The Bressay Bridge

[moorit]

I'd tend to agree with the judge, a good anology as I see it would be if a neighbour has tree growing near your boundary, if you object to how the tree's root's are encroaching on your property or how it's branches are overhanging your property, you are within your right to demand your neighbour trims back the roots and/or branches, even if as a consequence the whole tree has to be removed. (At least that is what I'm led to believe, I stand corrected if wrong).

 

In this case, the water in the north harbour is the garden belonging to LPA, and the proposed bridge is the tree on property belonging to the SIC next door. It seems to me that instead of approaching their bridge plans from the point of view "what do we need to put here that will still leave our neighbour adequate space", the SIC have approached it from the stance of "how much can we encroach on our neighbour's space before he cries foul", and as a result are now reaping what they sowed.

 

It's more like the SIC asking the LPA if they can plant a tree in their garden at a particular location. The LPA says ok but we intend to dig up part of the garden to set tatties in.

SIC says ok we will stay clear of the area you are going to dig up. LPA provides signed plans of the area for clarification.

SIC are ready to plant tree, then LPA come back and say sorry we have decided we are going to dig up just the little bit where you were going to plant your tree as well.

[trout]

As an interesting aside to the bridge once it's built, it's obviously going to have to be maintained etc.

 

How would this be done one would wonder?

 

Check out this page: http://www.humberbridge.co.uk/administration.php

 

For an example of how this is done elsewhere in this country.

 

The Humber Bridge Act of 1959 set up the Humber Bridge Board to construct, operate, maintain and administer the bridge.

 

The Board Members

 

The Humber Bridge Board has 22 members. They were appointed by and represent the local Authorities on each side of the River Humber.

 

* Kingston Upon Hull City Council (12)

* East Riding of Yorkshire Council (4)

* North Lincolnshire Council (5)

* Lincolnshire County Council (1)

 

The Board employs three Chief Officers to work on their behalf

 

From: http://www.tayroadbridge.co.uk/trb-home.html

The Tay Road Bridge Joint Board

 

The Bridge is the responsibility of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, which comprises of six councillors from Dundee City Council, five from Fife Council and one from Angus Council.

The Board is responsible for the management and maintenance of the bridge which is financed predominately by tolls.

 

The Board appoints a Clerk, a Treasurer, an Engineer and a Bridge Manager to administer and manage it's affairs. Meetings are generally held once every three months to discuss business.

 

How many people work on the bridge?

 

The Board employs 46 staff comprising the Bridge Manager, 5 administration staff, 25 toll staff, and 16 maintenance staff.

 

Forth Road Bridge (FETA): http://www.feta.gov.uk/content/view/66/80/

The Authority comprises the constituent local authorities as follows:

City of Edinburgh Council represented by 4 members

Fife Council represented by 4 members

Perth & Kinross Council represented by 1 member

West Lothian Council represented by 1 member

 

^^ Just details the actual board members and not the minions.

 

So would that mean a whole new (solely SIC) department be created with "new" job titles and a whole new budget allocated?

 

Hmm Let me ponder!?!?

[Seaflech]

The only bridges most of the Councillors need to worry about are the one's that are burning with the elections on the other side of it......

[Carlos]

As an interesting aside to the bridge once it's built, it's obviously going to have to be maintained etc.

 

Bridges, ferries and tuinnels all need maintenance too, with various costs.

 

Maintenance of a Bressay bridge (or tunnel) does not have to need any more management than does maintenance of the Burra and Trondra bridges at the moment, but the work will obviously cost money, and has to be considered in overall costs.

 

I've heard tunnel maintenance costs placed at 3-4 times those of the bridge, but not seen much mention of figures lately... been anything out there?

[trout]

^^ Indeed a tunnel will have maintenance costs as do the ferries. Perhaps you didn't pick up on my underlying meaning in the post?

 

Maintenance of a Bressay bridge (or tunnel) does not have to need any more management than does maintenance of the Burra and Trondra bridges at the moment, but the work will obviously cost money, and has to be considered in overall costs.

