Self-sustaining Shetland

[Urabug]

The biggest problem with this country today is the fact that we have to many interfering politicians.

 

Westminster,Hollyrood,Brussels(EU) and our local councils ALL BEING PAID HANDSOMELY at our expense.

 

Politians in my book are there to find and provide funding for the NHS and Education ect,ect but they also want to run them as well. If only they were qualified to do so in many cases !!!   

 

To many cooks spoil the broth.

[whalsa]

Yes Urabug you are right. However often it is the unelected "executives" and "ministers" who are the real problem. 

Too many cooks indeed. If we were to pursue autonomy we could set up a tailor made system to suit Shetland and its needs. Imagine a fisheries minister who actually worked in the fishing industry or an agriculture minister who was a crofter? 

There would also need to be complete accountability so that constituents wishes can't be blatantly ignored as often happens under the current set up. 

[whalsa]

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/11784-italian-eatery-a-step-too-far-for-planners


Here is an example of bad governance which illustrates how poorly Shetland is being run. The SICs neglect and targetted cuts to outlying areas will ruin Shetland. Most of Shetland don't live in Lerwick, how do they imagine the rest of us go for a meal if we don't drive? 

[hjasga]

How is the Shetland Islands Council neglecting and targeting cuts towards rural areas an argument in favour of increased local power? 

 

I can at least see the argument that the environmental policies in question have been imposed from outside Shetland, but that doesn't seem to be the line you (or the Wir Shetland Facebook page) have taken up. 

[whalsa]

It is not an argument in favour of increasing local power for the SIC. It is an argument in favour of getting rid of the SIC and setting up something better. 

The planning laws and environmental policies are part of the problem and could be altered/done away with if we could run our own affairs. 

[hjasga]

But these are capable, elected local people who are making decisions you feel to be detrimental to the isles. If anything it is apt evidence of the many problems we cannot blame on external decision-makers. Any neglect of rural areas is within the control of the SIC - I'm just curious what an independent Shetland 'althing' might do differently? 

 

Certainly if we had our own law makers we could reject environmental policies, although I'd hope that would be done responsibly and not just as a middle finger to "bureaucracy". There is a case to be made that Shetland as a rural community relies on transport more than elsewhere. I'm not sure there's as strong a case to made against our Planning department rejecting plans that necessitate a vehicle for every group of customers. 

[whalsa]

I believe that's where you are wrong hjasga, planning officials are not elected and it is them who have blocked this development. What a new Shetland Government would do differently would be up to them but I would hope that with more power to make a real difference and a more suitable local system tailored to our needs we would have better Government all round and the rural areas of Shetland would be valued. 

Of course environmental policies have to be carefully considered but to reject this on that basis is, in my opinion, madness. There are many establishments in Shetland which necessitate a vehicle for every (or at least the vast majority) of customers. How many people walk to Busta or the Sumburgh Hotel for a meal for example? What about the people from the North who would go to this restaurant instead of driving to Lerwick, is that factored in?

It is not as if this would be in the middle of nowhere, it is located on one of Shetlands main transport arteries. The logic here is like saying you cannot have a restaurant on a motorway service station as it encourages people to drive to it from a nearby town! 

[hjasga]

I believe that's where you are wrong hjasga, planning officials are not elected and it is them who have blocked this development. What a new Shetland Government would do differently would be up to them but I would hope that with more power to make a real difference and a more suitable local system tailored to our needs we would have better Government all round and the rural areas of Shetland would be valued. 

 

Of course environmental policies have to be carefully considered but to reject this on that basis is, in my opinion, madness. There are many establishments in Shetland which necessitate a vehicle for every (or at least the vast majority) of customers. How many people walk to Busta or the Sumburgh Hotel for a meal for example? What about the people from the North who would go to this restaurant instead of driving to Lerwick, is that factored in?

 

It is not as if this would be in the middle of nowhere, it is located on one of Shetlands main transport arteries. The logic here is like saying you cannot have a restaurant on a motorway service station as it encourages people to drive to it from a nearby town! 

 

Planning officials may not be elected but they are primarily led by the Shetland Local Development Plan (found here: http://www.shetland.gov.uk/planning/documents/ShetlandLocalDevelopmentPlanAdopted26_09_2014.pdf)which is agreed by our elected representatives. 

 

It's telling that the examples you give are both hotels. Similarly the prospective business owner mentioned the Braewick Cafe, which is of course linked to the caravan and camping site. There is a notable difference here in that whilst they provide a service to all, they do host some customers on site and not all will be travelling solely for a meal. Other outlets in Voe and Brae have a local customer base as well as any who choose to travel from further afield. The point made is that this outlet would be accessible almost solely by car (people could cycle or walk but the suggestion seemed to be these options were not safe for this particular site). I also don't agree with the "logic" of your closing comment. Motorway service stations are there to provide service to people who are driving anyway, and they appear on far longer stretches of road where the driver does not pass through populated towns or villages for many miles. 

 

All that said, I don't completely agree with the decision and I do think there should be power in place to make these "common sense" sort of decisions where policy can perhaps be a bit too restrictive, but I do think planning should give consideration to environmental factors and I do think transport should be part of that. 

Edited November 23, 2015 by hjasga

[whalsa]

"SIC planners have delegated authority to grant or block planning applications without referring to councillors, unless there is an objection from a statutory body."

