Council planner slates retail park proposals again

by EWAN LAMB

The latest proposals for a multi-million pound retail park on industrial land at Tweedbank in the Central Borders should not be approved by the planning authority, according to a senior official who has strongly criticised the scheme for the second time in three months.

Karen Ruthven, of the Forward Planning Department at Scottish Borders Council attacked the original plans from an Edinburgh developer which included a budget hotel, large retail premises and other amenities between Galashiels and Melrose. Since her withering attack in April the planned shopping facility has been removed from the application.

But in a new written submission expressing her views on the revised scheme, Ms Ruthven maintains her opposition which, she claims, would create an 'undesirable precedent' by permitting a retail project to be built on 'scarce' industrial land.

"The objections raised within the initial response made by the Forward Planning Section remain", declares Ms Ruthven. "These proposals must be assessed primarily against Policy ED1 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan (LDP) 2016 which seeks to protect this strategic business and industrial site for business and industrial use. 

"Furthermore, the Council recently adopted Supplementary Guidance (SG) and a Simplified Planning Zone (SPZ) for the Central Borders Business Park at Tweedbank in view of the Borders Railway Blueprint which states that the area will be developed to respond to, and capitalise on, opportunities brought by the Borders Railway with the provision of new high quality office accommodation, suites and facilities.  Whilst the Blueprint seeks to promote a range of development options, these must be located within appropriate locations taking account of, for example, policies and land use allocations within the Council’s statutory adopted LDP 2016."

Ms Ruthven explains that the SPZ is intended to offer flexibility to help businesses and industries grow and adapt as well as encourage new opportunities to locate within the Central Borders, whilst maintaining high standards of development, care for the built environment and for the sensitive landscape setting.

Her submission adds: "The uses proposed as part of this planning application do not conform with the requirements of Policy ED1 nor the Supplementary Guidance/SPZ. To support this proposal would set an undesirable precedent and would undermine the Council’s strong position on business development at this location.  It would also result in the loss of business land within the Central Borders which is a scarce resource."

Ms Ruthven points out that the most recent ELA (Employment Land Audit) carried out in the Summer of 2018 identified 2.3 hectares of immediately available employment land in the Galashiels / Tweedbank area.  This includes the land subject to this planning application which accounts for 65% of the 2.3 hectares.

It is not considered this is sufficient to meet the anticipated demand and there is already current development interest being shown and implemented in the vicinity of the Central Borders Business Park.It is vital that existing employment land supply is retained and further land is allocated for this purpose.

The Tweedbank proposals include a 70 bedroom Premier Inn which has drawn criticism and opposition from local hoteliers.

Ms Ruthven writes: "The Hotel Assessment suggests that the immediate priority for a budget hotel should be Galashiels over Tweedbank.  Even with the development of the Central Business Park, which would require a critical mass of businesses that generate hotel demand, the Assessment states this location suffers from a paucity of things to do in the evening and places to eat.  The assessment states that a strategy that focuses a budget hotel development on Galashiels will enable hotel development to contribute to the development of the town and its evening economy.  This has been reflected within the Galashiels Masterplan."

And she continues: "At a recent meeting with the Agent (for the Tweedbank retail project), the Agent was very clear that there was no developer interest for a hotel within the Galashiels Town Centre and if the Council did not support this proposal within the Tweedbank strategic industrial site, no hotel development would ever be forthcoming. 

"However, it has since been noted in the local press that the Travel Lodge have been quoted as expressing a very keen interest in locating to Galashiels and this proposal will be discussed and developed further.  Even if a case was put forward for a hotel in the vicinity of the Tweedbank Railway Station, a location within the strategic business park would not be appropriate on policy grounds."

Finally, Ms Ruthven tells the council's planning department that given all the work, finance and policy documents that have gone into promoting and taking measures to protect and develop the Business Park it would be erroneous of the Council if any business or industrial uses were unable to set up in Tweedbank as previously available land had been taken up by non-conforming policy uses such as those identified in this application.

