Jump to content

The Bressay Bridge


admin
 Share

Do you think we should build a bridge to Bressay?  

118 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think we should build a bridge to Bressay?

    • Yes
      32
    • No
      70
    • We need more information
      12
    • Don't know/don't care
      8


Recommended Posts

Moorit, you have made references to 'signed plans' and 'written agreements'. Would you care to elaborate or point out which paragraph in Lord Reeds judgement refers to these?

 

I have yet to work my way through the whole judgement, but can only recall reference to a plan produced after a technical meeting between SIC and a civil engineering company employed by LPA to agree on the present position of the channel because the SIC's drawings were wrong (the LPA plans were agreed as being correct at this meeting). This plan may also have shown the position of the intended dredging at that time, but this was before the study done by Eagle, Lion Pope (?) which concluded that the channel needed to be wider and aligned differently. The judgement seemed to say that the proposed bridge did not even fit with those original plans as there was no room for side slopes or berns.

 

The judgement also seemed to be quite clear that there was never any formal agreement between LPA and SIC as to the extent of any dredging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 330
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

I think he actually used the word "misled", which I imagine is not a great move from the legal point of view when effectively naming individuals who might be getting sick of being stuck in the middle of it all....

 

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

 

My reading was more like there had been mistakes on both sides at various points through the project with design changes to previously discussed layouts and proceedures not always being followed 100%.

 

In the end he makes no judgement on any engineering merits, no judgements on even who is "right" or "wrong" in anything, other than saying that the LPA had not done anything that signed away their fundamental right to do what they want in the harbour.

 

Great report it seems, everybody can read it there own way ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<--snip--> other than saying that the LPA had not done anything that signed away their fundamental right to do what they want in the harbour.

 

Precisely, and that's the crux of all this, yet the SIC were horsing on spending money on it like water. Where was their legal advice? Surely some sort of legally binding wayleave to access and erect the planned structures on the areas under LPA jurisdiction was a minimum requirement, before anyone should have been taking bridge plans seriously and/or spending anything more than nominal sums on them? Did the SIC's legal advisors simply overlook/forget about the prudence if not necessity for a legally binding wayleave, if so every lawyer on their books involved with the project should be out the door and consideration given to sueing them for the council's losses. If their legal advisors did indeed bring up the subject of a legally binding wayleave, but it was the council that decided to ignore the advice and proceed without, the councillors who voted to carry on without it need to be named and held accountable for the council's losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moorit, you have made references to 'signed plans' and 'written agreements'. Would you care to elaborate or point out which paragraph in Lord Reeds judgement refers to these?

 

I have yet to work my way through the whole judgement, but can only recall reference to a plan produced after a technical meeting between SIC and a civil engineering company employed by LPA to agree on the present position of the channel because the SIC's drawings were wrong (the LPA plans were agreed as being correct at this meeting). This plan may also have shown the position of the intended dredging at that time, but this was before the study done by Eagle, Lion Pope (?) which concluded that the channel needed to be wider and aligned differently. The judgement seemed to say that the proposed bridge did not even fit with those original plans as there was no room for side slopes or berns.

 

The judgement also seemed to be quite clear that there was never any formal agreement between LPA and SIC as to the extent of any dredging.

 

Paras. 44 and 45 indicate that plans for the dredged channel were agreed and then 57 indicates that the LPA wished now to change the dredged channel location.

 

But as the judgement says they are allowed to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Moorit, you've handily quoted three paragraphs without taking into consideration the later stages of development in the report!

 

You seem to be caught up in believing the LPA moved the goalposts.

 

To read after [57] you will note that the SIC go off and apply to the LPA for a works license and then the Scottish Ministers decide that the SIC don't need to apply for planning permission in respect to the NIDS.

 

However, from [58] and well into [70] you will note that the SIC's plans did not match up, they themselves detail in the report that they were inaccurate, and the LPA raised concerns at this junction that their proposed channel was now not as was detailed by the SIC, but instead it was unacceptably smaller! Whatever the SIC were up to, it was pretty hotch potch!

