Proposed Blydoit Abbatoir at Scalloway

[Mattie]

I think it quite ridiculous that an abbatoir has been proposed at the vacant No Catch site. It will be situated on the outskirts of the new Hjaltland housing estate which has just been built. Ronnie Eunson and his cronies must be thick and stupid to think residents would put up with such a scheme on their back door. To put a slaughter house amidst a residential estate needs comprehending. Too be honest it is just plain stupidity!!

[Ghostrider]

^^ Care to elaborate on "quite ridiculous" and " thick and stupid". There was a slaughterhouse in Harbour Street close to both residential and business buildings for many, many years. I don't immediately recall why it finally closed down, but I don't recall any massive outcry either from nearby residents and businessess that its presence was detrimental to them. At a guess I would imagine it closed due to its location, by that time of life becoming largely impractical.

 

There's a slaughterhouse at Boddam, there's a residential property immediately next door, I forget now whether it was built before or after the slaughterhouse. Regardless, the residents have never been people with anything whatsoever to do with the slaughterhouse buidling or business, and when they've decided to move on, they've never had a problem finding a buyer due to its location, as far as I am aware, and none of them moved on because of the slaughterhouse being next door either as far as I am aware.

 

If anyone has been thick and stupid, from where I'm sitting at least, it has been Hjaltland or any other developer who has placed residential properties next door to an industrial unit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this building, as I understand it, was being used for chopping up dead fish long before houses started popping up next door to it. Hjaltland or whoever took the decision to site residential accomodation next to an animal/food processing unit, and clearly didn't expect that to be the problem residents are now making of it.

 

From what I can gather from press reports, curiously the point has been made that had it still been in use for processing fish, residents wouldn't have a problem with its existence. How? Why? Is it because the unit pre-existed the housing, so residents know they wouldn't have a leg to stand on complaining about it, as they'd "chosen" to stay there, in the full knowledge of what they were living next door to, but now that processing has been stopped for a time, they see an opening to prevent it restarting again?

 

Does it really matter whether the animal in question, be it a fish or a cow is killed elsewhere and trucked to the building, or is trucked in live, and is killed in the building. Does it really matter what the species is, be it cow, sheep, fish, horse or poultry, all are suffering the same fate for the same purpose. How do you know all the fish that have passed through that building already have all arrived dead, how will you know whether other species are arriving alive or dead?

 

I have no axe to grind in this debate, I neither live in Scalloway or have any agriculture or aquaculture interests at present, but I really do not "get" what the problem is for nearby residents with this proposed change at all. The building has always been used to process one species of living creature for human food, the proposal is simply to change the species involved in that process. *If* the proposed slaughterhouse operators abide by the undertakings they have already given publically, no one outside that building will be able to tell any difference between past and future useage. On that basis, how can it have been "okay" with the neighbours in the past for one species, but "not going to be okay" with the neighbours in the future for another species?

 

It would also be informative to any debate if mattie was to state publically whether their above stated opinion is offered from a vegetarian, vegan or carnivore's POV. For the record I'll eat anything that tastes okay, and doesn't give me Delhi Belly, regardless what it was in life.

[Caeser]

Interesting to note that the family of one of the most vocal opponents in da paper last week etc in involved in fish processing on the site next door.

 

But that'll be ok, I suppose?

 

Its a bit like the walls pier road? The road was built to access the pier first, then houses appeared along the road and now the residents do not want any pier improvements.

 

NIMBYISM at its finest!

[JustMe]

Since the planning committee need to decide these issues on planning grounds any objectors need to decide what grounds they can find for refusal they could base their objections on. Simply saying that they could not sleep with the thought of all those cute little animals getting slaughtered next door is not going to work.

 

I think the whole issue shows lack of foresight in plans for Scalloway. Even as a fish processing factory I do wonder how the unit got planning permission if there was already some plan to build houses next door and if there were no plans for houses then I wonder how planning consent was granted for so many houses close to the fish processing unit.

[crofter]

I think it is an excellent idea! No point leaving the building standing empty, and we will all be able to enjoy a fine bit of Shetland beef again...

[Mag]

I am puzzled about the fuss being made about this. I am a vegetarian, and my house currently overlooks an abattoir. There are no clues from the outside as to what happens in the building. The proximity of the abattoir to my house does not offend me any more than supermarkets selling meat, or people eating meat all around me. The fact is that most people in this country choose to eat meat, and I respect their choice. But meat eaters complaining about an abattoir has left me really confused…..

[MuckleJoannie]

As well as getting planning permission the abattoir operators will need to raise money to buy and develop it. At the meeting in Scalloway on Wednesday a few of them were asking about the business plan for the proposal but Ronnie Eunson said it was not he place for that discussion. The SIC has £2.4million earmarked for a slaughterhouse in Shetland, but can only put up a percentage of the costs due to State Aid rules. The farming community will have to find the rest themselves. This assume this could be in the form of buying shares in the venture, which means them putting money where their mouths are. Is the agricultural community in a position to do this?

 

If they can't raise money through shares they will need to borrow it. Possibly not easy in the present financial climate. The need to pay interest and repay capital means greater financial pressure on the project.

 

When the Scalloway industrial estate was formed there were only two houses overlooking it. It was always intended that fish processing would be confined to Blacksness. However when Danny Watt built the factory now proposed for the slaughterhouse there was no space at Blacksness. The two other fish processing units took over existing buildings that had other uses previously. One person involved in fish processing has suggested to me that the SIC should move fish processing back to Blackness and use the site for housing. There is a large unused area at the North of the Industrial Estate that would be ideal for housing.

