North Ness Petrol Tank & Future Development Potential

[Medziotojas]

What are your thoughts with the HSE decision to shut the proposed North Ness theme park developments down.

 

And what about the existing infrastructure? If it's unsafe for development then surely it's unsafe for the present occupants.

 

If I was, say, an insurance company and the HSE had refused development in a certain area on grounds of safety then I may be tempted to refuse issuance of insurance to businesses, homeowners, tenants, etc., in said area; or at the very least hike up the premiums.

[Para Handy]

It was the gas tanks i was talking about SS, the crude tanks have already had a 'safe' fire as i said, if you'd read it.

 

You can put a match out in diesel, or kerosene, FYI.

 

Ask your parents before you try this at home, kids.

 

I was at a Fire training drill, with a fireman, who put out a fire with a bucket of petrol.

And it was petrol! I filled the bucket my self.

If you did not use the right technique the petrol took fire

[BigMouth]

Sounds much more impressive than my putting my cigarettes out in a tin of petrol. Again it is down to technique!

[peeriebryan]

(edit - I removed a link to an image. I'll repost it later)

 

According to the HSE - www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr511.htm (That's their recommendations, which cover the North Ness. have a read of the report. It's pretty heavy going!) - the "prediction of the likelihood of fatality for building occupants exposed to a vapour cloud explosion" (who are sitting near a window) within concentric zones around the tanks are as follows

 

150m -> 100-90% probability of fatality (inc. North Ness, Fish Market, Viking Bus Station)

150-250m -> 90-50% probability of fatality (inc. most of Market St, North Star, 'Fisherman's Mission' building, LHD offices)

250-300m -> 50-10% probability of fatality (inc. Museum, St Magnus St)

300-400m -> 10-1% probability of fatality (inc. Hays, North King Harald & St Olaf St, Police Station, Fort Charlotte)

[LassFaeWastOwer]

Having had a skoit at the report, I would say it's all good and well to explore the likelihood of fatality through being exposed to a vapour cloud explosion, but what is the likelihood of a VCE occuring in the first place? And surely the impact [and likelihood of fatality] of the explosion would vary according to the size of the vapour cloud??

 

ponder ponder

[Carlos]

Yup, risk and severity - "how likely it is" and "how bad it would be".

If a 10T asteroid hits my house the fatalities would also be 100% for sure......

[peeriebryan]

(quotes taken from the "Reopen the North Star" thread)

Quote

From what Radio Shetland was saying, Hjaltland can't do anything with Mooney's Wake/the North Star till the tanks thing is sorted out at the North Ness. They're sitting there empty and costing money - go on Hjaltland - what have you got to lose??

Quote

That's just Hjaltland pleepsin in the hope that they will get compensation.

They knew before they bought the properties that they would face this problem, but they also knew that once the North Ness tanks are moved to a safer location, oot o toon, that the value of the property would increase dramatically.

They're happy.

That is not the impression I've formed from the information I've read and the meeting in the Town Hall on Wednesday. Hjaltland bought the properties long before the new HSE recommendations were published. The guidelines and their adverse implications for developments in Lerwick has come as a surprise to most parties involved.

As @pernjim says, the delays are costing Hjaltland a lot of money. It wouldn't have been prudent for Hjaltland to have gambled so much on the result of the HSE’s report.

While I'm on the subject, I personally don't think the Shetland Times article - http://www.shetlandtoday.co.uk/Shetlandtimes/content_details.asp?ContentID=25232 - was a particularly balanced representation of the meeting in the Town Hall. The meeting was indeed called by Gwilym Gibbons, the director of Shetland Arts (I'll declare my interests here as an employee of Shetland Arts) but Alistair Carmichael MP, chair of the meeting, made it clear in his opening statement that the meeting was not about Mareel, but the wider implications of the HSE guidelines (just like this thread!). The Shetland Times chose lead with the "Threat hanging over Mareel" headline and not to report on the multitude of concerns raised by businesses and householders located, and organisations planning developments, within the area affected.

[BigMouth]

The Shetland Times chose lead with the ‘Threat hanging over Mareel’ headline and not to report on the multitude of concerns raised by businesses and householders located, and organisations planning developments, within the area affected.

 

Typical bleedin' tabloids!!

[peeriebryan]

Lambeth Borough Council has granted planning permission for the £40m redevelopment of The Oval cricket ground, which is located right next to a large gas storage tank, despite the HSE guidelines

 

Lambeth Council originally refused the application due to an objection by the HSE - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article2766904.ece

 

However, the HSE was criticised for "over-zealous use of the [their] planning powers and an unnecessarily cautious approach to development around gasholders and other hazardous sites" - http://www.planningresource.co.uk/careers/features/787364/Safety-Catch/

 

The planning application was resubmitted and approved due to an independent report which "demonstrated that the worst-case scenario on which the HSE bases its assessments has never actually occurred and is so unlikely as to be considered negligible, at a chance of one in a million per year."

