Davie P

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2016/05/19/campaigner-hamilton-says-people-feel-alienated-by-charitable-trust
 
"28 respondents who were questioned at the Market Cross in Lerwick, plus four who had been randomly selected and questioned over the phone" by an individual with a well known axe to grind / agenda, and the Shetland Times have made it the lead story on their website?
 
"He (Peter Hamilton) adds in a summary to the results of the questionnaire: “It seems self-evident that Shetland Charitable Trust in its current form, or in the new form it seeks, is no longer fit for purpose.”" and claims "the questionnaire had proven there was wide spread public mistrust of the organisation which has been blamed for a host of other shortcomings."
 
Nonsense! For someone with "a masters qualification in social science research" he must know that such a small sample can't be used to extrapolate anything of real meaning let alone "prove" anything.

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2016/05/19/campaigner-hamilton-says-people-feel-alienated-by-charitable-trust
 
"28 respondents who were questioned at the Market Cross in Lerwick, plus four who had been randomly selected and questioned over the phone" by an individual with a well known axe to grind / agenda, and the Shetland Times have made it the lead story on their website?
 
"He (Peter Hamilton) adds in a summary to the results of the questionnaire: “It seems self-evident that Shetland Charitable Trust in its current form, or in the new form it seeks, is no longer fit for purpose.”" and claims "the questionnaire had proven there was wide spread public mistrust of the organisation which has been blamed for a host of other shortcomings."
 
Nonsense! For someone with "a masters qualification in social science research" he must know that such a small sample can't be used to extrapolate anything of real meaning let alone "prove" anything.

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2016/05/19/campaigner-hamilton-says-people-feel-alienated-by-charitable-trust
 
"28 respondents who were questioned at the Market Cross in Lerwick, plus four who had been randomly selected and questioned over the phone" by an individual with a well known axe to grind / agenda, and the Shetland Times have made it the lead story on their website?
 
"He (Peter Hamilton) adds in a summary to the results of the questionnaire: “It seems self-evident that Shetland Charitable Trust in its current form, or in the new form it seeks, is no longer fit for purpose.”" and claims "the questionnaire had proven there was wide spread public mistrust of the organisation which has been blamed for a host of other shortcomings."
 
Nonsense! For someone with "a masters qualification in social science research" he must know that such a small sample can't be used to extrapolate anything of real meaning let alone "prove" anything.

There is a lot of moaning and groaning going on at the moment about all the cut backs from the charitable trust,but surely this is common sense to reduce spending,so as to leave enough money in the fund to re-invest with the hope of building up and keeping enough in the fund for generations to come. 
 
I'm sure we have all gained from the trusts generosity in one way or another,but for this generosity to continue the way it was,is crazy and simply could not be allowed to continue . 
 
Thankfully those running the trust are now makeing very difficult decisions which will upset many off us but will ensure (if investments grow) that there is still something left.
 
We cannot have our cake and eat it!
 
We will all have to learn to live on less, and probably more work less play.

I would like to see land made available for affordable private housing in Lerwick if this site is going to be developed, even perhaps as much as a 50/50 split. 
 
At the moment I feel there's an in-balance in Lerwick that caters for low income and the wealthy, with the group in the middle relegated to a 30+ year old ex-council house or private rental, or just forced to move elsewhere.

I agree Capeesh, and it's a fundamental point. Hjatland have indeed been very successful in building smaller developments in more rural areas which have given the communities a much needed boost.
 
The Shetland Local Development Plan lists several key areas throughout Shetland arleady defined as 'Areas of Best Fit' for housing development - page 39 http://www.shetland.gov.uk/planning/documents/ShetlandLocalDevelopmentPlanAdopted26_09_2014.pdf and maps http://www.shetland.gov.uk/planning/documents/CombinedAOBFA4Maps_000.pdf - and access to ammenities and resources is a key factor, so I expect that's one of the main reasons such a large development is proposed as near as possible to the main centre of resources (i.e. Lerwick). I also expect demand for houses in town is a factor too.
 
However, it would seem to be a self fulfilling prophecy. The more amenities that are concentrated in Lerwick > the more demand for houses > the more resources required to support the residents......
 
Most folk I've discussed housing developments in Shetland with seem to agree that several smaller mixed size developments around Shetland is preferable to (more) large concentrations in Lerwick. It's certainly a point I'll raise during this consultation.

I also know people at Quoys (another exposed hill) and the East Voe of Scalloway who are more than happy with their modern, well insulated houses.
They work, have children and don't have drug/alcohol addictions either, as far as I'm aware.
I think the Hjatland developments so far have been done well but at 400 houses this development is much bigger than anything they've done before.
The need is obvious, but is concentrating so many houses in one area a good idea?
It supports the idea that Lerwick is becoming a black hole, sucking investment towards itself, with 400 extra houses they'll need more money invested in the health centre, primary schools etc etc
They could have stuck to what they are good at and built smaller developments and spread them around Shetland.

I expect there will always be people on the waiting list, so what's your point?
 
I know a few folk who are living happily in the existing developments at the north of the Staneyhill - cosy modern houses whether the wind is blowing or not, and I haven't heard them complaining about their neighbours. To imply these folk are neither decent nor sane would be insulting if I wasn't aware of your appetite for negativity.

I was lucky enough to qualify for a shared ownership Hjatland house with my partner after years of renting privately when I was younger, it was a fantastic help and after seeing the recent rental market it makes me count my blessings, I would never have been able to afford to rent privately at todays prices.
I now own a different property which will border the Staney hill development and have already had a letter through the door asking if we have any objections.
Me and the wife had a chat about it and although the development will almost certainly have a detrimental effect on our house we decided it would be wrong to pull the ladder up behind us and put in any sort of objection and deny somebody else the opportunity we had.

