Do you want a 100 hectare seaweed farm off Combe Martin?
What's going on?
In 2023 an application was submitted to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) for a 100 hectare seaweed farm in the nearshore just off Combe Martin. Public consultation for this proposal closed last year. The company behind this application, Aqua Botanika, also have a much smaller seaweed farm off Torbay.
Aqua Botanika are a 'sister' company to Biome Algae Ltd, self-described 'industry leaders', although they are yet to be granted a licence for a seaweed farm anywhere. In Port Quin, Port Isaac and Gerrans Bay, all in Cornwall, communities have been fighting all year against Biome Algae applications which are woefully inadequate, littered with falsehoods and misleading statements. The applications (there are two) for Port Quin show multiple copy-and-paste entries taken from previous applications, so much so that the name 'Gerrans Bay' appears occasionally instead of Port Quin.
Similar copy-and-paste entries appear in the Combe Martin application form, and in many respects it is generally in an even worse state than the Biome Algae applications.
Originally there were SIX applications for unprecedentedly large farms (over 100 hectares) for sites across the South West, all linked to Biome Algae. Biome Algae withdrew their application for Gerrans Bay after a very successful community campaign, and Port Quin is on a knife-edge. Port Isaac (which Biome Algae are no longer involved with) is currently being vociferously contested. It was licensed in 2023 with no transparent consultation.
One of the starkest things all these applications have in common is that very few people knew they were happening. It appears that every effort was made to avoid public scrutiny.
After the initial consultation period for Port Quin in 2023, there were no objections to the proposals. Once we had discovered the applications and forced a transparent public consultation, there were over 700.
An 'unprecedented' number, according to the MMO.
Were you consulted on the Combe Martin seaweed farm?
Aqua Botanika claims:
Environmental
- Carbon sequestration -Not unless they grow it then bury it at sea.
- Biodiversity net gain - nope
- Fish nursery - they pull out the 'fish nursery' at spawning time
- Shelter and feeding ground for dolphins and seals - they don't need this shelter, thanks. Entanglement risk.
- Excess nutrient absorption - including heavy metals such as antimony, arsenic and lead.
Social
- Varied job creation - for short periods seasonally, if at all.
- Coastal community support - not a priority at all.
- Economy revitalisation - nope, not locally.
What does our local MP think?
Our local MP, Ian Roome, was concerned enough to write to the Acting CEO of the MMO, Michelle Willis. She replied to say that she is undertaking a ‘comprehensive review’ of the Biome Algae linked licence applications (of which CM is the largest). We are not sure why this application is being considered therefore, while an internal review is being carried out.
It’s important to note that Ian Roome, like most sensible people, is keen to support proposals for sustainable development in the marine sector. Seaweed has massive potential for our green / blue economy, and there are many good examples of companies doing seaweed in the right places, for the right reasons, at the right scale. This is not one of them.
Who has been consulted?
Aqua Botanika says they selected the site in consultation with the Devon Inland Fisheries and Conservation Association (IFCA) and the North Devon Fisherman’s Association. They put an A4 notice up on this lamp post and put a public notice in the North Devon Herald and the Fishing News in December last year. They held a meeting on 20th December 2023, with members from the Parish Council and various others.
The problem is, they did not provide any detailed information about the proposed project back then, not even a map, just a general schematic of a seaweed farm that is very different to what they are proposing now. We believe that AB should make a meaningful effort to secure ‘social licence to operate’ by engaging more transparently and thoroughly. This is the company that said, in relation to its Torbay farm:
“…following discussions with locals we have chosen not to consult with the fishing industry. From our research and discussions with IFCA and others, it is apparent that ventures of this nature rarely if ever receive the support of local fishermen who resist the creation of areas that they will no longer be able to fish within.”
We need to recognise that this is one of the six seaweed megafarms that have been applied for in the SW, coordinated by a company called Biome Algae Ltd., which has consistently sought to avoid public scrutiny.
Do we have any idea what the seaweed farm will look like?
Not even Aqua Botanika knows what the project will look like. They can’t afford to pay an engineer to design it for them, so they’ve asked the MMO to issue the licence now, then they can raise some finance to pay the design consultants. This means:
- It is impossible to assess the environmental and other risks based on a generic and non-specific project description
- Consideration of a generic project design must apply the precautionary principle, i.e. worst-case scenario
We do have an idea what the infrastructure will look like from Aqua Botanika’s ‘concept’ and a similar proposed megafarm in Cornwall at Port Quin Bay. It will need c.2,500 concrete blocks to weigh it to the seabed, with a footprint of at least 10,000m2; it will require c.900,000 meters of polypropylene (plastic) ropes; and over 4,000 buoys.
Aqua Botanika says their farm will consist of 250 long lines, 160m in length, set out in a grid of 50 lines in 5 columns, as below. We’ve shown a FIFA-sized football pitch in red next to it to give an idea of the scale.
Image: Single long line schematic from Port Quin design
How will the long lines be anchored to the seabed?
