Are we loosing the Staney Hill?

[hjasga]

Stromness is about twice the size of Scalloway and as far as I'm aware, almost always has been. That has little to do with Council policy and more to do with natural shifting of the population. Scalloway itself has almost no capacity for more housing development so cannot possibly grow by much more. East Voe has seen loads of housing built in the past decade or so, while other large developments at Utnabrak and Sundibanks have been opposed in a similar manner to anything proposed in town. 

[RFR937]

There's plenty of space in Scalloway to build it's just getting ownership and permission to build on that land that's the problem . In reality I'd have thought a scheme half the size in LK would have been more appropriate and not on the site proposed but more along the track the runs beside the Sandy loch and the top of Staney hill , the developers could put a decent road in giving a North to South bypass at the same time. The other half of the planned 400 homes should be build in the other rural villages.

[Urabug]

As I understand it,RFR937 no building can be done in this area in case of a sewerage leak or any other form of contamination into the loch which would affect the water supply.

[Ghostrider]

In reality I'd have thought a scheme half the size in LK would have been more appropriate and not on the site proposed but more along the track the runs beside the Sandy loch and the top of Staney hill , the developers could put a decent road in giving a North to South bypass at the same time. The other half of the planned 400 homes should be build in the other rural villages.

 

The owner of all/part?? of that tract of land offered it up for housing and a road some years ago, but it was rejected as unsuitable on the grounds Urabug states.

 

Even with recent and current developments there's still an amount of land both sides of the old and new North Roads that could be considered, and while it might be far from "ideal" its no less ideal in its own way than where their current plans are - at least most of it would be much less exposed and have more viable access. However there, you do have a real ownership and permission problem, insofar as a good chunk of it comprises the Gremista Farm, which, to the best of my knowledge, the LPA have had a long standing declared policy of "maintaining as a working farm".

 

While we're at it, what's wrong with using the field in the corner of the South Road and Westerloch for housing, it seems to be untouchable for some reason. I know its wet in parts, but nothing worse than a lot of sites that have been built on elsewhere. Come to that, why not build on the Knab, as quite frankly while the weather there can get to be on the "severe" side, it gets as severe on the top of the Staney Hill.

[Kavi Ugl]

I remember before Quoys was built it was a beautiful peerie area wi a burn running down the hill(which is still there in actual fact and is incorporated into the scheme) and I remember thinking what a shame to loose such a bonnie place.

 

Now that Quoys is built that bonnie area is just a distant memory and I suspect the Staney Hill will be the same, even dare I say it, the camping site too.

 

As someone who lives in Lerwick I do feel a tinge of sadness at loosing these bonnie areas but I understand the need for housing.

 

I also understand rural folk wanting to see their communities bolstered/supported wi some new housing, and that has been done, but the demand seems to be for housing in Lerwick and as HHA say they're just responsing to that demand.

 

Another factor is that for many people on low wages and who work in Lerwick they simply can't afford the fuel for a 50 mile round trip each day. 

 

I just hope that whatever is built, is "bonnie enough" to look at and isn't basically a six inch block with harl plonked on the hillside.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Kavi Ugl

[ll]

Like earlier posters suggest, Scalloway would really benefit from more housing. The primary (yes leaving out secondary figures) school role is only 70% of what it was in 1981, whilst neighbouring Tingwall Primary's role is up by almost 50% in same period.

 

Whilst house building in Tingwall, despite being a more agricultural district can allow approval of over 100 houses in the last few years, Scalloway itself has well under 10 homes being built in the last 10 years.

 

If the same trend continues, Tingwall will have a higher school role than Scalloway in under 20 years.

[RFR937]

As I understand it,RFR937 no building can be done in this area in case of a sewerage leak or any other form of contamination into the loch which would affect the water supply.

Ah I see , that makes sense I suppose , shame as it's much flatter ground and I'd have thought a lot cheaper to build on because of this , you'd think it wouldn't be impossible to overcome the pollution issue for all that , the main road runs by the end of the loch now , would only take a crashed Gulley sucker to cause the same issues, anyway , thanks for explanation

[Ghostrider]

Like earlier posters suggest, Scalloway would really benefit from more housing. The primary (yes leaving out secondary figures) school role is only 70% of what it was in 1981, whilst neighbouring Tingwall Primary's role is up by almost 50% in same period.

 

Whilst house building in Tingwall, despite being a more agricultural district can allow approval of over 100 houses in the last few years, Scalloway itself has well under 10 homes being built in the last 10 years.

 

If the same trend continues, Tingwall will have a higher school role than Scalloway in under 20 years.

 

Not to detract from your point, but surely these figures evidence something of a more fundamental change in Scalloway than just a lack of house building. Scalloway has no fewer houses now than in '81 does it? To a casual passer-by like me, it would appear there are actually a few more than in '81, for example most if not all of those along the East Voe and at Upper Scalloway have come during that period.

 

Assuming there are no less residential properties in Scalloway now than in '81, surely a static school roll would be expected. If you're going to have to rely on an ever increasing number of residential properties just to maintain a static school roll, there's something else arguably more serious afoot as well. Has Scalloway's population evolved to have a far higher elderly population whose families have long since grown up than 35 years ago, are people in general choosing to have less children than previously, or are there a far higher childless population than previously?

 

I'm not arguing that accommodation shortages making it difficult for folk already living there to continue doing so, or discouraging folk from moving there, can only make the situation worse, as there's no doubt it does, but if there's been a 30% decline in the school roll in 35 years, while accomodation and by extension assumedly population has remained reasonably static, there would seem to be some other underlying reason(s) for such a decline at work as well.