I couldn't get your link to load. They don't answer to the elected Councillors or anyone else seemingly. 

I get your point regarding hotels but I was merely pointing out that the vast majority of the time if a Shetland resident is going out for a meal they are driving there. 

"Motorway service stations are there to provide service to people who are driving anyway", exactly the point I was making, this is a heavily used stretch of road. I work up North and I know for a fact there would be times where I would stop for a pizza or a meal on my way home. Not only that the owner is proposing that they would potentially have a delivery service for the surrounding area which I believe would also be popular. 

You must agree that arguably the environmental damage caused by this would be minimal to non existent? 

[whalsa]

Also if the proprietor was to build his restaurant in one of the "population centres" either side of him, brae or voe, what about the "environmental cost" of him driving back and fore to his work every day instead of living next door? How far do you take it?  

[hjasga]

There's a superfluous bracket on the end of the link, if you remove that it'll work. Planners having delegated authority means exactly that, they are given authority from elsewhere but obviously there are guidelines attached to that and these must be voted through by councillors at regular intervals. 

 

That's a very selective quote in your paragraph about motorway service stations and ignores the key differentiation I made. People driving north pass through Voe and Brae, established settlements with their own eateries. People driving along the M8 or similar do not have regular stops like that, it is not a comparable situation. Yes, there will be some people like yourself who are passing by anyway, but the vast majority will have to make their way there specifically. 

 

The article from Shetland News does seem to dilute the decision down to a very simplistic explanation, as reading the document it links shows it is not just an environmental issue. 

 

 

Local Policy

 ‘The Plan has a key role to play in facilitating opportunities for sustainable economic growth in order to contribute to robust, thriving and diverse communities’ (LDP 2014).    

Whist the principle of this business is acceptable and should be encouraged and that LDP policies ED1 ‘Support for Business and Industry’ and ED2 ‘Commercial and Business Developments’ seek to support all business and industry and seek to encourage the establishment of new business and industry, the policies also state that the Council should ensure all new business development is sustainable and accessible, and that we should encourage residentially compatible developments such as the proposed development, be located within existing settlements.

It is felt that the development is not sustainably located as access to the building would be predominantly via vehicle, and that a business of this nature should be encouraged to be located within an existing settlement.  By encouraging this type of development to be sited within existing settlements, we are ensuring that we maintain vitality and vibrancy of that settlement and that the development is more sustainable located (to existing services, bus routes etc).  Therefore the proposal is contrary to LDP policies ED1 and ED2.

Policies ED1 and ED2 also state that new business developments should comply with General Policies GP1, GP2 and GP3.

GP1 ‘Sustainable Development’ seeks to prevent development that would contribute to climate change and negative environmental effects due to poorly ‘located’ and designed development.

Policy GP1 states ‘New residential, employment, cultural, education and community developments should be in or adjacent to existing settlements that have basic services and infrastructure, in order to enhance their vitality and facilitate ease of access for all’ (LDP 2014).  GP1’s justification states that planning decisions should favour the most sustainable option – in this instance no other option has been stated within the submitted application, and as already mentioned, this location is not within an existing settlement, therefore it is not sustainable and does not provide accessible ‘for all’.  Therefore the proposal is contrary to LDP policy GP1 ‘Sustainable Development’.

Policy GP3 seeks development that sited and designed to respect the character and local distinctiveness of the site and its surroundings.  GP3 ensures that any new development should make a positive contribution to maintaining the identity and character of an area and should ensure ease of movement and access for all.  It is felt that the proposed development would neither maintain nor respect the existing character of the area, nor would it respect the character of the surrounding area.  Therefore the proposal is contrary to LDP policy GP3 ‘All Development: Layout and Design’.

 

There are three local policies it has been deemed to fail on, before getting to the national policy regarding environmental impact. I note there were also objections to the building design on Environmental Health grounds. 

 

I do think on the whole this sort of development would be a positive move, and I hope that the prospective business owner is given the support required to resolve these issues, but I don't think planning should kowtow to the cries about red tape and bureaucracy and I think it is right that we have a good level of scrutiny about developments in the isles. 

[wotsit]

There is nothing wrong with the policy being there. It is how the planning officers WANT to interpret the policy and act on it. It may also have  an influence on WHO exactly is applying for the permission as how they choose to interpret these policies.

[wotsit]

If this gentleman is not allowed to have planning permission because his customers would have to drive there, which is against local policy, how on earth did Sumburgh Lighthouse get planning permission to extend and have a shop when I don't know of any bus route to it and it is a very long walk to the lighthouse from the nearest house.

[concerned shetlander]

I remember someone wanting planning permission for a dance hall down at docks in Lerwick, but it was refused because they said it was to near the water and people who had drink might fall in.

 

I heard no word of that when they put mareel down there. No objections then.

[hjasga]

If this gentleman is not allowed to have planning permission because his customers would have to drive there, which is against local policy, how on earth did Sumburgh Lighthouse get planning permission to extend and have a shop when I don't know of any bus route to it and it is a very long walk to the lighthouse from the nearest house.

 

Another seriously weak analogy, given Sumburgh Head is a site of significant natural heritage. People travel to see Sumburgh Head itself, of which the Visitor Centre (Lighthouse) is a part. It's not even close to the same as a restaurant.