Little evidence of investigation by wrasse firm

Sir, The information day held by Marine Harvest (MH) failed to provide any justification for destroying an area much loved by locals and tourists and described by Scottish Natural Heritage as an area of outstanding scenic attraction.

Has MH carried out surveys of the plants, animals, archaeology of the area it wishes to destroy? It does not appear to have done so.

MH’s representative could not explain how concreting over an area three times the size of its present facility was environmentally friendly.

Has MH investigated thoroughly alternative brownfield sites? Again, it appears not. Mr Featherstone, in his letter to the

Courier claimed to have investigated the MACC site, but no investigation report was available.

Mr Biggin at the information day claimed that the investigation was carried out by MACC, but that report was not available either.

How can we accept these claims without evidence?

According to Mr Biggin, the MACC site was ruled out because of fear of contamination from the proximity of another fish farm at the MACC site, yet the proposed development site is almost equidistant from the fish farm.

Are there any guarantees that this is for the long term? None.

In fact, MH has chartered a ship which uses a process called reverse osmosis to make fresh water from seawater. Dousing the salmon on a regular basis with fresh water kills the lice with no need for wrasse.

Finally, does MH really believe that a mural of McTaggart’s work is an acceptable replacement for unspoiled coastline? Valerie Nimmo, Summerhill Crescent, Campbeltown.