Aqua Botanika has chosen to weigh them down with concrete blocks (they call them ‘eco blocks’) rather than screw them into the seabed, which would have a much smaller footprint. Each long line requires two anchor points, one at each end. The corners and mid points of the farm are marked with large navigational buoys, which each need an additional anchor point.
AB says it doesn’t know how many concrete blocks they need to ensure the infrastructure stays in place, because they haven’t paid for the engineering design work yet. They are making assumptions based on their 10ha farm in the relatively calm waters of Torbay, South Devon. That farm uses 1 concrete block for each anchor point.
We believe these assumptions are woefully inadequate given the dynamic tidal / wave / current conditions in the Bristol Channel. A more suitable proxy is the North Cornwall project proposed at Port Quin, for which we have detailed design information. The Port Quin design requires 5 concrete blocks per anchor point, each measuring 2m x 2m x 2m and weighing 11.4 tonnes. This would mean the Combe Martin farm would require:
- 508 anchor points (two for each long line, one for each navigational buoy)
- 5 concrete blocks per anchor point
- 2,516 concrete blocks
- 28,700 tonnes of concrete dumped off the shore of Combe Martin
- 10,064m2 of subtidal sediment habitat lost
How many ropes, lines and buoys are there?
Let’s talk about all that plastic rope and the buoys. The long lines are attached to the anchors with riser lines. Each long line needs 8x 300l buoys to keep them afloat 1-2m below the surface. Plus 8 larger navigational buoys at the corners and mid points. AB says that up to 4 ‘header lines’ will be used at each of the 250 long lines. That is, 4x 160m ropes stretching between the anchor points. From the header lines, they deploy then harvest the seed lines. These are 9m in length, and they are spaced 1m apart along the header lines. Confusing, but the schematic above, of a single long line (from Port Quin design consultants) is the closest we’ve seen.
All of that adds up to 900,000m of plastic rope of differing sizes, and 2,008 buoys, as follows:
- 8 navigational buoys (4 for the corners and 4 for the midpoints)
- 2,000 x 300l long line buoys (each long line has 8 of these)
- 1,000 x 160m header lines (each of the 250 long lines has 4x header lines)
- 4,000 drop lines (2 per 300l buoy)
- 508 riser lines (2 per long line, 8 independent navigational marker risers)
- 80,000 seed lines (320 per long line)
Entanglement Risk
The risk of entanglement of marine mammals – seals, dolphins, harbour porpoise, whales etc. – is significant. Lost gear is a real risk: buoys are frequently lost on mussel and seaweed farms; and it is inconceivable that even the best methods can ensure no loss of such massive lengths of rope and seed lines. Some species will avoid the site (habitat loss); others will interact with it as they are naturally curious.
Of particular concern, Combe Martin is a regular RSPCA release site for rehabilitated grey seal pups. The 900,000m of plastic rope and dangling seaweed will be a huge attraction to
these adolescents, not to mention the dislodged buoys. Despite being aware of this, AB haven’t bothered to engage with the RSPCA.
The area is also close to important seal habitat at Morte Point and Lundy, and dolphins and harbour porpoise are sighted regularly.
AB says that the risk of entanglement is low. They cut and paste from the Port Quin application a biased and misleading assessment based on ‘global studies’, which record few entanglement cases in long line farms. What they don’t mention is that the risk is much higher for large farms (which this certainly is), and the lack of recorded entanglements is likely due to poor reporting.
AB also says, don’t worry, you can fit tracker devices to buoys in case of lost gear. We don’t think it’s feasible that they do this to all 2,008 buoys; and their response time from S. Devon (they use contractors as they don’t have their own boat) will be slow. Maybe the tracker devices will be good for locating dead seals.
The MMO has assured us that they are carrying out a ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ (HRA) because they deem the project has a ‘likely significant affect’ on marine protected areas, including the Bideford to Foreland Point MCZ, the Bristol Channel Approaches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Lundy SAC.
We hope the MMO and its advisors take into account that this application was written by the applicants themselves; that the evidence of entanglement risk is significant, especially with large farms such as this; and that they cannot therefore reasonably consider this farm will not carry a significant risk.
Contact your MP
Ian Roome, MP for North Devon
If you are local to Combe Martin, Ian is your MP - ian.roome.mp@parliament.uk. It's possible that you are in Sir Geoff's constituency close by: Geoffrey Cox MP - coxg@parliament.uk
Ian and his office are fully briefed on the seaweed situation, so if you are at all concerned please contact him, adding your name and address and contact details.
You can also contact Save Our Bays using the contact form on the home page, or by emailing info@saveourbays.org.uk
Below are some documents to help you understand what is going on. Please take them with a pinch of salt as half of them were submitted by the applicant. You can view the entire application on the MMO's Public Register. Add the case number MLA/2023/00227.
Please look at the objection from Sue Sayer MBE (Sue S Aqua Botanika) and the response to our Tier 1 Complaint from the MMO (Combe Martin 2024.10.25-C2540) below.