 

I don't believe that.

 

Anyway, I would love to see evidence that tunnel maintenance is placed at 3-4 times that of a bridge. Can you or anyone give links to such evidence?

 

Some literature on Norwegian tunnels and their costing and maintenance can be found here:

http://www.vti.se/Nordic/1-03mapp/tunnel.htm

[Carlos]

^^ Indeed a tunnel will have maintenance costs as do the ferries. Perhaps you didn't pick up on my underlying meaning in the post?

 

Maintenance of a Bressay bridge (or tunnel) does not have to need any more management than does maintenance of the Burra and Trondra bridges at the moment, but the work will obviously cost money, and has to be considered in overall costs.

 

I don't believe that.

 

Management of a big structure does not have to be any more complicated than calling in the specialist structural engineer for his annual visit and paying a specialist sub contractor to do the work he recommends.

As per Burra and Trondra, it costs money, but it does not need more council people.

If there is a political will to set up more management than that, it can always happen, but I don't see the requirement. There is just not that much to manage.

If you're more worried about politcial manouvers than engineering then you might be nearer.

 

Anyway, I would love to see evidence that tunnel maintenance is placed at 3-4 times that of a bridge. Can you or anyone give links to such evidence?

 

Some literature on Norwegian tunnels and their costing and maintenance can be found here:

http://www.vti.se/Nordic/1-03mapp/tunnel.htm

 

Nope, that was what I was asking for.

I seem to remember the 2000ish fixed link study had quite high maintenance costs for a Bressay tunnel, but would like to know if there are any accepted figures about for what is invovled in a Bressay style tunnel.

 

I can't read the Norwegian figures very well, but I think they are showing rough averages of 50,000 NOK/m for construction costs and 300NOK/m/year for maintenance costs, so 2/3% per year?.... maybe £250,000 per year maintenance for a Bressay tunnel?

[trout]

If you're more worried about politcial manouvers than engineering then you might be nearer.

 

Yes, we've been at cross purposes there ... but have aligned with that thought.

 

I too would like to see a lot more figures on the proposed "cost savings" for either of the proposed ventures. Ones with all the trimmings.

[Ghostrider]

I'd tend to agree with the judge, a good anology as I see it would be if a neighbour has tree growing near your boundary, if you object to how the tree's root's are encroaching on your property or how it's branches are overhanging your property, you are within your right to demand your neighbour trims back the roots and/or branches, even if as a consequence the whole tree has to be removed. (At least that is what I'm led to believe, I stand corrected if wrong).

 

In this case, the water in the north harbour is the garden belonging to LPA, and the proposed bridge is the tree on property belonging to the SIC next door. It seems to me that instead of approaching their bridge plans from the point of view "what do we need to put here that will still leave our neighbour adequate space", the SIC have approached it from the stance of "how much can we encroach on our neighbour's space before he cries foul", and as a result are now reaping what they sowed.

 

It's more like the SIC asking the LPA if they can plant a tree in their garden at a particular location. The LPA says ok but we intend to dig up part of the garden to set tatties in.

SIC says ok we will stay clear of the area you are going to dig up. LPA provides signed plans of the area for clarification.

SIC are ready to plant tree, then LPA come back and say sorry we have decided we are going to dig up just the little bit where you were going to plant your tree as well.

 

I don't really see where the problem arises then. While it's unfortunate the LPA changed their own plans between the time they were originally asked and before any work commenced on the site itself, they were perfectly entitled to do so, it was their's to do with as they pleased, and nothing pertaining to any previous understanding with the SIC had been done on the actual site. Until such time as the SIC actually took physical occupancy of the site it remained occupied by the LPA, and as such their's to do with as they liked. Had on site construction work already commenced and LPA then changed their minds and were insisting what had already been done was removed/reinstated, then completely different ball game, but the site, as I understand the situation, is untouched, therefor the status quo takes precedence over unstarted plans, which is what the judge said. Put simply the SIC asked the LPA if they could build in the LPA's garden, initially the LPA said yes, subject to these conditions, the SIC understand they have that occupancy, but make no actual us eof it, then as time passed they come back and tell the SIC, we've reconsidered, and really don't want you in our garden at all, so we're revoking our previous understanding. It's no different than being gazumped buying a house or being sniped in a time limited auction, possession is nine-tenths of the law after all, and however much you may believe you are going to get what is on offer, it is not your's until you actually complete the transaction and take possession. In this case the LPA have possession, and have had it for many years, what they have done is no different to withdrawing an auction lot from sale just before the final hammer falls.

