Jump to content

veterinary issues


Recommended Posts

does anybody know where to address veterinary issues to?

 

Is there a Shetland veterinary authority?

 

Need to find out if any quarantine rules apply, whether any additional vaccinations should be given before relocation, what sort of papers and certificates are needed etc.

I think I might have gathered all information needed but prefer to have some written confirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The local office of the SGRPID (Scottish Goverment Rural Payments & Inspections Directorate) would be where to check up on what vaccinations, Certificates etc you'd need to comply with national regulations.

 

Their office is in Charlotte House, Commercial Road, Lerwick. Tel: 01595 695054. Fax: 01595 694254. Email: sylvia.halcrow@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

 

If you're intending to be a keeper of livestock in Shetland, sooner rather than later these people will insist you fill in numerous forms for them every year, so if you've not already made their acquaintence, and they you. Its never too early to start getting the hang of how they operate.

 

There are additional Shetland only requirements to comply with local schemes designed to give Shetland livestock an "enhanced" health status (and theoretically a market premium) , I don't know who the official contact is for information on these, but the local commercial vet's business and the SIC's Enviornmental Health people are both involved with them, and either would be able to either supply you with the information, or give you contact details for who to get in touch with for any aspect they don't handle.

 

The sole vet's business at the moment is the Westside Veterinary Surgery, with branches in Bixter Tel: 01595 810456. Fax: 01595 810457, and Scalloway Tel: 01595 88000. Fax: 01595 880123.

 

The SIC Enviornment people I think you will be able to get on Tel: 01595 744800 and asking to be put through to someone who deals with animal health matters. Alternatively calling the main switchboard on Tel: 01595 693535 and requesting the same will work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes speak to animal health at the council and you could check with the vet as well they are very helpful. you will need to check with defra/sgrpid and possibly worth speaking to the scottish acricultral college at stanney hill. I don't know the rules about movements from a blue tongue area to a clear area. you will need to be sure you don't bring any unwanted travellers with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks Ghostrider!

 

Funny thing is that I have already sent a letter to the SIC - well this was planning department because the main issue was about a possible planning permission. But the letter included also all questions regarding livestock which I asked to forward to the departments involved.

Obviously someone was not very keen to deal with the whole lot or to forward anything internally :( so I got a letter back + the form for planning permission + the information they don't know who's dealing with the veterinary issues mentioned.

This was rather disappointing...

Reminds me of German bureaucracy... noone knows nothing...

Funzie being in zone 4 which means one needs planning permission for erecting a new or altering or renovating a new "dwelling house". In my case I will only consider buying the place if I can put a turf roof on the Haa and use it for stabling my livestock in the winter.

This was classified as converting the building into a habitable dwellinghouse and therefore planning permission required... aha... don't really intend to share my bed with a cow if I can avoid it...

yes, and a paddock is a hardstanding area which means exact plans will be needed what size around the building will be covered (with sand) etc.

So SIC seems to want to know beforehand the position of every single fence post and other details I can't be bothered to mention now.

 

Can it be that SIC would rather prefer historic buildings to collapse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if its a listed building then your plans face major issues. historic scotland and any others will want to be involved. phone or write to enviromental health and then ask for animal health. jim at bixter vets does ministry checks on the animals being slaughtered so he should be up to date with the info. iwould not hang around too much longer its very likely to sell soon. as said before if we had the cash we would have had it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Patzel: That sounds very much like sheer laziness, ignorance, or both. Planning and Enviornmental Services, as far as I'm aware are both sub-departments of Infrastructure Services, both of whom have their offices on the same site at Grantfield, and share the same contact details etc. Although, there's a widely held belief that Planning is a law on to themselves, so its probably not entirely a surprise they live in their own little box largely unaware of anyone else.

 

The Shetland only animal health schemes are voulntary though (theoretically), so there probably isn't a readily available "Rule Book" which they could have consulted, and for whatever reason whoever replied to your query couldn't/wouldn't be bothered to ask around far enough within the same building to find someone who did know.

 

As for old buildings, the SIC say they want them preserved, but when it comes to actually doing so, the SIC's own rules makes it much cheaper and easier to just let them crumble and build new from scratch. They're pushing and pulling both at the same time on the issue, yet apparently can't see it, or do not care to try and remedy it.

 

Bureaucracy I daresay is largely the same the world over, strangulated by red tape and not entirely a sane phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iwould not hang around too much longer its very likely to sell soon.

 

I'm not gonna rush into buying it if not everything is sorted out beforehand. If the property is sold to somebody else in the meantime that's bad luck and it would mean I'd have to look for a similar property.

I am not under any pressure...sitting on my own farm here.

