Firm blames planners for redundancies

[jobless]

THINGS WE WANT TO KNOW in relation to the Utnabrake Planning!!!!!!

1.Why has the planning taken so long in respect to a decision?

2.Can they not tell the difference between land that is workable ie ploughable and grazing?(if utnabrake is classed as good agricultural land and deemed unsuitable for housing then so is the rest of Shetland)

3.With a lot of local building firms having to lay of staff would it not be appropriate for the local authorities to help this application and in doing so secure much needed work(jobs) for the local economy?

4.Does the fact that the waiting list for Scalloway area coming to approximately 300 mean nothing?

 

I,m sure theres more so feel free to add more or answer the above.

[Shoogler]

From what I understand there was NOT strong 'local opposition' to the plans, as reported in the local media. There had been a lot of public consultation in Scaloway and a well attended public meeting at which a fairly positive view was apparent.

Another factor that seemed to appeal was incorporation of a new health centre for the village, new blood to boost school numbers in the face of arguments about reducing secondary education, some industry/business opportunities, a district heating scheme and as you say much needed housing for the very large amount of young people in particular with no chance anywhere else in Scalloway.

 

On top of that the plan showed that the development would hopefully incorporate new roads to take he traffic away fromm the congested Mill Brae/School area and had a pedestrian/cycle access to the school from Upper Scalloway.

 

The vast majority of the scheme was on a rocky ridge away from the bulk of any 'used' agricultural land. There is one park to the north that may have passed as being in productive use from what I can see on the plan.

 

I see the local councillor moved the motion to 'defer' the application. What do the people of Scalloway think of that I wonder?

 

Farce - and another blot on the planning profession for letting things get to this stage and not giving clear guidance to the developer at an earlier stage as to whether it would be able to recommend for the plan.

 

It is also ridiculous to suggest on the one hand that land beyond Port Arthur would be more suitable while using increased traffic as an excuse against Utnabrake. The Scalloway roads are already strugglng with existing traffic and a further 25% increase going right through the village is daft.

[jobless]

I see the local councillor moved the motion to 'defer' the application. What do the people of Scalloway think of that I wonder?

 

That,s a good point.

 

Is there any scalloway residents past,present or hopefully sometime in the future willing to comment?

[Girzie]

The number of 300 on a waiting list actually applied to the whole of Shetland, not just to Scalloway.

 

This application is speculation which was recognized by the Planning Department and as another application had already been refused of a similar nature not long before ina nearby location, it was apparently decided to defer this for further information.

 

There is an area around Port Arthur already set aside for building making this application uneccesary at this time.

 

More infill could be made in the East Voe site where there is already a large area of development.

 

This development was/is not in keeping with the housing in Scalloway - although to be fair - it is at quite a distance from eveything else.

 

The developers were not prepared to put in the required road infastructure unless they could have full permission to develop the whole croft - over a100 houses, alleged Health Centre (although NHS have never approved this) and a business park.

[RFR937]

Got to say it does seem like another bad decision from planning , apart from the need to keep a community forever moving forward to prevent it from stagnating , it is most certainly a missed opportunity to justify the school staying "as is" .As said before the land can hardly be described as "good agricultural" land when half of it is a bog and the other half a rocky ridge . The problem with planning is they don't want good land built on , most of the poorer land is hilly and boggy and you would probably have your permission refused as that kind of land is not where any sensible being would have built (in the past) , and would therfore be considered as "out of keeping with the area" , it's a lose lose situation .

The suggestion of building out past Port Arthur is a complete no go as the owner would never sell (I believe) and the traffic situation would be unbearable , I'm sure a new road could be built but where would it have to go through , good agricultural land ?

[glenn]

I was extremely annoyed to read councillor Hawkins remarks regarding "strong opposition" to the development. As far as I am concerned there is little opposition and it is in fact greatly supported by the local community. I was at the public meeting and there was certainly no outpouring of opposition

 

There are as usual a small group of residents near the land that are opposed to it which is to be expected, though their criticisms must be given little weight as they are obviously prejudiced to the development.

 

I would love to own a house in Scalloway but have been frustrated at every turn. My circumstances are such that I am at the very bottom of the Hjaltland housing list with virtually no chance of getting a house, whilst the value of house I am able to purchase very rarely becomes available. When they have i've not been successfull.