 

On a sidenote, perhaps it should be asked *if* the SIC were relying on the LPA's co-operation to such a high degree as they apparently were, for the bridge project to happen. Why weren't their legal eagles on the case and advising of the risks of a change of heart by LPA, and urging the SIC to obtain legal documentation guaranteeing access to and occupancy of required site(s) within the LPA's jurisdiction which could not be revoked once signed?

[Claudias]

^^

 

Although you say that you agree with the Judge you have obviously not studied his report in any great depth.

[Muppet]

[quote]
It's more like the SIC asking the LPA if they can plant a tree in their garden at a particular location. The LPA says ok but we intend to dig up part of the garden to set tatties in.
[/quote]

If somebody wanted to plant a thundering great oak tree next to my tattie rig, i'd be telling them to take a hike PDQ! And if they then had the cheek to take out a court injuction to stop me setting my tatties!!!! Well maybe I best no describe my next actions on a public forum!!

[Ghostrider]

^^

 

Although you say that you agree with the Judge you have obviously not studied his report in any great depth.

 

I said I agreed with the judge when he said the SIC had not taken the LPA in to consideration when making their plans, and that the status quo took precedence over planned changes. As far the rest of his deliberations I made, and am making no comment on as yet.

 

As regards studying his findings in "depth", you're quite right I haven't, some of us do have more productive and/or interesting priorities to fill most of our day than wade through endless waffle of legal jargon double talk. The points he upheld stand though, regardless of the finer details, in a nutshell the SIC attempted to force a bridge across the north mooth with scant if any regard for what or whom was trampled as they went, and as a result of having done so, are very much looking like ending up with nothing to show for it apart from making themselves look very foolish and the waste of an immense amount of Shetland's money.

[moorit]

You are right in what you say (4 posts up) Ghostrider. The SIC were indeed foolish to trust LPA to be people of their word (even although the agreement was in writing).

[Ghostrider]

You are right in what you say (4 posts up) Ghostrider. The SIC were indeed foolish to trust LPA to be people of their word (even although the agreement was in writing).

 

Business is business I'm afraid, that's how the world is. If it cannot stand up in court it's not worth the paper it's written on. It would seem that the LPA were aware of that fact, but whether the SIC were or not seems very open to debate. Which is just made all the more frightening by the fact our current SIC Convenor has been (is??) during his career a practicing lawyer with his own law firm.

[tirvaluk]

According to Leonard Groat on radio Shetland the other night, he said that the bridge team couldn't be trusted, as a lot of the information that the LPA had sent to the council, never reached the councilers.

He knows the facts from both sides, being the chairman of the LPA.

What the hell is going on?

[moorit]

According to Leonard Groat on radio Shetland the other night, he said that the bridge team couldn't be trusted, as a lot of the information that the LPA had sent to the council, never reached the councilers.

He knows the facts from both sides, being the chairman of the LPA.

What the hell is going on?

 

Would you really expect the chairman of LPA to be praising the SIC bridge team ?

 

More to the point Eddie Knight, who is a councillor and on the LPA board, disagreed with the LPA regarding the bridge and then I believe found himself in the position that he couldn't attend LPA meetings if the bridge was being discussed !!

 

 

 

LPA trustee and Bressay councillor Eddie Knight then said that he had been excluded by the port from taking part in any discussion on the bridge, as they had formed "a separate committee".

 

''I am not allowed to discuss the Bressay bridge. What we see here (the council chamber) is democracy; we don't get that at the port authority,"