in Argyll were lodged by people who work for the applicant fish farm company, it has emerged.
The company has denied it is bullying or in any way forcing its staff to support them in their bids and has strongly defended their workers’ rights to make representations to local authorities in support of them.
However, campaigners against fish farms say Scottish Salmon Company (SSC) is acting unethically and have vowed to publicly name and shame the staff if it ever happens again.
Research by local people in Argyll found that at least 12 managers and staff of SSC had written to Argyll and Bute Council to support its two recent planning applications for an extension to an existing fish farm at Loch Striven and the formation of a new one.
They believe many of them are staff based in the Western Isles.
One local objector in Colintraive said: “Most people here in the village are outraged by the fact the Scottish Salmon managers wrote in. Imagine how people on Lewis would feel if the whole of Cowal would support the development of a giant wind farm on Lewis next to Callanish and Carloway, giant fish farms in front of their houses or a nuclear power station on the Butt of Lewis – or that managers of wind farm companies would write in for the giant wind farm application on Lewis.”
Others suggested representations to the council were either a sign that the staff were the happiest and most loyal of any firm in Scotland or that they were being bullied by management to lodge the representations or even that the company had merely used their names.
A spokeswoman for Scottish Salmon flatly denied that, saying: “At no point in this or any other case has it been the Scottish Salmon Company’s policy to submit letters of support for planning applications on behalf of staff.
“Any expressions of support posted on the Argyll and Bute Council website are the business of the individual correspondent and there should be no suggestion of any lack of transparency if that person has been clear about their identity and the reasons that they support the application in question.”
She added: “Frankly, your suggestion that “bullying” or any sort of improper behaviour has been involved is wholly offensive, as it is unwarranted. Any staff member who chooses to respond to a planning application is free to do so on their own terms and we are grateful to any who have taken the time to do so.”
Asked whether the managers and staff who had written to support the Argyll bid had actually ever been to the Loch Striven site to judge the merits of the application, the spokeswoman declined to explain.
SSC was unaware of any arrangements that excluded their own staff members from status as members of the public with a right to respond to planning applications as they see fit, she insisted.
However, campaigners Outer Hebrides Against Fish Farms (OHAFF) said this was far from the first time that SSC applications had been found to have been supported in the main by its own staff and business contacts.
OHAFF organiser Peter Urpeth said: “This is very poor practice and it reflects badly on the Scottish Salmon Company. It is a democratic right to support an application but it should not be a platform for gerrymandering.
“The planning consultation system is not meant for people who will benefit in their own pocket. If I apply to build a house, how would people feel if me and my family and my builder wrote in to support our own application?
“It would not be right, ethically. It needs to stop and we will name and shame those concerned in the future, if necessary.”
Meanwhile, Argyll and Bute Council took the line that anyone can submit comments, either in support or objection, to a planning application. It said all representations are carefully considered by planners when preparing reports.
“The content of a representation is the most important issue, though. While officers will note where a comment has come from, their main priority is the material planning consideration.”
However, the council may scrutinise exactly who is supporting bids, as it added: “It is worth noting that planning applications which attract a significant level of comments are dealt with at public hearings and the weighting attached to comments will be for members of the planning, protective services and licensing committee to decide.”
Pingback: Defending the integrity of the planning consultation system – a time to name names | Outer Hebrides Against Fish Farms
A time to come clean…OHAFF’s viewpoint: https://fishfarmsout.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/defending-the-integrity-of-the-planning-consultation-system-a-time-to-name-names/
many councils do their own googling to try and work out if it is appllicants and their mates who make represntations . of course it is unethical and i think you guys should publish the names so we know exactly who wee are talking about . puit in their addresses too .
Not forgetting that it’s a horrible product as well, bearing in mind the methods used to produce it…nasty stuff.
Ah yes fish farms…in the mid 1980s these were to be the saviour of local communities in the Highlands…locally run with local jobs and profit. Not much of that on view now is there?..Large multi-nationals trying to rig local planning regulations..
people trying to influence planning consent? who would have thought??,trying to skew outcomes???,only pushing your ideals????–if l keep going there will be more question marks than letters!!!!!!!!!!!!
when every bay is caged, there’ll be no need for planning, in any case……..there was a place for fish farming, but now it aint what the perception was….fishing grounds taken over….farms against the wish of communities….big questions over chemicals….automation…industrialisation…volume volume volume…all supported by msp mp government…when the bubble bursts, as it will with market forces or disease, what then?….in the meantime, always room for another…pass the rubber stamp…and on we unthinkingly go.
