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.”