 

The newest Hjaltland scheme, Endavoe, was built on a park that previously was rejected as having any potential for housing, due to being low lying and boggy. However there was simply no other land available in Scalloway.

 

 

I think it is an excellent idea! No point leaving the building standing empty, and we will all be able to enjoy a fine bit of Shetland beef again...

 

The Boddam slaughterhouse is already killing cows to supply the Scalloway Meat Company.

[Marooned in Maywick]

Would it be accurate to say, then, that some of the residents don't appear to be blyde o' it?

 

 

 

I'll get me coat...

[Colin]

It's a pity that the opening post was so emotive. Referring to Ronnie Eunson and his "cronies" (don't like that word) as "thick" and "stupid" is not going to get many people on side.

 

I wasn't at Scalloway Hall for the meeting but, personally, I am opposed to the scheme on the grounds that I think that it is "inappropriate" for what has become a residential area.

Before anyone jumps on the 'it's an industrial site' bandwagon, I would like to point out that some of the former "industrial" units now house a vetinary practice and fish shop which are IMHO "retail".

 

a few of them were asking about the business plan for the proposal but Ronnie Eunson said it was not he place for that discussion.

I would have liked to know just where was the 'place'. After all, the business plan would have outlined just how many animals they intend to process and this would (in theory) indicate the level of additional traffic expected through a fairly compact housing scheme that contains quite a number of "young" families.

 

If they can't raise money through shares they will need to borrow it. Possibly not easy in the present financial climate. The need to pay interest and repay capital means greater financial pressure on the project.

 

Resulting, no doubt, to an annual "cap in hand" trek to the SIC for the funding to keep it going.

 

One person involved in fish processing has suggested to me that the SIC should move fish processing back to Blackness and use the site for housing. There is a large unused area at the North of the Industrial Estate that would be ideal for housing.

 

And the vacated premises might be ideal for conversion to shops etc. Far better that than requiring those that don't drive to walk quite a distance into Scalloway proper.

As an aside, I did suggest (rather tounge in cheek) to our esteemed local councillor that, if the Convenor could champion a bridge to Bressay then, she might gain some leverage (in return for her support) for a small bridge/walkway accross the East Voe.. A considerable saving in shoe leather for pedestrians.

[khitajrah]

I am puzzled about the fuss being made about this.

 

I reckon it's boredom. Folk seem to like to make a fuss, it doesn't matter what it's about as long as it's a fuss and it involves a petition.

[paulb]

if you dont want it in scalloway we will have it over here on the west side. we have empty units and even trained slaughter people. plus the jobs would be nice.

[Caeser]

The problem is that this is the only way the crofters can get the SIC to build a slaughterhouse without coming under state aid issues as the upfront costs are so much lower when buying the crang of a bust business rather than starting from new.

 

They could work together and borrow the money by using their crofts as security and move forward if they really thought it would be a success but they won't.

 

Crofters never work together so there is no chance it could get off the ground and it is hopelessly uneconomic to consider that a Shetland abatoir would be a financial success.

 

It would be far cheaper for the SIC to pay for transporting the animals down to the mainland and taking them back North for processing into fancy niche markets, but you cannot see that happening.

 

See what is happening with Tesco and the farmers milk? Are we really to believe that Tesco will say come with your expensive beef slaughtered locally when they can bleed a mainland producer dry and charge less to the punters?

 

I'm with developing the West side and knocking down the no catch factory for more housing, given people want to live in Scalloway, but the costs would be so much higher to build from scratch.

 

If we must have a financially unviable and propped up crofters venture then what about the Skeld Smokehouse building................................?

[JustMe]

Caeser wrote

See what is happening with Tesco and the farmers milk? Are we really to believe that Tesco will say come with your expensive beef slaughtered locally when they can bleed a mainland producer dry and charge less to the punters?

 

Yes actually I can so long as they could sell enough local expensive produce at a profit then why not?. Anyway there are always the local butchers.

[Ghostrider]

^^ Crofters cannot put up a croft as security against borrowings, they aren't acceptable to lenders for more than one reason.

 

1) A crofter who is a tenant "owns" nothing that a lender can repossess and sell should defaults occur. There are probably far more crofters who are tenants than most folk realise, many of the old lairds estates operated a policy of not selling crofts to tenants, some may still do so.

 

2) Even a crofter who owns their croft and could hand over the deeds to a lender, only owns a specified plot of ground, they do not own the occupancy of that piece of ground. Under the terms of croft law the Crofters Commission can, in theory at least, give the secure tenancy of said plot of land to anyone they see fit, regardless of who the owner is, and prevent any owner from evicting whoever is in placeas a tenant. No lender is going to accept ownership of property which comes with a sitting tenant, whom they cannot shift, have no say over who they are or how much rental they pay, and have little say over who future tenants may be. Such ownership is largely unsellable and realtively worthless.

 

The only "crofters" who could put up their land as security are those who occupy unregistered land, it is debatable if such people can rightfully be described as "crofters" and its equally debatable if there's enough unregistered land occupied by people of mind to operate that way to be adequate, which doesn't aready have borrowings made against it.

[jimmy parks]

Crofter is dead right. This is an excellent idea. The arguments against just don't add up. No one will ever knoe there is a slaughter house here. All this stuff about Ecoli and blood and guts runnin down the road is nonsense. Bring it on I say.