 

If it's meant to be ours it will be ours... this it what life experience tells me.

 

The worst case szenario would be: moving with all my livestock and family there and then find out that the property cannot be used the way I need it. I do need a stable and a paddock for the winter and if SIC makes problems about the Haa then I definitely have a problem.

And this szenario I want to avoid.

 

as said before if we had the cash we would have had it.
some additional cash will be needed to clear out all what's lying around in the outbuildings :wink:

 

@ Ghostrider

ignorance? :lol:

I wrote:

... please find attached ... some modified photos which might give an impression about how I would want to renovate the Haa of Funzie and the other buildings. Since Shetland had a tradition of turf roofs it would be appropriate to continue with this tradition. The outer appearance of the Haa should not be altered to a great extent (if at all). The inside should be used for sheltering my cows and ponies in winter, sub-divided by barriers of steel and wood. Under the roof provisions should be made for storing winter fodder (hay in small square bales). The floor might need concrete or tiles...

...due to the fact that our draught horse weighs about 750kg he should not be kept on a wet pasture in order not to ruin the ground. So a large paddock should be fenced around the Haa covered either with sand (pref. natural sand of a beach if available and use is allowed) or with small round pebbles...

 

This was the answer:

...please note that planning permission will be required for the restoration/renovation works proposed to transform the existing abandoned crofthouse into a habitable dwellinghouse, as will the other aspects of your proposed works which may all be incorporated into one planning application form submission, provided that these proposed works are contained within the vicinity of the property you intend to inhabit an can be outlined within a red line to encapsulate the full extent of the proposed boundary of development works...

... full planning permission should incorporate all aspects of your proposed works including: the restoration/renovation/extension of the former croft house, the conversion of the byre for equestrian use/livestock storage, details of the proposed paddock including details of boundary treatments, details of hardstanding area/s proposed for cultivation purposes... 4 copies of location plans, site plans, elevation drawings, floor and roof plans, sections and details of external material finishes and colours proposed...

 

:roll: It's a turf roof I would want to put on the Haa and a fence around it and cover the place round the building with pebbles or sand... it's not a bl... luxury villa I want to build...

colours proposed? Being naive I thought turf roofs are green...

 

Crofthouse? Byre? Both is not correct for the Haa. Strange: noone cares if it's a roofless structure, falls into bits and is used for storing junk but to "convert" it to equestrian use... oh!

 

would THIS not be a good use?

http://http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4556/haa2.th.jpg

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/i][/u]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

I'm confused. It is clear from your posts that your wish is to use the Haa for livestock, but I presume you will be living in another building. I also presume that that building is in need of renovation. As such it requires planning consent, and Planning are simply clarifying that your intentions relating to the Haa developments need to be included in that planning permission application.

 

I also don't understand the following:

Crofthouse? Byre? Both is not correct for the Haa.

If you are intending to use it to house cattle, then surely it will be a byre? Why do you feel it is not a byre?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presume you will be living in another building. I also presume that that building is in need of renovation.

 

This other building we'd intend to inhabit ourselves (just an ordinary dwelling house) is not in need of renovation. It should only be fitted with solar panels but the planned size doesn't require planning permission (according to another letter from the SIC).

Redecoration (internally) and some repairs definitely yes, but massive renovations work no.

 

If you are intending to use it to house cattle, then surely it will be a byre? Why do you feel it is not a byre?

In my opinion it is a historic building, as far as I know originally designed for mainly commercial use (fishing station?). It will possibly be classified as a byre (in the future) when livestock lives in it. But a "conversion of a byre for equestrian use" would mean that it was a byre just now and would be converted which is simply not the case.

 

It is clear from your posts that your wish is to use the Haa for livestock

that's a comforting statement :wink: obviously for SIC it was not clear.

 

As far as I know agricultural developments do not require planning permission at all (unless they are major or have environmental impacts).

At the moment there are sheep and poultry roaming freely inside and outside the roofless Haa. So where is the environmental impact a turf roof would cause? And a fence? If there is no fence cattle destroy the surrounding ground in winter. If a fenced area is not surfaced properly the ground will transorm in a muddy mess within a short time. That would definitely be an environmental impact.

 

Does anybody have an idea why SIC doesn't encourage our plans? To the contrary they block off reasonable development.

 

I was hoping to get a letter back from SIC which says: for the proposed works planning permission is not required as long as the works do not differ from the plans....

or something like that

 

Am I asking for too much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody have an idea why SIC doesn't encourage our plans? To the contrary they block off reasonable development.

I'm not sure that the planning department is in a position to either encourage or actively discourage any plans of this type. They are there to make sure that endless reams of bureaucracy are fulfilled and planning 'guidelines' and policies are adhered to.

