Proposed Blydoit Abbatoir at Scalloway

[Caeser]

Its just nimbyisn at its finest.

 

However the appeal process discounts nimbyism, so there will at least be an open playing field in Edinburgh or wherever the appeal is heard.

 

Given there is no planning reason for it not to happen, odds are that the slaughterhouse will end up at Scalloway in any event.

 

However, I suspect Ronnie Eunson will be so pissed off now he will walk away from it all and the agricultural industry will suffer.

 

Great result however, for the nimbys, but then not really surprising given the clear weakness of the planning board members, with Cllr Hawkins being clearly got at by her constituents.

 

Cllr Robinson really has to come up with some spectacular electioneering if he tries for re election in the crofting stronghold of the westside!

 

Personally I dont think a slaughterhouse is viable in Shetland, especially one which has to be built from scratch.

 

However, getting a second hand one was the crofters only chance.

 

I would not now be surprised to see the council caving in and buying a brand new purpose built beauty for £14 million or so.

[MuckleJoannie]

Great result however, for the nimbys, but then not really surprising given the clear weakness of the planning board members, with Cllr Hawkins being clearly got at by her constituents.

 

 

Although I am sure that Cllr Hawkins was aware of feeling in Scalloway she scrupously avoided discussing the abbatoir with anyone, as she does with any planning matter. If she had been got at Ronnie Eunson & co would have immediate grounds for appeal, so she is always extremely careful.

[ArabiaTerra]

Surely the people living closest to the site were happy enough that it was a sea food processing unit

 

No they weren't! The place for fish processing in Scalloway is on Blacksness pier.

Yet people moved into the new houses knowing that it was a sea food processing unit. Perhaps you could argue that rather than being happy about it they just accepted it as they wanted the house. Still not the same as accepting an abattoir right next door.

Are these private houses? Or are they hjaltland or council, because if they are then you can't blame people for moving there. If you are offered a house you take it, the shortage is so bad that you take what you can get even if it is not exactly what or where you wanted it, and count yourself lucky that you got anything at all.

 

Remember, people don't always have the freedom to chose exactly where they live.

[paulb]

true look at the flats near the co-op. Near a busy road builders ect.

[crofter]

true look at the flats near the co-op. Near a busy road builders ect.

 

And ironically, on the site of a fish factory!

[Ghostrider]

I would not now be surprised to see the council caving in and buying a brand new purpose built beauty for £14 million or so.

 

That's exactly where its headed right now, if the council won't abandon agriculture to its fate, whatever that might be, and won't let the industry get on and develop with what it can afford it has nowhere else to go.

 

I would very much rather have a shed of dead kye and sheep a few feet from me 24/7, than a house of pissheads and/or druggies anyday, the dead animals won't do anything to bother you, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for the other, but to each their own.

[Ghostrider]

Although I am sure that Cllr Hawkins was aware of feeling in Scalloway she scrupously avoided discussing the abbatoir with anyone, as she does with any planning matter. If she had been got at Ronnie Eunson & co would have immediate grounds for appeal, so she is always extremely careful.

 

Seriously?

 

How can a councillor really represent the views and best interests of their constituents if they refuse to discuss current issues with any of them? Being "aware of the feeling" is a rather vague and not particularly reliable rule of thumb is it not, and a very poor way of being informed of how things really are compared to the alternatives of a full, frank and open discussion with all parties concerned.

 

Being "got at" does not necessarily mean having ones arm twisted or having ones palm crossed with silver. Surely before any councillor stands for the job they are (or at least should be) aware that they are highly likely to be lobbied by anyone with an axe to grind. A significant part of the purpose of having an election, in my mind at least, is to allow the electorate the opportunity to choose who in their mind has the greatest sense of fair play and integrity to rise about such representations.

 

If councillors are refusing to talk to parties with vested interests before participating in a meeting and voting on proposals, its small wonder they make such a hash of things so much of the time.

[Queenie79]

Rose tinted spectacles! Excellent argument councillor Hawkins... Where can I buy some because I'm sure they'll help when I have to go into Tescos to buy unidentifiable meat rather than good quality Shetland meat.