"It should also be noted that although the application proposal will generate jobs, this will be to the detriment of other businesses who would be unable to set up within the Business Park due to these non-conforming uses taking up this allocated business land."

The application is expected to be considered by councillors later this year.

Latest in fast-moving Lowood story

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

An attempt by Borders MSP Christine Grahame to penetrate the thick veil of secrecy which has blocked the disclosure of the 'true' value of Lowood Estate - purchased by Scottish Borders Council for £9.6 million - has failed.

Meanwhile Audit Scotland, the public sector's financial watchdog, and external auditor of SBC has accepted some of the issues raised with it in written objections concerning the council's book-keeping "may be considered valid".

Ms Grahame, the Scottish National Party MSP for Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, asked the Valuation Office Agency (VoA) for the District Valuer's report on Lowood which was handed to the Borders local authority before it finalised a deal for 110 acres and nine properties on the estate last December. The price paid was above the DV's figure.

In her Freedom of Information request to the English-based VoA Ms Grahame wrote: "Many constituents have raised concerns about the purchase price [of Lowood Estate].

"I have read the JLL (consultants) report and the heavily redacted Ryden (council's own consultants) report which raise many questions about the financial robustness of the purchase price.

"It is my understanding that councillors have had sight of the DV's report but under strict conditions that they do not make public its contents. I find this quite frankly unacceptable as there cannot be scrutiny without full disclosure and that in my view it is in the public interest that the contents of that report be published.

"If you are unable to release a copy of that report to me, please consider this as a FOI request and I also request release of all communications - written, electronic, telephone, notes, minutes of meetings and diary entries between you and Scottish Borders Council, its elected representatives, officials and third parties concerning the proposed and subsequent purchase of Lowood Estate".

But the VoA, which is supposed to be a FOI compliant public body under English FOI law, refused to even confirm it held the information requested by Ms Grahame. The agency issued a similar refusal to a private individual who asked for the DV's report earlier this year.

VoA's FOI team told Ms Grahame: "Section 44 (2) of FOIA says we cannot confirm whether or not we hold the information you have requested as doing so is not allowed by another Act. Requested information, if it were held, cannot be provided where the following statements are true:

"The information where held is for a function of HM REvenues & Customs (HMRC). The VoA is an executive agency of HMRC, the information you have requested is held for our function of providing property valuations.

"The information, where held, relates to a person who is identified, Identification can be direct or by deduction, and the term 'person' includes legal entities such as companies, trusts and charities, as well as individuals".

In an email to the MSP the FOI team state: "You mentioned that this topic is of interest to the public.  However, I cannot take this into account when considering whether or not we can provide the information under the FOIA, as the exemption in section 44 applies.  This exemption is absolute, which means there is no requirement for the public interest to be considered.

"Section 44 of the FOIA says when we are considering a request, we must take into account any other prohibitions on disclosure.  In this case, the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act (CRCA) applies. CRCA says that we must not disclose information when a person can either be identified, or their identity could be deduced, from the disclosure. Unlawful disclosure by a VOA member of staff would constitute a punishable offence under section 19 of CRCA. In this case, even confirming whether or not information is held is considered disclosive."

At least two of the four written objections to the council's accounts which have been lodged with Audit Scotland refer directly to the Lowood purchase which totals £11 million when fees, taxes and other charges are included.

In its response to one objector Audit Scotland says: "The external auditors of the council have now considered the points you raise. It is their view that that the accounting treatment of the purchase of Lowood Estate (i.e. valuation and disclosure) may be considered as a valid subject of objection under the terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (the Act)." 

Lowood site has "little obvious merit or value"

by DOUG COLLIE

A new claim by Scottish Borders Council that the Tweedside country estate they bought for £9.6 million is 'worth what was paid for it' has been quickly challenged by a planning expert who believes the land at Lowood has little obvious merit or development value.