 

There are examples of similar scenarios to yours throughout Shetland. Often, it would seem that a pile of stones is preferable to a traditional restored Shetland home from a bureaucratic point of view.

 

There are success stories, I can't recall one off-hand but for encouragement you should perhaps rely more on the councillor for the area and the regional community council. Don't lose heart, just play the game in acceptance of their rules. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

has the haa been used for animals in the past. I can see were they are coming from change of use to a byre from a dwelling house(even if most crofter don't seem to be bothered with this change.)

Don't mention horses you would definitly need planning to convert to a stable. our byre was switched from a tar paper to steel sheet and the owner but one had to get retro spective building consent.

 

I still think a purpose built animal shed would be much better for your animals. plus you would only need to give them notice and wait 28 days. with the size of the holding you would not have a problem getting permission (you would be also entitled to a 50% grant. new rules mean owner occupiers are now treated the same.).

The haa would be better used as holiday lets which should give you much needed funds.

make sure you have a good look at the junk in the haa you may be surprised at what is still usable. don't chuck anything away util you very sure. old hand crofting tools are very expensive to replace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This other building we'd intend to inhabit ourselves (just an ordinary dwelling house) is not in need of renovation

Ah. It is getting a bit clearer.

 

... but massive renovations work no.

I think that this is perhaps your misunderstanding. Renovations do not need to be massive to require planning permission. As a general rule you should assume that planning permission is likely to be required in all cases of unoccupied dwelling houses being prepared for human reoccupation. Occasionally they might not, but generally they will need work done which in turn requires planning consent.

 

Does anybody have an idea why SIC doesn't encourage our plans? To the contrary they block off reasonable development.

I think you are reading a bit too much into this. As I say, planning consent is the norm when older buildings are being brought back into use.

 

Where the SIC really does tend to block redevelopments is when the building is very remote and there are ramifications for the provision of services. There are also now huge problems getting developments past building control when the elevation is close to sea level.

 

Am I asking for too much?

I understand that you wish to avoid the costs involved, but the purpose of planning law, and more so building control law (which you will still be subject to even if planning consent is not needed), is for the public good. If your proposals are good and fair, I do not see them being blocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Renovations do not need to be massive to require planning permission. As a general rule you should assume that planning permission is likely to be required in all cases of unoccupied dwelling houses being prepared for human reoccupation.

 

The dwelling house is not unoccupied at the moment. The present owner lives there and has been living there for the last 8 years...

It's just an ordinary house. Renovation means for me: painting the internal walls, replacing the open fire with a Kachelofen, replacing the carpets, perhaps install a wooden floor etc. so definitely nothing due for permission or consent.

 

There are also now huge problems getting developments past building control when the elevation is close to sea level.

Yes, this might be a problem. If something like the Storegga slide was to happen again I would probably be the first to know.

According to Norwegian scientists there is a certain risk and estimates are that a tsunami caused by a huge landslide off the coast of Norway would take about 3 hours from the Norwegian coast to Shetland, Orkney and North-East Scotland.

I have mentioned this subject when I wrote to the SIC and was told that new projects will from now on generally be checked for flooding risks.

But one doesn't have to be a scientist to know that this would be more than usual flooding due to stormy seas.

To have higher ground nearby is a comforting thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ At a guess your horses are what are causing Planning to be so "unhelpful". Were it just cows you planned to house the work you're planning would almost certainly be classified as an "agriculture" development, however the presence of horses almost certainly elevates the whole development to "equestrian" status, which has far stricter rules to follow than agriculture developments.

 

There are echos here of the recent case (and thought OTT and absurd by some of the councillors you had little option but approve it) where someone grazing a Shetland Pony in a field, in which they'd situated a steel shipping container as shelter/stabling for the animal, were forced to apply for planning permission for that field as "Equestrian" use, and part of the conditions of granting it was that they had to lay bitumen or similar access through the field gate to the public road. This, despite the fact, or so it was said at the time, that the field was used solely for grazing the animal, it was never ridden in the field, or ridden out through the field gate on to the public road. It was taken out of the field, transported to riding ground elsewhere to be ridden, then brought back and put back in the field.

 

The point seemed to be that the animal was owned for "equestrian" use, and as such it mattered none where the equestrian use actually took place, wherever the animal was situated on a semi-permanent basis automatically needed to be approved for equestrian use, and the relevant planning conditions applied.

 

If you plan to ride your horses, or have them draw wagons or whatever that has nothing to do with farming, there's probably no way around the "equestrian" classification, however if you were planning to only use them for agricultural work, it might well be work arguing with Planning that they will form part of an agricultural enterprise, and as such should be subject to agricultural planning statutes, not equestrian planning statutes.

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...