Suffererof1crankymofo

The waste is being shipped up here and the cost for disposal more than covers the cost of the haulage, by a considerable amount.

 

They have already done a trial run of the waste up here and processed it.

Who is "They"?

They pay the council to take the waste not the other way around !

Well it wouldn't get from Fife or the like by magic carpet, would it?!  And I reiterate, those other local authorities who currently buy the service from other providers to get rid of their rubbish in an EU approved manner, will already have contracts in place with said other providers.

I'll make a simple comparison for you:-

Council A currently buys a service from Fred Blogs No. 3 PLC.  SIC offers to sell same service to Council A.  Council A realises that to terminate their current contract with Fred Blogs No. 3 PLC would cost in excess of £50k for early termination of their existing contract, plus Fred Blogs No. 3 PLC charges £1 per unit whereas SIC wants £1.50 per unit plus a transportation fee.  If you were Council A, would you buy the services of SIC simply because some civil servant in the Government wrote you a nice e-mail stating that Shetland now could offer that service?  No, they would dump said e-mail in their err recycle bin.

The SIC and their consultants are doing the usual, assuming there will be an income stream when in reality, the assumed income stream could be ZERO. 

You guys are getting worse with your council bashing , there is a duty to recycle and save the environment what is there to complain about ?

 

Things change and the days of just putting everything in a black bag and not recycling are over accept it, adapt and quit moaning like your hard done by.

The legal duty is on a local authority to promote recycling; when asked for the actual clause under the Act which stated individual members of the public had to recycle, the SIC couldn't provide it.  There is, however, a legal requirement upon a local authority to collect rubbish.  It's been proven elsewhere that a suitable receptable does not have to be a wheelie bin.

There is enough non recyclable fuel in the UK to power the district heating, in fact there is so much that the UK exports it, yes we pay to have the waste shipped to Europe for waste to energy schemes, don't worry about deals with local authorities there is literally a never ending stream of waste available.

 

A carrier bag of paper a week........

 

Why would you even consider driving to Lerwick with that , with the new scheme you will have two carrier bags of paper gathered up stick it in the appropriate bin , Job Done !

And you, just like the SIC, are assuming that the never ending stream of waste available will come to Shetland and not the other local authorities' existing contractors.  Are you assuming that Shetland will be cheaper than anywhere else?

I didn't consider driving to Lerwick, I refused to do so but when I received the e-mail from Scot. Gov.'s busy bodies, there was no mention of the fact you could ask to be exempt.  But in order to comply, had I not enquired, it would have entailed driving to Lerwick!  Blame the legislation and those advising on said legislation, not those in receipt of an e-mail telling them that you had to go to Lerwick and couldn't put it in the normal household waste.

I look very much forward to the fabled knock on the door from the SIC assessment dude, whoever that may be - he/she better have a big furry rabbit to pull out of the hat to make our situation workable...

I think it's gonna be a Scot. Gov. bod or contractor, namely Zero Waste Scotland, who will be knocking on ya door.  Have fun!

To sum it up

 

What they are currently burning in the incinerator has a high percentage of waste then can be recycled.

 

What they will import to burn is waste that can not be recycled.

 

The 0 waste Scotland initiative will provide funding to support the project, it will create jobs and revenue for the council and local businesses.

Do you seriously believe everything you're told and not bother to read the small print?

There is an ASSUMPTION that SIC will get contracts from other local authorities to deal with their waste in order for the SIC's figures to add up.  There is no GUARANTEE that they will get any.

As someone who is self-employed on a part-time basis, I can assure you that Zero Waste Scotland's requirements do NOT assist local businesses, not mine, anyway.  I'm expected to take my recycling generated from my business to a licensed recycler (in other words, the SIC's dump) 25 odd miles away.  Now given that I print on both sides of A4 and generate roughly a carrier bag of shredded paper a week, I didn't consider it very green and environmentally friendly to whack about £8 of petrol in the car and drive to Lerwick and back.  So a couple of years or so when the Scot. Gov. introduced this law, I e-mailed and got permission to whack said carrier bag of shredded paper in with the normal household rubbish.  Now other small businesses might just have decided to stick two fingers up or decided to comply with said requirement; extra journeys to Lerwick cost money of no benefit to local businesses.