The council has come under fire after paying over the odds for the 110 acres they wanted for the construction of 300-400 new houses plus commercial premises.

As we reported, local MSP Christine Grahame (SNP) has reported SBC to the Accounts Commission after voicing fears over the development potential of the estate, previously owned by the Hamilton family.

When The National newspaper followed up that disclosure and approached the local authority for comment at the weekend SBC was forthright in its defence of the purchase which is set to cost Borders taxpayers £11 million when fees and charges are added.

A statement in similar vein was given to The Hawick Paper when that weekly reported on criticisms levelled at Borders councillors by former senior police officer and one-time SBC elected member Andrew Farquhar. He urged his successors to step up their scrutiny of the Lowood deal.

Here is the combined response the council issued to the two newspapers:

“The Council expects to recover the whole of its investment in Lowood through the future development of the asset which comprises a 44-hectare site and buildings. The asset is now fully owned by the public sector.

"The council remains strongly of the view that the decision to acquire Lowood is justified in terms of best value, and that the economic viability of the site will best be secured through a joint public and private sector approach which was agreed by Council last December, and which is now being pursued.

"The Council purchased the land following an appropriate investment appraisal process and the development of a detailed financial model, which followed The Treasury’s ‘Green Book’ best practice. Councillors considered the business case in full and three specific reports in December 2017, January 2018 and May 2018 prior to the purchase.

"These confidential reports were prepared by council officers to ensure councillors had access to all the information required to take an informed decision. They included the necessary information on site valuations which confirm the site is worth what was paid for it”

According to The National a total of four written submissions have been lodged with Audit Scotland, SBC's external auditors, objecting to the local authority's 2018/19 annual accounts. One of the issues raised in the objections is the complete lack of any mention of the Lowood transaction in the accounts which extend to more than a hundred pages.

Meanwhile Not Just Sheep & Rugby has been supplied with the views of a highly experienced planner who has made a personal study of the potential of Lowood estate for development.

This is the main section of the assessment in full:

"What is odd is that the site is clearly very, very difficult to develop, if not impossible. There are many constraints. Council reports say it [Lowood] has an indicative capacity of 300 units. If the railway goes ahead to Hawick and Carlisle the site will become very costly to access. It is likely two accesses across the railway would be needed ( and above the line rather than below given the river location). 

"The text says there may be a need for replacement of a bridge. It refers to flooding and says there may be contamination. So it is very hard to access, costly to service, and is not well related to settlement because of the railway.

"The site has little obvious merit or value. Why this site was selected for development is unclear. I assume it's because they had committed to buying it. The bigger question is why did they buy such a difficult site and the next question is why pay lots of money for a site which will be hugely costly to develop? 

"Given that a prime commitment/desire/aim of the Council is to promote the extension to the railway and there is as a result a need to safeguard that capacity and alignment, I cannot as a planner see this site as sensible. I would have identified sites in Melrose, sites with less constraints and similar access to the station."

This is the latest negative critique on Lowood's prospects as a development site. The council was warned last year in a report by planning consultants - months before the estate was bought - that the proposals in its so-called Tweedbank Masterplan were undeliverable and not economically sound.

No Borders property boom to drive Lowood housebuilding

by EWAN LAMB

Recent claims that Scottish Borders Council's intention to develop hundreds of new homes on the Lowood country estate they acquired for £9.6 million may be 'undeliverable' seem bolstered by a range of statistics covering housing starts, completions and property prices.

It has been argued the level of demand for privately built residences in the Borders region is too low to attract nationally known volume building companies in sufficient numbers to ensure Lowood's  success as a location for 300-400 new houses by the banks of the Tweed near Melrose.

A consultant's report setting out the problems and issues was handed to SBC months before the local authority agreed to pay the asking price for Lowood - in excess of its true value, according to the District Valuer - into the bank accounts of two Cayman Islands based businesses. When fees and charges are added the bill for Borders taxpayers will top £11 million.

