The Bressay Bridge

[MuckleJoannie]

Just to throw something new into the debate I wonder why the Isle of Wight has never got a bridge or a tunnel. Just lots of ferries.

 

They did think about it but didna want it.

 

http://www.invectis.co.uk/IOW/votetext.htm

[MuckleJoannie]

Dis is what da Bressa folk hae in store when da brig opens!

 

http://www.invectis.co.uk/IOW/sv1999.htm

[Njugle]

Ref: Trout's post above. I am reliably informed that said document is a standard comnpulsory purchase order and just standard practice. The further licence required by the SIC to fulfill said intention is a works licence from the authority whom govern the relevant area. The LPA.

 

On another interesting note: To draw from the public letter of one Mr Selbie in todays Shetland Times, it would seem that he alledges that our very own Lord Lieutenant, Mr Scott, was at the head of a revolt of the Bressay folk in answer to the intention of the Fred Olsen company to span the channel to Bressay. I wonder what his opinion is now.

 

A further comment by way of an anecdote, I seem to recall that during the early golden era of Shell's presence in Lerwick, most large oil vessels were forbidden from navigating the sound from the Greenhead to the "sooth mooth" by the LHT (not that they always complied at night, pre-radar tracking), which seems to contradict the LPA's current stance that large oil-related vessel passage through the sound must be maintained. When the Harbour was at it's busiest they (LHT)didn't allow it (pre-dredging i imagine) and now that it is quieter they(LPA) cannot do without the capability. Funny how times change.[/b]

[Heimdal]

It was certainly common practice for vessels to shift from Norscot to Shell via Noss and the Bard, but I always assumed it was because of lack of water in the North Mouth. Lots of folk used to go for the run

[trout]

Forgive me if I am wrong, it has been known, but is that not documentation to drive a private bill through the Scottish Parliament and not a CPO; a Compulsory Purchase Order being something significantly different.

 

Do the SIC not have to go to these extreme lengths to get around the LPA seeing as the LPA have objected to the SIC continuing their course of action through "Roads Legislation".

 

The Lerwick Port Authority then petitioned (again) for judicial review of the Scottish Executive’s decision not to call in NIDs: Notice of Intentions, on the building work - as in the SIC had the green light.

 

Therefore, the SIC are stuck with moving on a "Special Parliamentary Procedure" or an inquiry under the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill just to gain consents for the bridge, period.

 

They basically have everything together apart from the ability to move on any of it. Compulsory Purchase Orders have already been moved on, no?

 

I just found it funny how they're having a meeting next week to try and get this whole debackle shoved through so its a goer and are also setting up talks in the New Year with the LPA to discuss alternatives??!! I'm waiting baited breath for the outcome of that meeting next week

[tirvaluk]

I think one of the main problems that the LPA are worried about are the large barges with tugs assisting them that are supposed to be coming to Norscot base with old oil rig parts.The bridge will certainly hinder the maneovering of these large vessels.This is all being held up by the council stopping the dredging of the North harbour.

[Njugle]

I think one of the main problems that the LPA are worried about are the large barges with tugs assisting them that are supposed to be coming to Norscot base with old oil rig parts.The bridge will certainly hinder the maneovering of these large vessels.This is all being held up by the council stopping the dredging of the North harbour.

 

I don't really see that as a particularly strong argument either, given that the pier face at Greenhead and the location of the bridge are between 500' and 1500' apart, depending on where exactly, in relation to LFT, the bridge is proposed to be sited. Barges are generally maneuvred on short bridles within the harbour, or taken alongside the tugs themselves for berthing. Out of interest, the first decommisioning work that came in here was handled partly at Greenhead and partly at Dales Voe.......remember that place? Another fine mess. I laughed helplessly when i was informed that one of the sheds was being used to keep chickens and animal feed in, a few years back.