I'm not against recycling, I've done it elsewhere in the UK.  But this scheme dreamt up by the SIC and/or Zero Waste Scotland is ludicrous.  IF they really wanted us to recycle, for starters, they would pay us just like they do in Norway.  They could have used different coloured bags instead of the cost of additional wheelie bins.

You might approve of box-ticking exercises to pacify the EU, I don't.  The small print of said Directives AND the statute in Scottish law allows for exemptions in rural areas plus there is meant to be island-proofing.  So I suggest you quit your moaning and consider whether an alleged saving of £25k or thereabouts is really going to be achievable.

@ Scorrie - so you'll be putting them up then, right?

You wouldn't put 10 6ft marine tanks on your floorboards and expect things to be hunky dory.  Likewise, if the rumours are true, you wouldn't put a load of filing cabinets or a fancy filing system on a floor without reinforcing it ... in other words, if the Tenant (the SIC) caused the damage, they would be under an obligation to pay the rent for whatever period was stated in the lease whilst repairs were being undertaken and might be liable too for the cost of said repairs.  One would hope they have had an independent structural survey done and also ascertained if they have any course of redress and also if there is a break clause in the lease.

Just a passing thought--what the difference of parking wheelie bins on the pavement to the illegal parking of a vehicle on the same said pavement..

 

Still an obstruction as I see it.

Size.  If I remember right, you can park a motorcycle on a pavement provided there are X No. of feet (forget how many, my biking days are over) spare and it would not be illegal.  So if say a large pavement say 6ft across, a pushchair/wheelchair would still have room to get by but if say a 2ft width pavement, forget it.  Something like that anyway, if I'm remembering correctly.  Because if not, we'd never even be allowed to chain push bikes to anything on a pavement.

 

It is easy to forget that businesses require cheap, reliable telephone comms.  Ok "cheap" can be a bit misleading but, when it comes to reliability, landline wins every time.

There is also the little issue of Fax machines..  Want to carry one of those in your "mobile"?

 

I can't imagine any business that would hand out a dozen (or more) mobiles to staff members for normal, everyday business use..  The contract costs could be prohibitive and there would be little control over what the device is being used for. 

 

Also, the problem for customers/suppliers is which number do I call?  Will I get a switchboard that will route me to the correct handset?  Will I have to hold several minutes whilst it polls?  What if the requred handset is engaged, will I have to start all over?  Is it really worth the bother as I "know" that xyz & co still uses landline and can easily phone them and, if I use a landline, the call cost is much lower.

 

I know that the technology exists to overcome most (if not all) of the above but, as yet, it is still pretty expensive and can be complicated to set up.

The council,BT,SSE,Scottish Water,NHS just a few that I'm almost sure provide mobiles to there staff,but for business use only,personal calls are usually charged to the user .

 

Mobile phones can save companys lots of money especially for staff who travel about a lot.

 

Nope.

I don't think you're getting it.  Do you have any experience of using a mobile phone instead of a desktop in a real business setting?  I do, not just in a self-employed capacity but also in my PAYE job.

The London surveyors I work for have.  Fax machine is still in use for some customers at their request.  A high percentage of the customers are overseas.  Do you have any idea of the call charges for overseas (outside of Europe) on mobiles?  I do.

VPN, dropbox, teamviewer and other programs utilised.  Switchboard software programmed so that calls can be diverted from extension numbers direct to surveyors' mobile phones.  For me, I have an internet telephone which means anyone calling my direct London number is answered by me here in Shetland.  I do get call drops frequently.  If I want to call my colleagues in London, I just dial the extension.  E-mails also diverted/copied/capable of being read on mobile phones and i-Pads.  i-Pads and mobile phones now tends to mean no need for separate digital cameras (unless say photographing and zooming in on flashings, chimney stacks, etc., then digital cameras used as resolution not good enough on i-Pads and mobile phones).