 

Unfortunately Scalloway has a lot less opportunities for employment now than it did in '81, would building additional housing actually go very far towards helping folk become employed there and contribute to local prosperity, or would you just be creating a commuter community who will work and play elsewhere, and only sleep there, contributing little to the place. Does Scalloway want to become either in part or all, any more of a commuter community than it already has?

[B/M/S]

I would'nt loss any sleep over losing the Staney Hill to new housing

[RFR937]

 

Like earlier posters suggest, Scalloway would really benefit from more housing. The primary (yes leaving out secondary figures) school role is only 70% of what it was in 1981, whilst neighbouring Tingwall Primary's role is up by almost 50% in same period.

 

Whilst house building in Tingwall, despite being a more agricultural district can allow approval of over 100 houses in the last few years, Scalloway itself has well under 10 homes being built in the last 10 years.

 

If the same trend continues, Tingwall will have a higher school role than Scalloway in under 20 years.

 

Not to detract from your point, but surely these figures evidence something of a more fundamental change in Scalloway than just a lack of house building. Scalloway has no fewer houses now than in '81 does it? To a casual passer-by like me, it would appear there are actually a few more than in '81, for example most if not all of those along the East Voe and at Upper Scalloway have come during that period.

 

Assuming there are no less residential properties in Scalloway now than in '81, surely a static school roll would be expected. If you're going to have to rely on an ever increasing number of residential properties just to maintain a static school roll, there's something else arguably more serious afoot as well. Has Scalloway's population evolved to have a far higher elderly population whose families have long since grown up than 35 years ago, are people in general choosing to have less children than previously, or are there a far higher childless population than previously?

 

I'm not arguing that accommodation shortages making it difficult for folk already living there to continue doing so, or discouraging folk from moving there, can only make the situation worse, as there's no doubt it does, but if there's been a 30% decline in the school roll in 35 years, while accomodation and by extension assumedly population has remained reasonably static, there would seem to be some other underlying reason(s) for such a decline at work as well.

 

Unfortunately Scalloway has a lot less opportunities for employment now than it did in '81, would building additional housing actually go very far towards helping folk become employed there and contribute to local prosperity, or would you just be creating a commuter community who will work and play elsewhere, and only sleep there, contributing little to the place. Does Scalloway want to become either in part or all, any more of a commuter community than it already has?

 

Is there really that much less  employment now in Scalloway ? Between all the aquaculture industry employment , the fish factories , net repairs , NAFC ,Scord quarry, garage, Haulage companies, shops , doctors , hotels etc etc there must be a sizeable employment role in Scalloway , a lot of local employment on the accommodation barge/ship as well. I remember the planning saga regarding Utnabrak but there's plenty of other land either up towards Berry farm , out past the present homes at Port Arthur or up behind the present health center.

[MuckleJoannie]

Scalloway has an ageing population. Locals want to get a house and start a family then discover nothing is available so they move away. 

 

The best bit of land for housing in Scalloway would be the Berry Farm but I can't see that becoming available.

 

As for employment in Scalloway at 9 a.m. I now have to wait to let more cars pass coming into the village than going out go past before I can get out our road.

[Ghostrider]

Is there really that much less  employment now in Scalloway ? Between all the aquaculture industry employment , the fish factories , net repairs , NAFC ,Scord quarry, garage, Haulage companies, shops , doctors , hotels etc etc there must be a sizeable employment role in Scalloway , a lot of local employment on the accommodation barge/ship as well. I remember the planning saga regarding Utnabrak but there's plenty of other land either up towards Berry farm , out past the present homes at Port Arthur or up behind the present health center.

 

Fair question. Certainly from the outside looking in, that is the general perception, but maybe the numbers if anyone has them, would prove that simply an illusion.

 

Granted aquaculture and the college has come, but there's a lot less fishing boats than back then, fish factories have evolved, gone are the "big boys", or at least perceived "big boys" such as Iceatlantic and Williamson's. Shops seem much less, garages are fewer, pubs are fewer, haulage companies seem fewer, gone are G&M/Shalder and Johnson's.

 

I'm not arguing Scalloway doesn't provide a relatively significant level of employment, just wondering whether the general perception is true that in common with most of the rest of Shetland, unless for the toon, Sullom and a little extra at Sumburgh, employment is no more than, if not actually less than 35 years ago. And whether anyone tempted to move there by additional housing would readily find employment there, or simply be acquiring a base from which they commute elsewhere.

[Ghostrider]

Scalloway has an ageing population. Locals want to get a house and start a family then discover nothing is available so they move away. 

 

That would seem as good an explanation as any for the falling school roll figures.

 

As for employment in Scalloway at 9 a.m. I now have to wait to let more cars pass coming into the village than going out go past before I can get out our road.

 

Difficult to argue with that kind of evidence. As long as there's folk making that trip that would rather stay in Scalloway than make it, Scalloway has as great a need as the toon.

 

Is there still a dormant/abandoned partially prepared site that could hold a few in the face of the hill near the College? Granted it wouldn't be much, but it would be a start and would "tidy up" a "scar"/eyesore on the countryside.

[hjasga]

There's plenty of space in Scalloway to build 

 

Where? 

[hjasga]

 

As for employment in Scalloway at 9 a.m. I now have to wait to let more cars pass coming into the village than going out go past before I can get out our road.

 

I agree with the general point, but I think folk would also be amazed how many Lerwick-based parents put their bairns to the Scalloway nursery. Many come out and turn right around again to go to their work.

Edited March 9, 2015 by hjasga