Jump to content

Proposed Blydoit Abbatoir at Scalloway


Mattie
 Share

Recommended Posts

The nearest neighbours are in the new scheme, all of whom are only moving in at the moment, hence, as I said above, they haven't all signed it. :wink:

 

Well, if the nearest neighbours, who by default must be the very people who have the greatest and most valid reason(s) to object, are still in the process of moving in. I would hope that they would, wherever possible, decide against accepting occupancy of the address, or at least postpone the actual moving in until the future of the industrial unit is settled.

 

To continue the process of moving in, unless in cases where the folk in question really have no other choice, in the face of the knowledge that they are moving in to an address which may well soon be close a slaughterhouse and meat processing factory, and then continue to object it is a bit rich to put it mildly.

 

Anyone who has not yet fully moved in cannot be termed a "resident" in the same way as someone who's been fully settled in the area from before the plans were known. The former still have some choice in whether they actually become residents, and although they'e entitled to protest if they feel so inclined, only minimal weight should be given to it as they themselves have not stayed in the area yet. The latter being quite happily settled, and with a track record of residency, are entitled to have an opinion which should at least be given a fair hearing, regarding the plans which I daresay they feel are being "dumped on them".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Recent wholly inappropriate terminology used by those who are opposing this venture has prompted me to write.

 

And before I start I am going to declare an interest in this project; not because I am a crofter or a member of SACL or SLMG but because I am a conscientious meat eater who actually cares about where my meat comes from and how it is processed.

 

Having been in the fortunate position to visit the Laxfirth facility, an invitation that was extended to all interested parties by SACL, I can say that I found the whole process far from “barbaricâ€. Yes I saw animals arrive in trailers and yes I was aware what was going on inside. Did I feel that the process was barbaric, far from it!

 

What I find barbaric is the fact that we as an island community that could be wholly self sufficient in meat supply are importing lamb and beef from as far a field as New Zealand, Uruguay and Brazil. Are you happy eating this meat? I know for sure that I am not! However I am more than happy to eat locally grown and processed lamb even if it was happening on my doorstep. The current facilities in Shetland are widely acknowledged as inadequate. Let’s take this wonderful opportunity that is before us and see locally produced meat eaten locally! Let’s see Shetland lamb, pork and beef eaten in our schools and available in our shops.

 

How many people who are opposing this venture through signing the petitions have actually visited an abattoir and seen it in operation? Not very many I would guess judging by the numerous false and unsubstantiated remarks.

 

Let us face it, the location of the houses nearby is unfortunate, however the houses have gone up in the full knowledge that there was an industrial site there, the building has not just suddenly appeared!

 

I would encourage anyone who has a valid reason to object to this project to do so, but no more of this NIMBYism and scaremongering!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

brokenlink - that post is the gist to a tee!

 

Let us face it, the location of the houses nearby is unfortunate, however the houses have gone up in the full knowledge that there was an industrial site there, the building has not just suddenly appeared!

 

Oh .. how true! This goes for many situations across the breadth of the country ... people build houses near industrial sites ... then later down the line complain bitterly they're living next to an industrial site. :roll:

 

A clear example in our beautiful capital is city types you read in the Scotsman trying to get pubs in Rose St closed because they bought renovated buildings in the North and South lanes off Rose St ... eh? Didn't you realise you're buying flats next to one of the cities oldest pub / club areas? eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with those who have condemned use of the term 'barbaric' in relation to this proposal.

However, just because the area is a designated industrial estate does not mean it is suitable for a slaughterhouse/meat processing facility. To turn the debate into a black and white one that casts local residents in the light that Trout does above is wrong.

The simple fact is that planning permission has been given over the years for the various housing developments in the area, some prior to the industrial estate and many after.

The consideration in planning terms of a slaughterhouse would be the suitability of the site/area for that purpose. Clearly in this case it would be unsuitable due to the proximity of housing.

Just because a building is going on the cheap shouldn't drive the plannig consideration of whether it is suitable for the purpose proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with those who have condemned use of the term 'barbaric' in relation to this proposal.

However, just because the area is a designated industrial estate does not mean it is suitable for a slaughterhouse/meat processing facility. To turn the debate into a black and white one that casts local residents in the light that Trout does above is wrong.

The simple fact is that planning permission has been given over the years for the various housing developments in the area, some prior to the industrial estate and many after.

The consideration in planning terms of a slaughterhouse would be the suitability of the site/area for that purpose. Clearly in this case it would be unsuitable due to the proximity of housing.

Just because a building is going on the cheap shouldn't drive the plannig consideration of whether it is suitable for the purpose proposed.

 

I agree with you up to a point, however, unless I'm misunderstanding where you're coming from, if one takes this line to its logical conclusion, what you're in effect saying is that for planning authority puposes that prior usage of a site/building is of no relevance when an application for change of use/redevelopment comes along. That everything should be looked at on an "as is" basis. If so that is going to open one helluva can of worms right across the board, including things the planning authority have insisted where incorporated within redevelopments. Just look at Hjaltland's application for the Star/Excelsior, and how retail space has had to be incorporated in to the plan, for no other reason than the planning authority insisting upon it due to prior usage and zoning.

 

Surely a fairer rule of thumb is to decide if the change of usage from processing dead fish on the site to processing dead livestock on it, will create conditions previously not known at the site which are likely to be a nusiance to neighbouring properties. The building is within a designated industrial zone, just as the Star/Excelsior were in a designated "retail" zone, and has a history of processing dead creatures industrially for human food. Surely if the rule can be used to arm twist a developer to include facilities he doesn't want to, and doesn't know if there's a demand for at one site, the same rule applies equally and oppositely on a site where the developer wants to create facilities that there is a known demand for.

 

Personally I cannot begin to imagine where the "unacceptable nusiance" the neighbour's are objecting to comes from, when you go from trucks hauling up with loads of dead fish, running them in the door, where they were cleaned up, chopped up and and waste went down the drains, then they were boxed up and left on a truck which loaded them at the other end. And trucks hauling up with live cattle, sheep and pigs, running them in the door, where they will be "humanely" killed, cleaned up, chopped up and the waste goes down the drains, then they'll be boxed up and they leave on a truck which will load them at the other end.

 

Its virtually the same process, just difference species, where is the additional nusiance factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To turn the debate into a black and white one ... is wrong. ... Clearly in this case it would be unsuitable...

Surely if it is not black and white then it can not also be clearly anything? I don't see it being clearly unsuitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested to know whether those protesting would also be protesting if the situation had been the other way around. If the unit had been processing livestock, gone bust, and it was now proposed to be reused as a fish factory, would that be OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most folk living in the area would prefer to see all fish processing located at Blacksness.

EM - despite that if faced with the change of use scenario you suggest i would think the answer would be yes.

 

People have unexplainable emotive reactions to food production, unless they are involved in it. Scalloway = fish culturally, so it is not thought of the same way.

 

I personnally would have no problem with this proposal but I AM NOT A DIRECT NEIGHBOUR. Some of the new houses here are 2 metres away fron the boundary fence.

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...