The specialist firm of JLL [Jones Lang Lasalle] which carried out a detailed assessment of the Tweedbank Masterplan including the proposals for 110 acres at Lowood, concluded in a report for their clients that large-scale house building to swell the population of Tweedbank village represented a considerable financial risk.

According to the JLL report: "A fundamental failing we consider, is that there has been no commercial or development appraisal input to the preparation of the Masterplan to ensure viability".

And crucially the firm said their own appraisal demonstrated that the site could not produce a positive land value with insufficient revenue to generate a developer profit.

SBC has repeatedly shrugged off these worrying predictions with counter claims that the development of Lowood will produce economic gains and employment for the Central Borders. The intention is to sell off the Lowood land in phases to developers.

But research by Not Just Sheep & Rugby shows the number of private new-build housing starts and completions in the Scottish Borders region fell to very low levels in 2017 and 2018 while the average price for residential property locally dropped by almost seven percent between January 2018 and January 2019. The hoped for housing boom following the reopening of the Borders Railway has not yet materialised.

The figures for private-build starts make fairly depressing reading. In 2018 the total of 211 was the lowest recorded since 1998 (197). The 2017 tally of 274 was also well down on the totals for 2000 (507), 2006 (692), 2007 (1,103) and 2008 (483).

Even the 2009 total in the wake of the global financial meltdown was a respectable 331 while in 2010 the builders just exceeded that 2018 statistic of 211 by starting 215 private homes.

At the other end of the construction process new-build completions in 2018 (209) and 2017 (173) were the lowest since 1999 (215). Some of the historic annual totals outstrip the recent recorded completions by a huge margin.

For example, in the year 2000 the tally was 507, in 2003 it was 786, the 2008 figure was 473 and in 2010 it stood at 429.

Average house prices are published by the UK Government with the Borders figure at January 2019 recorded as £144,138 compared to £154,601 a year earlier. That represents a 12 months fall of 6.8%.

We also examined average house price levels for each of the local authorities closest to Scottish Borders. In each case there was a year on year increase.

Midlothian experienced the biggest rise - up 13.6% between 2018 and 2019 from £164,898 to £187,264. So has the railway been a factor in driving up prices in Midlothian? Meanwhile East Lothian saw a 2.9% hike in average prices from £215,916 to £222,212.

And even Dumfries & Galloway where average prices are markedly lower than in the Borders, saw a slight lift in the mean cost of private properties. Here the rise was 0.9% from £125,171 to £126,310.

MSP ramps up pressure on council's £11 million deal

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

A Member of the Scottish Parliament whose constituency includes Tweedbank has used her regular newspaper column to reveal she has reported Scottish Borders Council to the Accounts Commission over the cash-strapped local authority's decision to buy Lowood Estate for £11 million.

A number of submissions are believed to have been made to the public spending watchdog in a bid to force an investigation into the deal which resulted in the council acquiring 110 acres and nine properties including a mansion house. Critics claim the transaction was speculative and risky with potential long-term implications for taxpayers.

Now Scottish Nationalist Party MSP Christine Grahame, who represents the Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale seat in Holyrood, has told of her 'increasing concerns' after reading reports linked to the Lowood transaction.

She writes: "There is a very big stushie about the purchase by SBC of Lowood Estate, partly because the purchase price appears to have been above valuation".

The council has repeatedly refused to release the District Valuer's valuation on Lowood so that it could be compared with the £9.6 million SBC paid over to Lowood Estates Ltd. and Genesis Trust & Corporate Services, businesses based on the tax haven of Grand Cayman in the Caribbean. And all 34 elected members have been warned they must not quote the DV's figure in public.

Freedom of Information requests have shown the council paid £420,000 in transaction tax  and when other fees and charges are added the overall cost adds up to £11 million. SBC even paid the sellers' legal fees and charges of £72,000.