 

From this point forward the LPA ended up getting their own people in on the job and we are here now where we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another question that should be asked is what are all the staff who have been dedictaed to the bridge plan (the infamous bridge team) going to do if it doesn't go ahead. There have been several SIC staff doing nothing except working on this for years. if it is not now going ahead are they to be laid off or moved aside?

 

Its no wonder the SIC councillors were being kept in the dark by the officers when their kjobs were on the line if it didn't go ahead. This is the major proble with all aspects of the SIC - no responsibilty or accountability for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another question that should be asked is what are all the staff who have been dedictaed to the bridge plan (the infamous bridge team) going to do if it doesn't go ahead. There have been several SIC staff doing nothing except working on this for years. if it is not now going ahead are they to be laid off or moved aside?

 

Its no wonder the SIC councillors were being kept in the dark by the officers when their kjobs were on the line if it didn't go ahead. This is the major proble with all aspects of the SIC - no responsibilty or accountability for anything.

 

How about a tunnel team ? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont put all your options in one box Moorit.. call it the Fixed link team ;)

 

Im still laughing at how blatently pro LPA the shetland new website are, just have to reads today headline..

 

"Islands Council begs dont dredge"... trying to lead on it the SIC begging..

 

So much for impartial reporting.

 

On the topic of the bridge, it all swings and roundabouts.. hmm maybe that another option for fixed link.. a swing bridge.. anyway.. in a few months LPA will slip up somewhere and SIC wil be laughing and then a few month after that the sic wil slip up somewhere.. and peopel will still be slateign each another over it.. if it wasnt for this and drugs what would people speak about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Indeed, if you had actually read the article!

 

Originally posted here

 

BRESSAY community council has called on Lerwick Port Authority hold off dredging the north entrance to its harbour, as it would jeopardise controversial plans to build a bridge to the island.

 

Ten days ago the LPA won its legal battle with Shetland Islands Council, when Lord Reed lifted an interim interdict that had prevented the port from carrying out the dredging work.

 

Last week, following a port authority board meeting, LPA chief executive Allan Wishart said that the port's engineers would start work on procuring a new dredging contract as soon as possible.

 

But the community council of the island of Bressay, which acts as a natural shelter to Lerwick harbour, said that the row between the port and the local authority has already had a negative impact on the island, as families were leaving and the school role was falling.

 

In a letter to the port authority, community council chairman Theo Smith said: "Since the bridge was tabled in the nineties, the community of Bressay have waited patiently whilst the Shetland Islands Council developed a cost effective design which would serve the future generations well.

 

"A great number of islanders resent the way the LPA, through their objections, have held up this project, effectively holding our community to ransom."

 

He added that fears which the community had expressed during an earlier consultation process were now becoming a reality, such as:

 

- a number of families have left the island;

- the school role is at its lowest for many years;

- ferry fares have increased;

- the ferry service has reduced;

- the population has fallen by a further 30 since 2001 census.

 

He went on to say that if the claim by the port authority that they needed to carry out the work to further develop the harbour was correct, then LPA "should consider developing the 'Bressay Harbour'.

 

"Historically, the Bressay side of the harbour sustained significant marine industries and, with a fixed link in place, it reopens the potential to do so again," he said.

 

Mr Wishart responded by saying that the port authority's board would discuss the content of the letter at its meeting of 20 February.

 

Meanwhile, he added, last week's board meeting had decided "to proceed with the dredging contract".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder where all the flannel about "Public Accountability" lies after hearing eddie knights reply on the radio the other night to a question "will councillors be held responsible for the wasted millions?" and eddie's reply chuckling "No , thats just nonsense". So who to hell is responsible ? SIC claim it was the action of 2 "officials" , Well are they responsible for their actions in taking the council forward without a full concil meeting ? If so they when do they get a well deserved foot in their arses and sacked ? these would be similar "officals" who told the council that the old library building was knackered when it plainly wasnt , costing more millions.

 

When on earth are these 20+ muppets going to develop some midder wit to learn that these "officials" cant be trusted and develop some backbone and have them removed before they can do further damage.

 

Both the SIC and the LPA are a disgrace to Shetland and heads should roll after this latest fiasco. :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...