Now the guys and gals in London spend at least 70% of their working days out of the office due to the nature of the work.  They even prepare reports on the hoof, so time spent travelling on the underground/overhead train journey home is utilised by replying to e-mails/working on draft reports.  But sending digital photographs is a pain and uses up data allowances.

Using mobile phones/i-Pads to transfer data, no matter if hotspots are available, is not always cost-effective; time can really be of the essence.  In reality, if they are moving about, whilst it might be okay when they are grabbing a quick sandwich and a coffee (no, a full hour for lunch every day simply doesn't happen) to work on a document remotely sat on the file server, if they are on the train, they can't flick from one hot spot to another.

The firm has been utilising such technology as technology developed but hey, if you know more than a company who have real experience of doing so, hats off to you.  Believe me, my boss does know how much things cost.

Incidentally, not all of London W1 even has BT Infinity which reminds me ... the more people using mobile technology and standard landline broadband, the less capacity unless the suppliers increase it ... which they don't appear to be doing.  IMHO, mobile internet compliments landline broadband but right now, and even in the foreseeable future, for business users on the move, it simply is impracticable and most definitely is not cost-effective.

 

There is also the little issue of Fax machines.. 

 

How many people use a fax machine now?

 

Not as many as previously, and whilst there are apps available to send/receive faxes via e-mail, not everyone has e-mail.

Yeah,but do not forget Ghostrider that many of these modern devices are real smart and can mirror image each other.

 

So you can still do all your intricated work on the the desktop/laptop and have it on the mobile at the same time,in fact even my tv is smart.

Rubbish!  Whilst many residential users in the USA now only have a cell phone, all of my mates on the other side of the pond who have businesses still rely on a landline.

Occasionally, when BT has fallen over and on the rare occasion when mobile has remained in use, it was incredibly painful to connect to the London office and the internet phone connection didn't work.  Downloading a sound file - over 20 minutes compared to two minutes, working remotely on a Word document on the London file server - forget it.  Even my bosses hate remote working when they are out on-site with the iPads and wait until they are back in the office to download stuff.

Stop receiving council services?!!!! Well for starters, out in the sticks we do NOT get the same services as in town; for example, we don't get the pavements swept.

 

@BigMouth - I disagree with you.  Social housing, by its very nature, was designed for those who cannot afford to rent in the private sector or buy.  In the Shetland Isles, there are a percentage of people on the waiting list who can afford to both rent and buy but are on the housing lists due to lack of availability within the private sector.  In addition, I would question the quantitative data from Housing as to how the waiting list figures are actually arrived at.

 

There's also the allocation policy; elsewhere in the UK a one bed property is deemed suitable for three people yet local policy dictates that if there are two people then you have the right to apply for a two bed property instead, something they actively encourage ... and it's more money in their coffers (this same local policy applies to larger properties too).  In certain areas of the north of England, whole council estates are empty ... nobody wants them!

 

Building social housing is quite often more expensive than building in the private sector, plus folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc.

 

Not everyone wants to live in town.  Besides, improve public transport and some folk might prefer to live outwith Lerwick ... or do local employers deserve to be penalised through staff being unable to get to work on time due to lack of local housing and transport; do local economies mean nothing to you? 

 

Disagreement is fine.

 

You haven't told me the percentage of those that can afford to buy, more interestingly the number.  The reason that there is a lack of available properties in the private sector is because so many have been bought to let out or as holiday lets.  If they can afford to buy I am at a loss as to why they are not having a property built, surely it would be cheaper, assuming it is not in the centre of Lerwick.

 

I imagine that the waiting list number is fairly easily arrived at.  It will be the number of people who have applied for housing, plus the peole they want to house with them minus those already housed.