In her column, Ms Grahame states: "There are also challenges to the housing development plans (which the council needs to recoup the money) which are seemingly light on necessary detail, raising serious questions about this Tory council's grasp of economic reality.

"In the meantime I have read through reams of material, including both the Ryden report on the purchase [Ryden was the firm of consultants commissioned by SBC] and a report by JLL [Jones Lang Lasalle were asked to prepare a report for a neighbouring riparian owner].

"My concerns have, as a result, increased, so I have now reported SBC to the Accounts Commission and as it refuses to publish the District Valuer's report (which is key) have asked the assessor's office for sight of that".

The JLL document, handed to the council in March 2018, around nine months before the Lowood deal was wrapped up last December, warned their costings of the housing element of the so-called Tweedbank Masterplan was financially unviable for developers.

It has been claimed since that at least some councillors were not shown the damning report which warned there was no strong demand for housing plots in the Central Borders at that time. A redacted version of the Ryden report carried a similar cautionary note.

The 'highly unusual' procedure used by SBC to obtain legal advice as to the standing of Lowood Estates Ltd. and Genesis Trust has also been questioned by critics.

It has been disclosed that the so-called Opinions on both companies came from a law firm working for the sellers and also based in the Cayman Islands. Under the terms of the sales contract SBC picked up the £3,100 bill for the advice.

There was no mention of the Lowood land and property deal in the recently published council accounts for 2018/19 which are currently being scrutinised by external auditors Audit Scotland.

Melrose hotels want Premier Inn project stopped

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Agents for five Melrose hotel businesses, including prominent accommodation providers in the Borders tourist industry have lodged an objection to a £12 million 'retail park' project including a 70-bedroom Premier Inn planned for nearby Tweedbank.

Edinburgh developers are seeking planning permission for the hotel along with other facilities including a filling station. But they have dropped the idea of incorporating a food store at Tweedbank following strong opposition from local retailers and community councils.

The revised planning application to Scottish Borders Council is currently out for consultation, and the Melrose hoteliers submitted their objection in the last few days via Philip Neaves of Felsham Planning & Development Ltd, also Edinburgh based.

Mr Neaves is objecting on behalf of, Burts Hotel, Townhouse Hotel, George and Abbotsford Hotel Partnership, King's Arms Hotel and Station Hotel. 

A written submission says: "We are instructed to submit an objection to the above application on the grounds of: Landscaping and protection of trees; Impact on Eildons; Undermining town centre vitality and viability by putting local businesses under threat; Unsustainable travel patterns and the need to drive to Melrose for evening entertainment."

According to Felsham Planning: " I consider the proposed development turns the SG Development Vision on its head – proposing the removal of the woodland which will result in the landscape screening being lost, the uninterrupted visibility of the development, and does not comply with the SG Development Vision aspiration to develop an internal principal frontage along the western side of the site.

"I suggest that the proposals amount to overdevelopment of the site and this has required the removal of the majority of the screening woodland. I suggest the southern elevation of the retail store, and Petrol Filling station, seen as they will be, entering Tweedbank do not achieve the high quality built environment that meets the design standards".

In a section headed Impact on Town Centre Vitality and Viability, the submission states: "Town centres are under threat and their vitality and viability needs to be protected.

"The nature of Melrose town centre is a material consideration in assessing this proposal. The vitality and viability of Melrose depends on wider considerations than retail. That vitality and viability will be undermined by a larger hotel than envisaged accompanied by ancillary development that was not part of the Special Planning Zone.

"Melrose is an important centre. It serves the needs and wants of the diverse resident, working and tourist populations. The result of these characteristics is that the café culture has developed which means that the characteristics of Melrose are recognised to be unique to those of other centres in the retail hierarchy. That should not be undermined by unforeseen and unplanned expansion of the hotel element of the SPZ.