Iain, shame on you to suggest that my support for any planning application might come as a result of bullying by my employer or anyone else. You should know me better than that! I am employed by SSC and am proud of our product, our workers and happy to be quoted on that. Supporting an application for a mainland farm makes sense – if Marybank processing plant (where a significant number of people including me are kept in gainful employment by SSC) is to continue to operate, fish has to be brought in from company sites and that would include those on the mainland. For the record, I am not a manager or a “senior member of staff” and I can state categorically that no member of our staff has ever been given the impression that they must support these applications for fear of their jobs.
Thank you for the clarification of your own position, Sandra. For the record, I am not suggesting anything but what I am doing is reporting the concerns which have been raised with me by people in Argyll and also by people here in the islands. I also intend to continue reporting any such concerns about any similar employers in any industry if people are willing to come to me with them – especially when other media fail to report them. However, and this is very important, I also intend to continue offering all sides a proper opportunity to have their say.
Thanks Iain. If I might say one more thng, perhaps it would be to ask that your correspondents acknowledge that my employment with SSC does not strip me of the right to make representations as an individual within the planning system (such is the democratic process, whether I am resident in Argyll or not) and if your correspondents were to look at the lists of objectors to any number of applications for development in the islands and elsewhere, you will find objectors from far and wide. If people can submit objections to island wind farms, for example, from overseas, I’m sure I have the right to support a development that may save jobs in my area – selfish? As to Peter Urpeth “naming and shaming”, I’m happy to name myself with no shame whatsoever as someone who wants these islands to prosper for generations to come.
The planning applicant has their extensive planning application as a means of stating their case in favour of their application, and the economic arguments made by Sandra are the types of things routinely included in fish farm company applications.
Use by the applicant of the consultation process in addition to the application process essentially provides two platforms for support of the application, distorting the process unless their relationship to the application is manifest.
All others with a view point (for or against) have only one opportunity to lodge their views points. The applicant also has, of course, a further right of appeal against decisions which is not routinely available to objectors.
OHAFF’s original communications on this matter state clearly that it is currently a legal and democratic right of all individuals to participate in the planning consultation process whatever their view point, and we have encouraged all to do so as that is good for local democracy.
It is also good for local democracy that local planning authorities have a very clear picture of the relationship to the applicant of both supporters and objectors alike so that the authorities can weight the responses accordingly.
Now that so many staff such as Sandra are opting to lodge their support for their company’s/employer’s fish farm applications, we are simply helping the planning authorities in the process by ensuring that they have all the necessary information available to them in the weighting process.
There is nothing shameful in any viewpoint in these debates, and we fully support Sandra’s rights to participate in the process and to express whatever view she wishes, but her employment by the applicant does matter and the planning authority’s knowledge of that relationship is a necessary check and balance in the consultation process.
But that is different again to the support offered to applications by those who stand to gain directly, personally and financially if an application progresses – including senior management staff of the applicant – and that includes the extended array of contractors whose businesses stand to make significant gains if an application progresses, and which has happened in recent cases. In lodging their support, their identity is simply that of a private member of the public unless they decide to state that they stand to gain personally if an application progresses.
In those circumstances surely any right minded person would consider it appropriate that, in supporting an application, the supporters close relationship to that application and potential personal gain was fully known and understood by the planning authorities.
It would be better for the planning process if company applications were considered as corporate and inclusive of all staff and contractors, and the right of applicants (in all sectors not just aquaculture), their staff and contractors, to comment in the consultation process be removed. But that is a matter for debate and needing law change.
Thank you Peter for that clarification. Given that the law currently supports my right to support or object regardless of who I work for, I will continue to do so until the law is changed and I am disenfranchised by the influence of organisations such as yours.
it was good of sandra macrae to tell us “For the record, I am not a manager or a “senior member of staff” at scottish salmon . that clears that up . the implication is clear that she is a person only interested in keeping her job .