 

Allocating a one bed house to 3 people seems a tad Victorian, unless the third is a baby.  When I first applied for a property in Shetland I was told that there was no way that we would be considered for a two bed property for the two of us.  I sat on the list for years deliberately choosing only areas where there were no 1 bed properties.

 

There is no reason that building social housing should be any more expensive, in fact judging by the economy materials used and the small windows sizes, social housing should be much cheaper.  There is no way that government would be lashing out money on Hjaltland HA if some local builder would take on the erection and running of housing schemes.  Do I detect a note of snobbery in "folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc"?  Yes, there are some people in social housing with problems, especially addiction, but the rest of them are just like the rest of us, minding their own business, going out to work and living their lives.  I don't see burnt out cars and houses on any of the schemes I have visited.  So the few spoil it for the many, but it is hardly surprising when you hear items of news: Mick Smith 27 was arrested in his council house for taking drugs, but they don't say John Smith 27 was arrested in his private sector house later in the day for kiddy fiddling.  We are brought up on a diet of council house tenants = bad.

 

Not everyone wants to live in town, I agree, and yes better public transport would be better in ensuring uptake in properties further out, and a realistic chance that the tenants could get to work.  Local economies work where businesses set up and employ people from the local area.  I am only too happy to see that sort of enterprise.

 

The precise figures aren't available but during the last lot of council new builds, it was reported by some of the new tenants that they were on the list because they lost out when bidding for private buys.

It isn't so easy to get a mortgage on a self-build given that quite often you have to buy the land first, etc.  You basically need to be self-funding, which is fine if you have family willing to chip in.

Wrong re Housing figures.  For starters, they've never made it clear whether they count each application or the individuals listed on each application, plus folk can choose more than one area; the detail is in their 'spin' (or lack of it) when they do press releases.  Somebody already housed isn't necessarily up for a transfer or living in social housing but they are, nevertheless, on 'a list'.

You're forgetting to factor in for roads ... look at the cost of the last council new build.

Blooming heck, will ya wind ya neck in a tad with your totally off-the-wall assumptions!  I DO live in a council abode.  It's not bleeding snobbery, it's FACT.  If you're up here repairing the airport runway for three months, you rent locally, you don't join the housing waiting list!  And quite often, the same houses are rented to tourists as are rented out to others outside of the tourist season.

@BigMouth - I disagree with you.  Social housing, by its very nature, was designed for those who cannot afford to rent in the private sector or buy.  In the Shetland Isles, there are a percentage of people on the waiting list who can afford to both rent and buy but are on the housing lists due to lack of availability within the private sector.  In addition, I would question the quantitative data from Housing as to how the waiting list figures are actually arrived at.

There's also the allocation policy; elsewhere in the UK a one bed property is deemed suitable for three people yet local policy dictates that if there are two people then you have the right to apply for a two bed property instead, something they actively encourage ... and it's more money in their coffers (this same local policy applies to larger properties too).  In certain areas of the north of England, whole council estates are empty ... nobody wants them!

Building social housing is quite often more expensive than building in the private sector, plus folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc.

Not everyone wants to live in town.  Besides, improve public transport and some folk might prefer to live outwith Lerwick ... or do local employers deserve to be penalised through staff being unable to get to work on time due to lack of local housing and transport; do local economies mean nothing to you? 

@BigMouth - You sure you don't want to do away with social housing totally?  Or force people to move to the moon?  Your diatribe belongs in the bin.

Seriously?  A new hospital?

 

You chaps do not know you are born.

Go to any hospital in London and what you have here in Shetland is incredible.  Ok, so not brand new, but amazing by any UK standards and it works as a hospital.

Ah, born ... the London hospitals I attended had facilities so women could give birth there or, for that matter, sufficient midwifery cover so women could have a home birth; they didn't force women to travel to have a caesarian.

