Njugle Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 So if a fish related business tried to move into the vacant (cheap) top spec property it is conceivable that the locals will petition against that too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoogler Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Some would - but as I said in Scalloway fish is much more likely to be tolerated - even though many would recognise more nuisance factors than the meat processing activity would create. If you were faced with a prospect of strategically locating a slaughterhouse would you plump for the middle of a housing estate? I doubt it. The only plus factor here is the existence of a cheap building and that is not a good enough reason to support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Confucius say: Redundant shoemaker and man without shoes make friends easily. But I understand your point. Only a very confident Council could crowbar this into being in the face of such loud opposition. The business plan would need to be spectacular. I doubt if it will/can be, unless written by JK Rowling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 The only plus factor here is the existence of a cheap building and that is not a good enough reason to support it. Its slightly more than that I think, it may be a cheap building, but its also one of a standard close to what is required, its also at a reasonably central location and within reasonable distance of all main transport routes, both of which aren't something that's going to come along very often, and certainly not in the forseeable future. If planning permission for this is refused, for no other reason than the neighbours don't like the thought of living next to what is going on behind closed doors, and lets face it, that's really all they've been able to come with so far that stands up to scrutiny. Then if I were the operators of the fish shop and vets, that I am led to believe also exist in the same neighbourhood, I'd be starting to get a little worried. As in the case of the former they're processing dead creatures for human food, albeit on a smaller scale, and the species are, we are told better tolerated by the residents (boyo, talk about discrimination!!). And in the case of the latter, they are unfortunately, but inevitably given their line of business, in the habit of "humanely" killing living creatures, again albeit on a smaller scale and usually different species. But if the current climate towards the slaughterhouse facility is the way the wind is blowing, how long are very similar activities on a lesser scale going to be tolerated before a concentrated effort is made to eradicate such things from the locality completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 ... vets, ... "humanely" killing living creatures, again albeit on a smaller scale and usually different species. Mental image of some "Magnie o' da pund" type character turning up with his lingerie clad pet yowe to be put down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Only a very confident Council could crowbar this into being in the face of such loud opposition.:Interesting opinion. I've no idea what councilors feel about this, but I had been thinking that they would have the opposite view, namely that they could hardly reject it without also dismissing the planning department too. The business plan would need to be spectacular. I doubt if it will/can be, unless written by JK Rowling. Well, in terms of magically "creative" business plans there has been at least one recent example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malachy Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Only a very confident Council could crowbar this into being in the face of such loud opposition. The business plan would need to be spectacular. I doubt if it will/can be, unless written by JK Rowling. I'm not sure I agree with this either. When the Tesco expansion application was accepted there was concern from some councillors that they had no legal means to stop it going through, despite the objections. I can't see any legal reason why this application wouldn't go through, given that there's no change of use required. It should be the same situation - rubber stamped. Unless its only big south firms that can get through planning hoops, and things that are actually good for Shetland can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claudias Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Logic would suggest that the building in question,purpose built for food processing,should be used for just that. Slaughter the animals in an existing slaughter house then ship the carcases by container to Scalloway,removing packaged goods the same way. Everyone satisfied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nederlander Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 ^ That would be all hunkydory if the existing slaughter houses were not working to capacity already, hence the need for a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caeser Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Logic would suggest that the building in question,purpose built for food processing,should be used for just that. Slaughter the animals in an existing slaughter house then ship the carcases by container to Scalloway,removing packaged goods the same way. Everyone satisfied. By far the cheapest option instead of building a £3million factory would be for the SIC to pay the freight and send animals to be shipped south for slaughter, and then returned for butchering. That way a simple butchering building would suffice, Shetland Smokehouse, No Catch building etc. The current slaughterhouses could then be closed. Sounds ridiculous but the costs of operating a slaughterhouse on top of the original capital investment are colossal and could never be repaid slaughtering the small volume of business required for Shetland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Would a partial answer be to build another access road so the traffic did not go so close to the houses.......might be something worth considering if, as someone mentioned, there may be no planning grounds to refuse the application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadslave Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Logic would suggest that the building in question,purpose built for food processing,should be used for just that. Slaughter the animals in an existing slaughter house then ship the carcases by container to Scalloway,removing packaged goods the same way. Everyone satisfied. By far the cheapest option instead of building a £3million factory would be for the SIC to pay the freight and send animals to be shipped south for slaughter, and then returned for butchering. That way a simple butchering building would suffice, Shetland Smokehouse, No Catch building etc. The current slaughterhouses could then be closed. Sounds ridiculous but the costs of operating a slaughterhouse on top of the original capital investment are colossal and could never be repaid slaughtering the small volume of business required for Shetland. No possible Caesar - the costs of shipping up and down would be very prohibitive; plus the days you would lose off its shelf life would be unworkable; also the live animals get stressed in the shipping process and that impacts on the meat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Would a partial answer be to build another access road so the traffic did not go so close to the houses.......might be something worth considering if, as someone mentioned, there may be no planning grounds to refuse the application. There are two possible access roads that could be upgraded but neither would be any more suitable than the existing one. One is the Short Scord, which has a very poor junction with the Scalloway to Burra road just 10 metres from the junction with the main Lerwick road. The other is the road down to the old Blydoit croft. This serves 4 existing houses plus sites for another 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 New road then. Off the Scalloway--Burra road between the junction and the new houses. Maybe keep the land either side for industrial units. If, as has been mentioned, there are no planning ground for refusing the application then at least a new road would lessen the impact on the houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 No possible Caesar - the costs of shipping up and down would be very prohibitive; plus the days you would lose off its shelf life would be unworkable; also the live animals get stressed in the shipping process and that impacts on the meat.Not really roadslave, the cost of sending a coo sooth for slaughter is under a tenner and all meat products benefit from being hung before consumption. The only factor there is the stress of travel which, if followed by a few Kobe style days in pasture, would soon be overcome. We already experience the cost of shipping meat back up (cheaper NZ lamb in the shops than local lamb). Leaving those that have access to home-consumption, whole butchered lambs exactly where they are now, with cheap high quality produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now