"High street shops rely on footfall and the key to success is dwell time providing attractions that will keep people in the shopping street as long as possible and blending retail and other attractions. 

"The range of support features is increasingly what makes people visit a centre, not the retail. Melrose sets a standard of how town centres should develop and we would urge your Council not to grant consent for a development that could undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre by having a significant impact on the hotel sector. For these reasons we respectfully request that your Council refuse this application."

Melrose Community Council, whose members previously argued the retail park would pose a huge threat to the viability of existing businesses have maintained their opposition despite the amendments made by the developers.

In a newly lodged written statement the community council says: "This proposal contravenes Planning Policy as it is placing this development on land retained for Commercial Business. SBC must stand by this and support the already established businesses.

"We in Melrose still need to support what is one of the few still strong vibrant High Streets in the Borders. At present we have five hotels and numerous guest houses, bed and breakfast facilities which all fight for a share of an uncertain market.  Most of our High Street shops are occupied and open for business.

"It is easier to retain a High Street environment than try to regenerate a High Street environment as SBC are finding throughout the Borders with fringe developments sucking the life out of high streets. There is also a feeling that a four-storey hotel is far too high for this location in Tweedbank as there is nothing else this height within the surrounding area." 

Recycling your true blue propaganda

by EWAN LAMB

The thankfully thin summer edition of SB Connect,  'your community newspaper' used for propaganda purposes by Scottish Borders Council, only runs to twelve pages - four of them devoted to the promotion of waste recycling and the need to cut landfill costs.

SBC is set to spend £103,000 of public money over two years to blow its own trumpet via the pages of SB Connect which is designed, printed and distributed by Paisley-based Connect Publications (Scotland) Ltd. Virtually every household in the Borders received a copy of the latest edition at the end of last week courtesy of the postal service.

Despite the heavy emphasis on 'Reasons to Recycle' - apparently too many of us have been putting recyclable stuff in the BLACK wheelie bin - there's no mention in the current issue of the council's new arrangements on the waste management front which have - according to SBC - eliminated the need for landfill at Easter Langlee altogether, albeit at a cost of £47 million over the next five years.

As previously reported here, the multi-million pounds contract for the management and treatment of residual refuse has gone to Levenseat, a company based near the village of Forth in Lanarkshire. The costs involved in hauling an estimated 42,000 tonnes of waste by road on the 50-mile journey from Galashiels to Levenseat's premises for treatment have yet to feature in any council press statement.

The £47 million figure was revealed in a contract award notice published on the Public Contracts Scotland website. But no-one seems to have looked at the potential implications of such large-scale expenditure which is needed to beat the Scottish Government's landfill ban, effective from 2021.

Over the five years covered by the deal with Levenseat an estimated 210,000 tonnes of rubbish will be taken from the spanking new £5.5 million waste transfer station at the Easter Langlee site up to Forth.

A simple calculation - divide £47 million by 210,000 - and it is possible to estimate the cost per tonne for disposal of Borders waste via the system which came into operation at the beginning of July. The figures suggest a cost of £223.80 per tonne, and that does not include spending on kerbside collections carried out by the council.

According to an expert who works in local government procurement had SBC delivered a conventional treatment plant at Easter Langlee as planned that facility would have resulted in waste treatment costs of around £80 per tonne after inflation uplifts since the project was finally abandoned in 2015.

He said: “Anything over £100 per tonne is expensive. On the basis of the financial statistics included in the contract award notice the preferred solution appears to be a very expensive option for the Council”.

It would seem the financial difference between an environmentally unfriendly road haulage option and the failure to deliver the planned Mechanical Biological Treatment plant at Easter Langlee will be many millions of pounds over the five year lifetime of the new deal which includes an option to extend the contract further into the future.

So far the cost of the contract has not been an issue for the public, possibly because SBC has chosen not to set out the likely burden on its taxpayers. But within days of the haulage of waste to Lanarkshire kicking in concerns were being expressed about the 88 lorry movements a day needed to carry out the brand new procedure.