Interesting proposition, but it certainly doesn't make for a positive headline on the same day that education cuts are back on the agenda http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2015/11/23/library-could-make-900000-return-to-former-site

I too am annoyed that despite passing through this roundabout several times a day it has given me no grounds for excitement, whilst others have unfairly been able to squeeze a right good pleepse out of it.
 
I don't recall be asked my opinion about the design of the roundabout.
 
I blame the SIC, DVLA, Amenity Trust, Recreational Trust, Arts Trust, Mareel's popcorn, Charitable Trust, Jonathan Wills and the Windfarm who are all obviously incompetent.
 
It's one rule for them, another for the rest of us etc etc etc

I too am annoyed that despite passing through this roundabout several times a day it has given me no grounds for excitement, whilst others have unfairly been able to squeeze a right good pleepse out of it.
 
I don't recall be asked my opinion about the design of the roundabout.
 
I blame the SIC, DVLA, Amenity Trust, Recreational Trust, Arts Trust, Mareel's popcorn, Charitable Trust, Jonathan Wills and the Windfarm who are all obviously incompetent.
 
It's one rule for them, another for the rest of us etc etc etc

I too am annoyed that despite passing through this roundabout several times a day it has given me no grounds for excitement, whilst others have unfairly been able to squeeze a right good pleepse out of it.
 
I don't recall be asked my opinion about the design of the roundabout.
 
I blame the SIC, DVLA, Amenity Trust, Recreational Trust, Arts Trust, Mareel's popcorn, Charitable Trust, Jonathan Wills and the Windfarm who are all obviously incompetent.
 
It's one rule for them, another for the rest of us etc etc etc

The Dunning Kruger effect as it applies to roundabout design?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I am extremely disappointed to inform any who haven't used the new roundabout at North Lochside that in my humble opinion I found approaching, going through and exiting it was a very dull experience.

It wouldn't have mattered where it was located or if it was a simple t-junction, traffic lights or a roundabout, someone on this forum would have been up in the middle of the night plinking on their keyboard pleepsing about it.

Did you forget "Titanic".. 
 
Seriously though, went through there today on the Town Service bus and, no problems..  Just have to wait and see how it works out..

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/11698-carmichael-i-thought-i-could-have-truthfully-said-i-didn-t-leak-it
 
An interesting exchange!
 
Mitchell QC said: “Let’s put it bluntly, Mr Carmichael, you intended to lie to the inquiry.”
Carmichael replied: “The inquiry has to find evidence. It was my intention that I would wait to see what I was asked.”
Mitchell QC said: “It was your failure to tell the whole truth that led to it to have to take so long. If you and Mr Roddin had said early on, there wouldn’t have been any need.”
Carmichael said: “Indeed, had we confessed. But there was an inquiry underway and it was for them to find the evidence.”
 
 

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/11698-carmichael-i-thought-i-could-have-truthfully-said-i-didn-t-leak-it
 
An interesting exchange!
 
Mitchell QC said: “Let’s put it bluntly, Mr Carmichael, you intended to lie to the inquiry.”
Carmichael replied: “The inquiry has to find evidence. It was my intention that I would wait to see what I was asked.”
Mitchell QC said: “It was your failure to tell the whole truth that led to it to have to take so long. If you and Mr Roddin had said early on, there wouldn’t have been any need.”
Carmichael said: “Indeed, had we confessed. But there was an inquiry underway and it was for them to find the evidence.”
 
 

There is plenty room to negotiate the roundabout and visibilty is really good. The roundabout will certainly be needed for traffic coming from the new AHS onto Lochside. Getting out of the t-junction at Clickimin Centre on to Lochside is a nightmare at busy times so imagine what it would be like at the new AHS junction if it was a t-junction instead of a roundabout. I'm more worried that 3 folk answered 'yes' on this poll

I was behind Garrick's articulated cement truck on Lochside this morning which had no problem heading north around the roundabout whilst another truck headed from the north into the site. 
 
It seems to me that most of the complaints I've heard are theoretical rather than actual, hence the wording of the poll question. But as a wise man (probably) said "never let the facts get in the way of a right good pleepse"

If you look at the photo above, you will be able to see the large central islands with dropped kerbs - creating safe areas half way across. Something that certainly didn't exist beforehand.
 
An improvement, I'd say.

I'm just curious as to where people think the round about should of been built? If it had been moved further south it would of blocked peoples private accesses and if it went any nearer the practice/rugby pitches the council would of had a huge bill for disposing material from the old dump.
 
If it was moved even further south, you would of ended up with two new junctions on lochside rather than just one. One for the school and one for Hjatlands proposed 300 houses that's is to be built up the side of the hill.
 
As for comments on visibility. Please feel free to write to the roads department with evidence that it does not meet design standards.
 
In regard to crossing the road, I fail to see how this is any more dangerous to cross the road now than it was before, traffic will be slower plus pedestrians now have islands to use to aid them crossing the road.
 
If anyone has any doubts on how traffic flows around the much debated north exit then feel free to check out Videos i posted up on my FB page which are open for all public to see. They show a Bus, Artic and even a push bike safely negotiating the roundabout without any hassle.
 
Kind regards twerto

Hmmm...
 
Would Kavi care to detail their qualifications, training and experience and knowledge of the project requirements and constraints, and therefore competence, to justify making such observations?
 
And would those respondents who actually have a problem driving around the roundabout please do us all a favour and hand their licences (assuming they have one) back to the authorities

Start your own poll then. I think I've been pretty clear about the point of this one.