 

'Planning Resource' reported that "The HSE's position reflects an unduly cautious and simplified approach rather than assessing the risk of actual events on a site-by-site basis."

 

 

 

This is a situation very similar to the North Ness as the HSE have been invited to inspect the site but have chosen to apply malapropos blanket guidelines, thus blocking any further development in the area- http://www.shetlandtoday.co.uk/Shetlandtimes/content_details.asp?ContentID=25540

 

 

 

If some southern cricket playing softies can stand up to the HSE, surely we can too

[shetlander]

Lambeth Borough Council has granted planning permission for the £40m redevelopment of The Oval cricket ground, which is located right next to a large gas storage tank, despite the HSE guidelines

 

Lambeth Council originally refused the application due to an objection by the HSE - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article2766904.ece

 

However, the HSE was criticised for "over-zealous use of the [their] planning powers and an unnecessarily cautious approach to development around gasholders and other hazardous sites" - http://www.planningresource.co.uk/careers/features/787364/Safety-Catch/

 

The planning application was resubmitted and approved due to an independent report which "demonstrated that the worst-case scenario on which the HSE bases its assessments has never actually occurred and is so unlikely as to be considered negligible, at a chance of one in a million per year."

 

'Planning Resource' reported that "The HSE's position reflects an unduly cautious and simplified approach rather than assessing the risk of actual events on a site-by-site basis."

 

 

 

This is a situation very similar to the North Ness as the HSE have been invited to inspect the site but have chosen to apply malapropos blanket guidelines, thus blocking any further development in the area- http://www.shetlandtoday.co.uk/Shetlandtimes/content_details.asp?ContentID=25540

 

 

 

If some southern cricket playing softies can stand up to the HSE, surely we can too

 

Sounds like a fairly similar scenario. Do you know if an independent risk assessment has been submitted with the planning application? We all know the risk from the oil tanks is minimal but the decision makers (whether the Council or the Scottish Executive if it comes to a refusal being appealed) will probably be looking for some kind of professional input to support that contention and feel comfortable about approving an application against the advice of the HSE.

[Flaming Mo]

If some southern cricket playing softies can stand up to the HSE, surely we can too

 

Indeed, we burn ships in a public park for gods sake.

 

Let the Council take the bull by the horns and establish a position on this instead of stalling. Let the Scottish Govt call in the application if they need to...but .. this begs the question why the hell has the Council allowed any development at the North Ness in the first place.....its must have been apparent that the developments are situated right beside a fuel depot, did this never occur to the council before that there would be a risk!! What did the HSE say to recent developments i.e. Shetland Enterprise, Museum..etc The council could have refused these if they thought there was a reason/risk for doing so.

 

The cost of submitting the planning application in relation to the amount of money that has been sourced for this proposal (and is being lost as each day passes) surely outweighs the whole 'lets sit on the fence for a few years scenario'. Get the goddam thing in and decide on it.

[Twerto]

here here

[MuckleJoannie]

Did anyone hear Radio Shetland tonight? Someone wrote in suggesting that the ban by the HSE was a good excuse to abandon building the Mareel as nobody wanted it anyway. Davy Gardner managed to retain his compusure as he read it all out!

[peeriebryan]

If some southern cricket playing softies can stand up to the HSE, surely we can too

I see the above quote (without the 'wink' icon) has made it to the Shetland Times! It's a shame none of the real 'meat and bones' content from posts on the subject has been quoted; and I wasn't asked to comment by the Shetland Times. It's a complex subject and it's not constructive to trivialise the opinions of those involved.

 

But overall the article is a fair reflection of the current position with the HSE and the SIC planning department

 

the inclusion of emoticon winks will not ensure context clarityto self>

[Mutley]

Can you really see a planning department which is continually under fire by the Shetland public conveniently ignoring government advice to build a new major public facility which a large portion of Shetlanders are clearly against (less than half of Shetlinkers according to the survey were fully for the proposals as they stand) although admittedly that is a vote of only over 100 people.

 

Basically if the planning department does ignore this it opens the floodgates for ignoring guidelines across the board and for the public to expect this to be the case in other planning applications for other personal and commercial developments.

 

I can understand Bryan's humour in the situation but unfortunately this is day and age it is very regretable as the 'quote' in the paper completely cheapens the seriousness of the entire episode. This is an issue which needs to be handled with care and tact. He is a publicly paid official and we should expect better. I do not need to remind him that ultimately most of those responsible for HSE decisions are most likely 'southern softies' Hey at least he didn't use 'soothmoother'!