 

This opportunity could provide me with the opportunity for a shared ownership home or buy a house site. Though i did enquire about a site with JHB the estimated price was a long, long way beyond what I can afford that is not the point.

 

This is maybe not the place to level criticism but I am extremely fed up of the older generations continuely opposing opportunities for the current and future generations of the area.

 

Rant over.

[glenn]

Port Arthur is a site of special scientific interest so it is hugely unlikely that more housing will ever be built there never mind the access problems.

[Kavi Ugl]

From what I was told today JHB's problems are more than just this project.

 

I actually popped along to view the designs at the public meeting(but couldn't stay for the meeting) and felt that they were pretty dire. I know that's not why the planning application was defered but if we're going to build something at least let it be something decent and thoughtful.

 

I also notice that some organisation called "Architecture Scotland" seem to be having more and more of an influence in Shetland's planning applications and what we're building and I do question why they are allowed anywhere near it.

 

To me it's just another outside quango/organisation poking their nose in on matters that have got nothing to do with them and surely we should be able to debate and decide for ourselves....

[jobless]

In reply

 

This application is speculation which was recognised by the Planning Department and as another application had already been refused of a similar nature not long before ina nearby location, it was apparently decided to defer this for further information.

 

As i said earlier if this land is classed the same as the land previously refused then where in Shetland could you build as it is grazing the same as 99% of Shetland.

 

There is an area around Port Arthur already set aside for building making this application uneccesary at this time.

I believe this was considered by planning but thought to cause to much traffic to existing main street.As in a new road outwith who pays for that as it would be a massive undertaking if it was ever allowed?

 

More infill could be made in the East Voe site where there is already a large area of development.

 

This development was/is not in keeping with the housing in Scalloway - although to be fair - it is at quite a distance from eveything else.

It is a distance away but as i understand it was designed in accordance with Architectural & Design Scotland who was recommended by the local planning .

 

The developers were not prepared to put in the required road infastructure unless they could have full permission to develop the whole croft - over a100 houses, alleged Health Centre (although NHS have never approved this) and a business park.

 

Again reading all reports it sounds as if the costly road infrastructure could not be undertaken unless enough houses could be built to make it viable .

[Kavi Ugl]

Thank goodness if the development was not in keeping with the housing in Scalloway!. The public housing at least is ancient and tired looking.

 

Infact, why is this tired old argument/excuse trotted out so often?, i.e "that it's not in keeping with existing schemes/buildings".

 

The existing mentality/policy is often that any new scheme being built "has to be in keeping with existing houses" but maybe what's already there is old, bland, run down looking and needs to be bulldozed!.

 

[trout]

^^ LOL. Exactly. You read of these types of argument in Edinburgh.

 

A contemporary designed model of a build touching through the designs of yesteryear, yet bringing in a modern complimentary design is held to account as being almost blasphemous! Admittedly some utter dirt gets through such as the parliment building .. though, now after several years it touches on becoming part of 'da norm' and is .... fitting.... possibily?!? Possibly in Leith, yes?!

 

When you look across West to Glasgow though and their progressive attitude to city planning you really begin to see why Edinburgh has been living in a stagnant pool!

 

Lessons?

[Skunnered]

Clearly we need more consultants to sort it all out and to tell us what to do!

[Para Handy]

Port Arthur is a site of special scientific interest so it is hugely unlikely that more housing will ever be built there never mind the access problems.

 

I lived in Scalloway for 40 years first I’ve heard of special scientific interest

If you mean some where for birds to poop or midges to sit then I have to disagree completely there.

 

More houses the better

[MuckleJoannie]

The problem with the Port Arthur area is that it is at the boundary of the Shetland National Scenic Area. I can't find a map showing it but this is roughly an area that covers a section of the Westside in an arc from Scalloway to Skeld. The Community Council were keen to get the boundary shifted west, particularly since the water authority made a mockery of it by bulldozing a road from Port Arthur to the sewage works at Maaness.

 

RFR937 is correct in saying that most of the land to be developed is of poor quality, however Planning seem to have got a bee in their bonnet recently about agricultural land.

 

As for the development not being in keeping with the existing village I was led to understand that the plans had been altered to make it more in keeping with the existing townscape!

[EM]

Port Arthur is a site of special scientific interest ...

... first I’ve heard of special scientific interest...

Wishful thinking I expect. It may be some other kind of zone, but it isn't an SSI.