A report in last week's Southern Reporter by journalist Kathryn Wylie outlined the worries and fears expressed at a meeting of Galashiels Community Council. There were claims the public had been 'kept in the dark' over traffic routes for the trucks carrying the garbage.

It had been assumed the heavy vehicles would arrive at Easter Langlee via the A68, then cross Lowood Bridge onto the C77 to Easter Langlee. But in fact the lorries will use the A7 south before travelling through Galashiels.

The community council agreed to request more details of the contract with Levenseat.

In the so-called 'silly season' when news is in short supply, SB Connect should surely have been the perfect vehicle for informing the public about the shift from landfill to road transport as a means of disposing of the Borders' annual output of 42,000 tonnes of municipal waste.

But there's more...

On the day Borders posties were shoving SB Connect through our letter boxes there was a second propaganda treat in the shape of The Borderland News, a publication filled with the range of good deeds carried out on our behalf by the UK Government and our local Tory parliamentarians.

No doubt it was pure coincidence that the two productions arrived on the same day although The Borderland News also tells us of the great job Conservative-led SBC is doing.

The Scottish Borders Conservatives publication "on behalf of John Lamont MP, Rachael Hamilton MSP, Michelle Ballantyne MSP and Councillor Shona Haslam" gives the impression the Westminster Government has delivered the so-called Borderlands Growth Deal - said to be worth £345 million in total - virtually single-handed "including a smaller contribution from the SNP Government".

But once the statistics are unpicked in fact the Scottish Government (to give it its correct title) is putting up £85 million for investment north of the border while £200 million of the £260 million coming from the UK Government will be devoted to territory on the English side of the national boundary. 

The Conservative Party broadsheet includes several other political attacks on "the SNP", and there's even an accusation that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon went to Hawick ahead of the 2016 election to promise a feasibility study on extending the Borders Railway "in a bid to get votes". One is tempted to say 'how dare she' for surely no Tory politician would stoop so low.

In the interests of accuracy it was the "SNP Government" which reinstated the rail service from Edinburgh to Tweedbank in spite of strong resistance and criticism from opposition parties, including the Conservatives. The success of the Borders Railway, despite its well documented shortcomings, seems to have persuaded the Tories to get aboard and hijack the project as their own.

FOOTNOTE - Please help SBC to achieve its recycling targets by placing SB Connect and The Borderland News in the BLUE wheelie bin.

Jed chaos set to continue

A LOCAL WRITES

I used to think Weensland Road in Hawick was the 'most dug up thoroughfare' in the Scottish Borders. And sure enough they're at it again just now with traffic lights, diggers and gangs of workmen ensuring you'll be held up on your way to and from Morrisons supermarket. Other food outlets are available!

The good folks of Weensland must be pig sick of their road being howked up, then relaid by different utilities over the past 20 or 30 years. Is there no end to their misery? Is there no co-ordinated plan to have all of the digging done at one fell swoop, then allow traffic to flow freely without hindrance. Too logical, I suppose

Mind you when it comes to travel disruption Jedburgh and its approaches can now easily match the Hawick suburbs when it comes to moaned about diversions, holes in the road and roped off crumbling buildings.

The 'temporary' one-way system on Jed High Street has been with us for years as those in local government continue to discuss how to rid one of the Borders' top tourist towns of the monstrosity of an edifice which is said to be rotten to the core but continues to dominate and blight our once attractive Market Square.

There should have been a swift solution at the very beginning when the property was first condemned as unsafe. Surely a few bulldozers could have flattened the would-be ruin overnight, leaving the way clear for some form of practical redevelopment project. Instead we are well into yet another summer with ugly scaffolding and hoardings greeting our visitors. What a load of bollards!