I would also like her to tell us if she is the same sandra macrae who is mentioned as ” a member ” of the company in the minutes of last year’s annual general meeting of scottish salmon held in jersey ??? the document makes it clear that sandra macrae has voting rights and used her proxy vote . if she is the same sandra macrae then she must be a shareholder of scottish salmon and therefore is using the argyll and bute planning system to urge councillors to give planning permission for a scheme that is going to line her own pocket!!
did she tell argyll and bute that she was a shareholder before she put in her coments??
this of course is all speculation and they are probably two separate sandra macraes – one who is just a lowly member of staff at marybank who is worried about her job prospects – as she explained here earlier – and another who has so much money invested in scottish salmon that she wields power at the agm . one of these sandra macraes should explain the situation before we formally ask for a full investigation .
I am both of these, with a mighty £50 or so of shares, gifted by the company the year before last (not just to me, the great Capitalist). I don’t know much about shareholding – possibly a little more than Donald L M, unless he’s being mischievous) – but on the exchange, I understand my shares are worth less now than when they were given to me. I confess though to being a director (with a £1share) in the Newmarket Gateway Trust , not for profit.
BTW, I didn’t go to Jersey, although it would have been nice, except for my hay fever. That’s the point of proxy voting! I think you maybe missed the bit where I said I was concerned for the staff at Marybank. That does include me, but it wasn’t my first thought. Perhaps Iain X and Peter would back me up, at least on my work record. They both know that I work for my living…let’s keep this debate to the point!
accepting all that sandra….its whats happening to the environment and the push for volume that sees valuable fishing grounds disappearing in favour of industrial farms in rural communities that have had them imposed on them against their wishes…its the bigger picture thats the problem……there comes a point when the place is saturated with fish farms and the very nature of the place is destroyed……all about balance and proportion and thats gone.
MadEddie…..sorry to say this but what absolute nonsense….the morality of displacing traditional fishermen who have fished their local seas for generations is heinous in the extreme…..its what the place is about…..now seals being shot…industrial quantities of chemicals being poured into the sea..the scale of fish farming and the drive towards automation, will not in the long term mean more jobs, but less…volumes are pumped up, for the only important criteria is profit on a balance sheet.
The plot is being lost…fish farming is of course an important employer in these islands…no one can deny that, nor should they….but the escalation of volume production is a recipe for disaster at some point…we even have fish farm companies objecting to other planning applications…its all way out of hand and the comhairle rubber stamping every application under the banner of development, indicates a complete lack of consideration of the bigger picture and whats going on…….it could all be so much different and there are alternatives…but nobody appears to care anymore…..whatever the product is that they are producing in such volume, begs the question of what it actually is……
I once was happy to eat farmed salmon in the early days…..I would never eat it now.
keep peter and ian out of this . i dont think the fact that you once worked for the same company as peter and ian has anyting to do with your activties pettitioning local authorities to support a company of which you are actually a sharholder — however small . it is unethical and you should immediately publicaly apologise and vow never to do it again and stop pretending your only concrn is the welbeing of your colleagues some of whom were ordered by you to write councilors on this island . you put the papers in front of tghem and toldf them to sign them . some of us are thir brothers and friends .we know wha is going on in marybank and we know exactly how some of the people in that factory treat their workers . i doubt of you would want us to give the full details here . ian x knows too because some of those workers spoke to hm last year .
Ah now that’s what we sorely need these days Donald, in many fields …… just a few brave souls to cut through all crap and get to the point.
never fear the truth……..well said Donald L M….multi nationals just don’t have small local communities at heart…their motives are way beyond that….time we protected the place
sandra is not he worst
you bet mikhail, people understandably, in this day and age, will do a lot to preserve their jobs.
Who, I wonder, in this conversation is bullying whom? I have nothing to apologise to you for, Donald L M. I at least have first hand knowledge of the situation and I’m not going to hide behind a pseudonym because I have exercised my democratic right. Like it or not, I am not the only person who is concerned about keeping jobs here. Incidentally, I don’t consider it unethical to make a representation that might help protect my job…else I might just be asking about the motives of one or two of the objectors on those grounds too. Good work on googling my name though. X you might want to take on an apprentice!
try catching a lobster in east loch tarbert….why are they gone?….clue…nothing to do with dredging or over fishing….
correct….the treatments and waste have taken care of that
sorry madeddieh…..can’t find it light hearted when I see the small boats denied their fishing grounds…feel free to be as sarcastic as you like.