 

From google maps

This dispute has me totally bamboozled at times, i'll happily admit, as i don't really grasp what either argument is supposed to be firmly based on. The bridge and tunnel will both be inevitably more expensive than the estimates, the bridge won't impede the harbour much. The tunnel would be more practical if slightly dearer and less iconic, Bressay folk don't seem to want either, neither plan is really that imposing on the other party's plan, etc, etc....

What a waste of money in the meantime. Such a shame.

I suppose one way of looking at it is that it is the LPA's job to run a harbour, and hence should be considered worthy of consultation, whilst the SIC may have invested a lot of time and money in the planning of a bridge, but as a wise old man once said to me, there's no point in sending good money after bad.

[Wheesht]

Am I the only person that thinks that neither side are forthcoming with everything here?

 

By that I mean: are the LPA concerned that because they own no land on the Bressay side is there a chance income from renting will drop? Does the council have a hidden agenda on decomissioning outwith Lerwick, would they have control over it if, for example, it was to locate to Sullom Voe, they are after all building a big new quay up there are they not?

 

Do we feel we have all the facts here?

[Njugle]

No. I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet there Wheesht.

This dispute has me totally bamboozled at times, i'll happily admit, as i don't really grasp what either argument is supposed to be firmly based on. ..................... neither plan is really that imposing on the other party's plan, etc, etc....

[JustMe]

Am I the only person that thinks that neither side are forthcoming with everything here?

 

By that I mean: are the LPA concerned that because they own no land on the Bressay side is there a chance income from renting will drop? Does the council have a hidden agenda on decomissioning outwith Lerwick, would they have control over it if, for example, it was to locate to Sullom Voe, they are after all building a big new quay up there are they not?

 

Do we feel we have all the facts here?

 

There is only one relevant fact. The bridge project was capped at £19 million. Since that target can not now be met there is no bridge project and the council is free for the last few months to consider ideas such as a tramway to Scalloway and a tunnel from Toft.

 

At this late stage I think the present council should not make decisions that may leave the new council having to meet the costs of cancelling projects they may not wish to continue with.

[Sudden Stop]

At this late stage I think the present council should not make decisions that may leave the new council having to meet the costs of cancelling projects they may not wish to continue with.

 

I agree fully. But this is legacy building and the council seem determined to leave Shetland in a state that won't be forgotten.

 

Somebody stop them

[Njugle]

At this late stage I think the present council should not make decisions that may leave the new council having to meet the costs of cancelling projects they may not wish to continue with.

 

I agree fully. But this is legacy building and the council seem determined to leave Shetland in a state that won't be forgotten.

 

Somebody stop them

Ain't that the truth!

[trout]

*cough*

[trout]

Original article can be found here

 

14 December, 2006

 

COUNCILLORS in Shetland yesterday (Wednesday) agreed to press ahead with a private bill to build a bridge to the island of Bressay.

 

The Bressay Bridge (Scotland) Bill is seen by councillors as the only way forward after objections by the Lerwick Port Authority to the plans put the development in deadlock.

 

Meanwhile a date for a public meeting between the council and the port authority to debate the controversial issue publicly yet to be fixed.

 

Both organisations have agreed to participate, but the date, venue and the exact form of the meeting has not yet been agreed. However it is expected that the meeting will be held in early January 2007.

 

Makes you wonder what the point in having a meeting with the LPA is now.

 

LPA1: "Right, whats first on the agenda?"

 

LPA2: *looking at watch* "Theres still no-one here, it's just us!"

 

LPA1: *looking around again* "Yep, you're right!?!"

 

SIC1: *sitting in own office!* "HA-HA-HA .. did they really think we were going to meet with them?"

 

SIC2: "HAHAHA ... couldn't have surely?! Not since we're just going to press on regardless anyhow!?"

[Sparky]

Without me having to go through all 6 pages right now can someone condense the contributions and explain why there is a need for a bridge or tunnel in the first place?

I am totally unaware of the history with this debate but having taken an easy and very pleasant trip across to Bressay a few weeks back I can't understand why the ferry is considered to need replacing?

Is it because of the potential disruption due to bad weather?