sheepshagger Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 I would have to agree that the Shalders buses site would be a better prospect, just me . but there may be a problem with oil contamination on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 At the Planning Board meeting this morning councillors voted to reject the planning permission application for the slaughterhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malachy Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 What!? What on earth was their reasoning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 yes what reason. they went against the planning officer that leaves the council open to being sued. Would any councillor live there by any chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 yes what reason. they went against the planning officer that leaves the council open to being sued. Would any councillor live there by any chance. It wouldn't be the first time that councillors have gone against an official's advice. After all, they run the show not the officials. Given that the vast majority (or so I'm told) of the residents who live in close proximity to the proposed abattoir object to it going ahead, "Would any councillor live there by any chance" has to be one of the dumbest comments I've read on here. On the other hand, if you have any evidence of impropriety, (unless listening to your constituents views is considered an impropriety) let us have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caeser Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Councillors going against the planning officers advice does two things. 1. It makes an appeal to the scottish executive more straight forward, given the officials decided that there were no planning reasons to turn it down. 2. It means that if the appeal is won the council has to pay expenses for the appeal costs. Sounds like the slaughterhouse at East Voe may yet be approved sometime in the future assuming they appeal, given there were no planning reasons to turn it down, and also the council will now have to pay expenses as well! My only concern is - Thats our money being spent/wasted/lost! Anyone know if or how Cllr Budge voted? A planning committee member and a farmer too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Specifics of the Blydoit site aside, the bigger picture is what annoys the hell out of me. In typical council style one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, they'll neither piss nor get off the pot, and all the while they're throwing money at this or that, for what???? They won't allow the SLMG a dignified death and prompt burial, which come this stage is the best end it could make, they keep bunging it back on life support. Yet no sooner have they done so than they put yet something else across its bows that stops it developing in to what might, on an outside chance, become a sustainable enterprise. It was a very black day the day the council took a hand in the fortunes of Shetland's agriculture infrastructure. The old marts was not without its numerous faults by a long shot, nor were the privately run slaughterhouses, but at least folk knew where they stood with them. Things were run and decisions were taken by folk in the business, who knew the business, not a few back room bods sailing desks and whatever Tom, Dick of Sally who finds their way on to the council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 They are there to represent all of Shetland. I'm sure that the locals don't want the slaughterhouse there. But its were there is a suitable building. Sometimes the council will discover that the greater good out ways objections of a few locals. So Collin tell us why you feel that scalloway is not suited to agri business. The same rule then should apply to any other smelly business that may be undertaken there. So are you planning to kick out the fish shop/processor from there you can get a terrible fishy smell from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Anyone know if or how Cllr Budge voted? A planning committee member and a farmer too? I would hope he had the good sense to say absolutely nothing and abstain, on conflict of interest grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxFusion Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 it said on the news at lunchtime it was 5 votes to 3 againstand it was something to do with increased traffic...(full story will probably be on radio shetland tonite) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenlink Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think voting was as follows: For: Bill Manson, Laura Baisley, and Jim Budge Against: Iris Hawkins, Gary Robinson, Josie Simpson, Caroline Miller and Cecil Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trowie246 Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Is that the full planning board? Seems very few. Were there any abstentions? (If that's the right word) Pretty obvious that Iris and Gary would vote against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenlink Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Is that the full planning board? Seems very few. Were there any abstentions? (If that's the right word) Pretty obvious that Iris and Gary would vote against it. There are nine on the board. I don't think the chairman Frank Robertson voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caeser Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think voting was as follows: For: Bill Manson, Laura Baisley, and Jim Budge Against: Iris Hawkins, Gary Robinson, Josie Simpson, Caroline Miller and Cecil Smith. Two crofters/farmers voted for it?????????/ Surely not. Conflicts of interest etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malachy Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 I don't think it could be considered a conflict of interest, any more than those who voted for the Tesco expansion having a conflict of interest because they shop there, or voting for a road improvement and then driving on it. If they were on the board of SACL then of course it would be, but they will merely be potential service users. 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