The London hospitals I attended had MRI units; again, not having to travel for several hours.

The London hospitals I attended did have rheumatology clinics.

The London hospitals I attended had their own orthopaedic surgeons.

In fact, the London hospitals I attended ... well, they didn't have visiting consultants, they had intensive care units, high dependency units; and if one hospital had a long waiting list then there was NHS Choices whereby you could choose another hospital to attend that had a shorter waiting list.  London hospitals also didn't have to bleep folk to come in from home at a weekend to take your x-ray, etc.

Speaking to friends still living in the smoke, granted yes, there are longer waits but they still have the services that we don't.

Free at the point of need, NOT free at the point of delivery as spouted by Scot. Gov.

GBH is not fit for purpose and is long overdue being replaced.

Will they give us outlying regions (ie anywhere outwith the Big L) the wheelie bins to store the stinking bags?

They will probably charge you at a discounted rate of £way too much for a wheelie bin or 'free' ... but when it's blown away a crazy amount to replace it.  Incidentally, I don't think they can actually force you to use certain coloured bins provided that your refuse is marked as to what type it is.  They tried to force wheelie bins on us in Newham and some of us looked at the legislation regarding rubbish collection and it was deemed that a black bag was 'a suitable receptacle'.

Are they off their (rubbish) trolleys?

"There is a proposed four-week cycle whereby non-recyclable waste would be collected one week, paper and card in the second week, non-recyclable waste in the third week and then plastic, cans and cartons in the fourth week"

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/15067-sic-plan-for-isles-wide-recycling-collections

Regarding drinking and bars, why is it that alcohol is consumed so often out of the public eye ? Ie Squad huts, private clubs, and pubs that don't let kids in , I can only see the benefits of having a weatherspoons type place here by having folk drinking responsibly and having a bite to eat with there familys.

A pub that doesn't let children in is permitting alcohol to be consumed in the public eye.  Besides, not all of us want to be disturbed by snotty nose sprogs running amok whilst mummy and daddy are getting legless under the guise of "drinking responsibly".  

Where does this notion come from that the SIC have any control or influence over what retailers can be ‘let in’? The simple fact is that for a sizeable majority of them, there just aren’t enough customers here to make setting up shop viable - rates, speed humps, pedestrianisation, perceived SIC inaction or whatever else aside.

 

As far as parking goes, you generally have to pay to park further from the shops in most other towns than you do in Lerwick - and I’m thinking about old yet busy and successful ones among them. In Kirkwall, you have to pay to park in the council car parks. If they’re all thriving, a lack of free parking can’t be an issue for them surely?

 

No doubt it's changes in the way we shop that has had the biggest impact on the street and other town centres elsewhere. Price and convenience isn't everybody's priority though and the key is for the street to do a good job at providing what its competitors canna.

Possibly from the notion that sometimes retailers intend to make alterations requiring Planning Permission, will seek Planners' opinions upfront and get knocked back?  Just a thought.

 

 

 

I've never been in the place yet!

 

Bolts or the Town Hall?

 

Was thinking toll clock but now you mention it ...

 

 

Don't think I would want to see council/taxpayers subsidising these businesses with grants though. Any spare money would need to go the education, housing and health, and  not to give relief to the poor shop-keepers.

There's certainly a lot of bleating going on, but no offer to pay a bit extra when things are going well.

 

I would bet most folk would agree the Toll Clock shopping centre is more use to them than the Town Hall where plenty of taxpayers money is being spent.

 

But it will look fine for another few years(20?) then it will have to be done again.

 

I've never been in the place yet!

The Town is improving though with the recent openings of Shetland food larder and the up and coming bigger Beervana, plus Montery Jacks, what needs sorted though is the Noost to be bought, something done with the old Televradio shop, and when the chemists move that needs gutted and redone into something good, then finally the mess that is the tattie shop.  

Na, you've missed out the best new addition to the street - Mirrie Dancers Chocolatier.