North Ness Petrol Tank & Future Development Potential

[Flaming Mo]

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.

Yes. Going by the survey the majority of people want a new venue. Given that this one is at such an advanced stage and has been on the agenda for ages, let the Council determine the application....given the report in the Shetland News today it seems that the decision may be made easier (will have to wait and see) Again it seems like those against the proposal are clutching at straws and finding another reason for it not to go ahead.

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.

No it doesn't, this is a very poor attempt at scaremongering. Each application is decided on its own merits. Why on earth would/should the public expect the planning department to 'expect' this to the case for other 'personal and commercial' developments as you put it. I doubt that at this moment in time the residents of lambeth are citing the cricket ground case as a reason to approve their extension, new house etc...

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'!

What the quote in the paper has done is take this discussion out of this forum and onto our very own tabloid. I agree that it needs to be handled with care and tact and I have every confidence it will be. Of course the HSE are based on the mainland so are most likely to be southern. I assumed the 'softies' quote was referring to cricket but I could be wrong.

[Styles]

They can surley have a disclaimer on the door that anyone entering puts themselves to being blown up. We should probally put signs on the roads as well that crossing may end up with you being run over so you do at your own risk.

[Mutley]

Yes. Going by the survey the majority of people want a new venue.

 

OK - I'm sold! 100 bampots on Shelink say OK! I'm afraid this survey is as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike!

 

 

Given that this one is at such an advanced stage and has been on the agenda for ages

 

Like a hell of a lot of other projects on the Council's capital programme which are competing for cash....

 

Again it seems like those against the proposal are clutching at straws and finding another reason for it not to go ahead.

 

See above and those in support of other projects competing for these funds! I'm afraid it is most like clutching at straws when you need to start searching around for other examples around the country.

 

No it doesn't, this is a very poor attempt at scaremongering. Each application is decided on its own merits.

 

I agree with your second point but stand by my first. Planning is a discipline which is very heavily controlled by rules and processes. Here the government advice via HSE is absolute (don't know enough about the case south). This being the case it is a no-brainer that planning permission has to be turned down. The councillors may possibly (again don't know the detail) have the ability to overturn the ruling however I am aware that there are still a lot of people against the project.

 

Why on earth would/should the public expect the planning department to 'expect' this to the case for other 'personal and commercial' developments as you put it.

 

As stated - the profession is very much guided by rules and procedures - we see already Shetland trying to say that the rules have been broken elsewhere so we want them broken for us.

 

I doubt that at this moment in time the residents of lambeth are citing the cricket ground case as a reason to approve their extension, new house etc...

 

Don't have the information to agree or disagree.

 

What the quote in the paper has done is take this discussion out of this forum and onto our very own tabloid. I agree that it needs to be handled with care and tact and I have every confidence it will be. Of course the HSE are based on the mainland so are most likely to be southern. I assumed the 'softies' quote was referring to cricket but I could be wrong.

 

Given the headline of yesterday's Sun this could well be hitting more than the local tabloid.

[EM]

Amongst all the figures quoted concerning the Mareel project, I haven't noticed any estimates for how much relocating the tanks would cost. This always seems to either be referred to as "a lot" or "expensive." Is anyone aware of any range of cost having ever been stated/guessed?

[MuckleJoannie]

Amongst all the figures quoted concerning the Mareel project, I haven't noticed any estimates for how much relocating the tanks would cost. This always seems to either be referred to as "a lot" or "expensive." Is anyone aware of any range of cost having ever been stated/guessed?

 

I seem to recall that the SIC looked at it several years ago and it would cost in the teens of millions.

[Ghostrider]

Question:

 

*If* the so called 'Mareel' building does go ahead, due to the SIC "ignoring" HSE regulations, and *if* the highly unlikely and unthinkable, but nevertheless still possible, happened, that the petrol tank, for some reason exploded, while 'Mareel' was occupied by a capacity audience, resulting in (How many is it supposed to hold, 600?) sundry fatalities/injuries to the vast majority of that crowd. Just how much would that cost the SIC (as owner/operator of 'Mareel', and as planning authority who theoretically possibly could also be sued for neglience viz. disregarding HSE guidlines, causing those people to be situated within a recognised higher risk location, etc etc) in compensation/costs claims?

[EM]

Question:

 

... Just how much would that cost the SIC (as owner/operator of 'Mareel', and as planning authority who theoretically possibly could also be sued for neglience viz. disregarding HSE guidlines, ... in compensation/costs claims?

A fair question, but it would also be interesting to know how liable the HSE would be *if* it blew tomorrow wiping out the existing residents, office workers and museum visitors, who HSE say are not at risk?

[Carlos]

That's the rub......

 

If the tanks really make it too dangerous for Mareel, then the area needs to be a no go for everybody.

 

An explosion at night with a full Mareel would kill a lot less people than an explosion during the day with the street and all the shops and offices full.

 

Of course that is inconvenient for the SIC< HSE and the Scottish government.....