Thanks, MadEddie, it’s been a pleasure making your virtual acquaintance. Sounds so much better from you than from those of us lining our pockets (BTW, as the young ones say these days, could you lend me a tenner to support a zealot – I believe Don Staniford needs a boost and all my spare capital is tied up in…I forget where I put that last fiver, probably in the lining of those infamous pockets!)
Well said Sandra,shame you are not a member of our council.
@Donald LM (regarding your 20 April, 10:35 comment) I was at that meeting. Amongst other things discussed at that meeting when it came to the letters to the councillors we were given three choices by management (not Sandra MacRae) :-
a) sign the letters;
b) don’t sign the letters;
or
c) write your own letter.
At the end of the meeting Sandra MacRae (as part of her secretarial duties) then arranged for the right people to sign the right letters (aaah – the wonders of MailMerge). The same as she does for our regular health questionnaires/some pension forms etc. At no time did I hear her order people to sign them. Of the people that I have spoken to about this none of them have said that Sandra MacRae ordered them to sign it or that they heard her order other people to sign them.
In the second sentance of the letter it plainly stated that it was from an SSC worker – ‘I am an employee of the company…’.
I, like all the other people who were working for SSC on a certain date, have shares in the company.
eddie….re read my earlier post….have I said I’m against fish farming?………its not emotional blackmail…just plain fact…..and in any case think you’ll find TSSC”s statement on job losses has nothing to do with OHAFF…..disease, feed etc….you might find it difficult to realise I’m for a sustainable fish farming sector in the islands…balance and fairness…nothing more.
I’m afraid not MadEd ….. from what I can see on my travels, the Plocropool fish farm is still not fully developed today, 18 months after kick off. Nothing to do with the 100,000 smolts they spilled at Geocrab of course. Nothing to do with the fact that about 30,000 tons of fish have been lost through AGD in Scotland either. And about the farm in Broadbay? It’s a chance that it didn’t get planning, can’t hold a farm in that bay, any mariner will confirm that.
PS MadEd. Maybe they should have waited for the planning decisions before investing the £3 millions? They had a couple of good years and just got over excited methinks. Now just blame Council and some locals.
PPS – This company is even letting their own worker’s down every time they state something. Even if things had gone perfectly at Plocropool fish farm the salmon would still not be ready for market today, let alone last December. And the morale of the story is, ” if forced to lie, do it properly”.
are you actually saying mad eddie….(yes seems my own name has been highlighted, but no worries,) that we should accept all planning applications???
the plocrapool site was / is foisted on the community that didn’t want it in that location…neither did the fishermen……..are you saying that TSSC should have its way on all applications?…..there is deep resentment in the plocrapool area the way the locals have been treated and it doesn’t go away…..multi nationals have quite a different perspective…..witness the emails that were leaked regarding the company’s attitude to local people.
drinishader – i cant remember those emails .. can you remind us what was said about the local people and who said it ?????
googled leaked emails scottish salmon company and this is the first entry http://forargyll.com/2013/01/two-leaked-emails-tell-fishy-tales-of-salmon-farming-in-outer-hebrides/
I understand there were more
ah yes i remember now . perhaps sandra macrae can confirm whether she too agrees that the people of plocrapool are ” vipers ” as her bosses obviously think or whether she thinks her bosses are wrong and tell us why..
the community had an opinion ….there was no consultation with the community…..so vipers nest we were….and ‘let the locals get used to it” etc etc
Perhaps Mad Louie has forgotten that this thread started with me asserting my right as an individual to express support for a planning application – where did the idea come from that I could or would be a spokesperson for the company? First person to present their own dissenting opinion gets a blast from the anti-fish farm lobbyists and subjected to character assassination. Is this what we call debate these days? I can’t tell you how flattered I am that you all think I am somehow privy to the thoughts of the “bosses”
accounts are anonymous because thats the way the system seems to work..i’m willie fulton of drinishader….mad eddie your real name then?
…….. enjoy your freedom Eddie. But a Baffoon wont’ lead you there …… just look at it’s face. Simple.
no venom whatever eddie…..plain simple facts…£50000 loss to fishing boats estimated at plocrapool….small boats sustainably doing what they’ve done for generations…not moral blackmail…fact….but ending this now….you’ll never agree on this….as chaneil says…enjoy your freedom…easily understood.
50 k annual (contact duncan macinnes western isles fishermens assoc. for verification)….lets leave it there…….no point….and no venom….