[Carlos]

I thought it was only if a councillor agreed to represent a constituent's views at the meeting that they had to abstain from the vote? I don't think there is any problem with them listening to anybody's views and then deciding for themselves the line they want to take?

[MuckleJoannie]

As a member of the Planning Board Cllr Hawkins has stated many times that she cannot discuss planning applications with anyone prior to the Planning Board, for fear of appearing to prejudice the decision of the Board.

 

I can't find an SIC document but this one from COSLA (an umbrella body giving advice to councils) on the Highland Council website covers the ground.

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/45D0E091-57BF-4D3F-9CD5-85B50AD4B229/0/coslaadvice.pdf

Lobbying of councillors during consideration

15. Applicants, supporters of and objectors to planning decisions have an interest in ensuring that councillors hear their case. Whilst lobbying is a normal and perfectly proper part

of the democratic process, councillors, especially those on the planning committee, should not respond in such a way as to give grounds to doubt their impartiality.

 

And

 

• Councillors should not indicate or imply their support or opposition to a proposal or declare their voting intention before the planning committee meeting. Any councillor expressing an opinion in this way may risk disqualification from taking part in the final decision.

• Those wishing to lobby councillors should be advised that councillors, especially those on the planning committee, will not decide on the merits of a particular proposal until all information is available and has been duly considered at the committee meeting.

[trout]

Thanks MuckleJoannie for posting that. Means to an end - which there always is! Saved any of us having to moderate - or rather moderate after digging out the correct point after much time spent..!

[Carlos]

Hmmmm..... there may be a few councillors who's impartiality could have been in doubt before the Mareel planning application...... and maybe a few more not entirely silent about the new AHS.......

[EM]

Thanks MuckleJoannie for posting that. Means to an end - which there always is! Saved any of us having to moderate - or rather moderate after digging out the correct point after much time spent..!

Eh? I fail to see what would have needed to be moderated. Various opinions expressed but beyond that where is the problem?

 

As for the COSLA advice (which is entirely fine and proper), if she is interpreting it to mean "do not even speak to interested parties" that is extremely cowardly and unimpressive. As Ghostrider said, it should be incumbent on her to find out the various views to the best of her ability. That is not achieved by covering her ears and running, and neither does it require that she say anything contrary to the COSLA recommendations.

[trout]

Eh? I fail to see what would have needed to be moderated. Various opinions expressed but beyond that where is the problem?

 

ehm ... perhaps adding in the appropriate quote from any pertinent documentation to aid discussion after having had to actually read a ream of tosh to fnd it! Or is that not okay with you EM? It's not all "cutting out the crap" that people espouse on here you know!

[brokenlink]

As a member of the Planning Board Cllr Hawkins has stated many times that she cannot discuss planning applications with anyone prior to the Planning Board, for fear of appearing to prejudice the decision of the Board.

 

I can't find an SIC document but this one from COSLA (an umbrella body giving advice to councils) on the Highland Council website covers the ground.

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/45D0E091-57BF-4D3F-9CD5-85B50AD4B229/0/coslaadvice.pdf

Lobbying of councillors during consideration

15. Applicants, supporters of and objectors to planning decisions have an interest in ensuring that councillors hear their case. Whilst lobbying is a normal and perfectly proper part

of the democratic process, councillors, especially those on the planning committee, should not respond in such a way as to give grounds to doubt their impartiality.

 

And

 

• Councillors should not indicate or imply their support or opposition to a proposal or declare their voting intention before the planning committee meeting. Any councillor expressing an opinion in this way may risk disqualification from taking part in the final decision.

• Those wishing to lobby councillors should be advised that councillors, especially those on the planning committee, will not decide on the merits of a particular proposal until all information is available and has been duly considered at the committee meeting.

 

What do the rules state about other councillors stating their views during a planning board meeting? I believe a statement of objection was read out on behalf of Cllr Betty Fullerton, surely this is not allowed?