[EM]

If the tanks really make it too dangerous for Mareel, then the area needs to be a no go for everybody.

It is not at all unusual for different governmental agencies to end up having contradictory requirements, but this situation is remarkable because they are from the same body. I think it has to be one of the best examples of real-life Orwellian doublethink I've noted. It is interesting that Carmichael has concentrated on the inconsistency.

[peeriebryan]

As has been mentioned, it’s good news for potential developments in and around the North Ness as significant progress has been made towards finding a solution to the current planning situation.

 

http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/news_03_2008/Breakthrough%20for%20Mareel.htm

 

HSE representatives have agreed to visit Shetland to review the North Ness tanks and it is likely that a relatively minor alteration to the petrol tank would reduce the North Ness site from its current High Risk status. Recent negotiations have been fastidious and effectual and the current proposition should accommodate all parties involved.

 

We’ll hopefully have more information tomorrow....

 

 

 

less than half of Shetlinkers according to the survey were fully for the proposals as they stand

Yes. Going by the survey the majority of people want a new venue.

OK - I'm sold! 100 bampots on Shelink say OK! I'm afraid this survey is as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike!

It was you that first used the poll to try to prove your point Mutley! As has been said several times, the polls are at best a rough indicator of opinion. No one has said it’s a robust research method

 

 

 

Here the government advice via HSE is absolute…. the profession is very much guided by rules and procedures - we see already Shetland trying to say that the rules have been broken elsewhere so we want them broken for us.

The HSE guidelines in question are just that - guidelines. Planning authorities are under no obligation to follow this advice, as was demonstrated by the Lambeth Borough Council’s decision

 

(from the Planning Resource website - http://www.planningresource.co.uk/careers/features/787364/Safety-Catch/ )

As with the Environment Agency, the HSE's role is an advisory one. It has no power to direct refusal of planning permission. However, if a planning authority decides to grant permission against its objections, the HSE has 21 days in which to decide whether to ask the secretary of state to call in the application for consideration at a public inquiry.

 

The HSE is quick to point out that it is for local authorities to decide whether planning permission should be granted in such circumstances. In reality, few councils have sufficient expertise to properly examine the advice or the confidence to go against it. In the past, they have taken a pragmatic approach to reaching a view based on HSE advice. The executive has rarely intervened when an authority has resolved to grant permission.

 

 

 

Amongst all the figures quoted concerning the Mareel project, I haven't noticed any estimates for how much relocating the tanks would cost. This always seems to either be referred to as "a lot" or "expensive." Is anyone aware of any range of cost having ever been stated/guessed?

I seem to recall that the SIC looked at it several years ago and it would cost in the teens of millions.

The (gu)estimates I’ve heard mentioned are 7 figure numbers. But time is also a major factor as the current site operators have several years of their lease left.

 

 

 

Just how much would that cost the SIC (as owner/operator of 'Mareel', and as planning authority who theoretically possibly could also be sued for neglience viz. disregarding HSE guidlines, causing those people to be situated within a recognised higher risk location, etc etc) in compensation/costs claims?

How long is a piece of string! However, negligence would need to be proven. Considering, but not following, HSE guidelines does not mean disregarding them; nor does it automatically imply negligence.

 

 

 

On a side note

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'!

What the quote in the paper has done is take this discussion out of this forum and onto our very own tabloid. I agree that it needs to be handled with care and tact and I have every confidence it will be…..

I presume 'we should expect better' means I shouldn't post the odd good humoured congenial comment for fear of being misrepresented or compromising my profession. I'm not obligated to post on this forum but chose to engage in good natured public debate to try to keep folk updated with the latest developments (in my own unpaid time whilst declaring my vested interest as a Shetland Arts employee). Using the quote in the above context does indeed 'cheapen the seriousness', but I have no say in how the media chooses to portray sections of forum posts, nor if people choose to take issue with benevolent comments (use of the word 'softie', whilst potentially precipitant, is hardly worth getting het up about)

 

I assure everyone that the issue has been handled with care and tact, and ultimately the negotiations have been very positive and good natured, with all parties working together to find a resolution.

[Marooned in Maywick]

Amongst all the figures quoted concerning the Mareel project, I haven't noticed any estimates for how much relocating the tanks would cost. This always seems to either be referred to as "a lot" or "expensive." Is anyone aware of any range of cost having ever been stated/guessed?

 

I seem to recall that the SIC looked at it several years ago and it would cost in the teens of millions.

 

What???!!!!

 

Teens of millions??

 

How??

 

Just for straightforward demolition/re-siting???

[Muppet]

Depends on where they would move to. If they have to build even a small jetty, they won't come in cheap.

[crofter]

What is happening at Dales Voe nowadays? I'm sure there was a fine jetty built there a few years back for, er, something...?

[crofter]

How much would it cost to build a refinery at Sullom?

[mgb2010]

Sullom already produces Gasoline as a by product of the fractionation process onsite. There are no facilities for the matering or storage of the Gasoline so it is reinjected into the stabilised crude.