At the other end of the main drag the No Entry signs prevent downtown citizens from getting to the Co-op without a detour via Queen Street and Smith's Wynd. It's difficult to fathom why this lower stretch of High Street had to be part of the one-way system as allowing two-way traffic to travel as far as the former Royal Bank building would have created a much more sensible and convenient arrangement.

But as if that wasn't enough there's been irksome traffic lights on Bongate/A68, the main approach road from the north, for months as pavements were renewed at a snail's pace. Talk about traffic chaos; for weeks Jethart was a virtual no-go area with locals believing they were living in a war zone, or something akin to it.

Just last week the last set of lights were removed from the vicinity of the woollen mills at the entrance to town. Business proprietors and shoppers alike must have breathed a huge sigh of relief. If only that eyesore glowering down on the burgh's only Zebra crossing could be demolished everything would be almost back to normal for the first time in yonks.

But hang on a minute...have you heard the latest? A new list of road closures, diversions and temporary traffic lights are upon us: it's just been published this week, ensuring many more weeks of turmoil and frustration for long-suffering motorists and bus drivers.

The details are contained in a letter from Scottish Gas Networks (SGN) to its Jedburgh customers.

According to SGN: "I’m writing to let you know as part of the new Jedburgh School Campus project, and to meet the increased demand on our gas network, we’ll shortly begin work in the Jedburgh area.

"This essential work will ensure a continued safe and reliable gas supply and help us keep the gas flowing safely and reliably for all our customers well into the future. Following discussions with Scottish Borders Council our project will start on Monday 22 July 2019 and last approximately eight weeks.

"To ensure our engineers can carry out their work safely, parking will be suspended from outside number 1 to 37 Bongate. The bus stops outside number 22 and 23 will be also closed for the duration of our works. Forthill Terrace will be closed in both directions for the full duration of the project. Diversions will be in place via Waterside Road, Priors Road, Stonehill Place and Forthill Avenue.

"We’ll also need to fully close Bridge Street from Monday 12 August for five weeks, for everyone’s safety. Diversions will be in place via Bridge Street, High Street, Bongate, Bongate Gardens and Old Bongate.

"In addition to the road closures, three-way temporary traffic lights will be in place on the A68, Waterside Road for six weeks. The lights will be manually controlled during peak times to minimise disruption. We’ve worked closely with the local authorities in planning our project and are aware this is a busy area. We always aim to minimise disruption an we’ll make every effort to ensure our works are completed as soon as possible".

Once that lot's up and functioning negotiating Weensland Road will be a doddle!

.

Penny drops on Lowood valuation cover-up

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

As efforts continue in a bid to have the 'real' value of the Lowood Estate, near Melrose, revealed for the benefit of council taxpayers who will pay for it, separate Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the two public bodies involved have shown a fierce determination by both parties to hide the truth.

Scottish Borders Council, which paid an inflated price for 110 acres together with a mansion and eight other properties, has strongly resisted calls to disclose the figure put on Lowood by the District Valuer [DV], a public official whose department, like the local authority, is FOI compliant.

We have argued consistently that Borders taxpayers should be told how the £9.6 million which SBC paid to two companies based in the Cayman Islands to get their hands on Lowood compares with the DV's estimate. Unfortunately all 34 of our elected councillors have taken a vow of silence after being warned not to disclose the potentially embarrassing figure even to those who elected them.

But while SBC has claimed it was told by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) it must not publicise the DV's Lowood calculation, the VOA itself does not even concede it holds such information of the estate's worth, and defends its position by quoting legislation. How ridiculous is that, and what is the point of quizzing the VOA if it has a permanent get-out clause?

The DV's employers were asked for the information after Councillor Stuart Bell, leader of the SNP opposition group at SBC told a council meeting: "I don't believe this site is worth £9.6 million, when you go into the detail of the terms and conditions of the sale; and that - as we know - was the opinion of the District Valuer whose assessment with vacant possess ion (which we will not have) was much lower than £9.6million. Even when adjusted up for a "special assumption" she valued the land at a price lower than we are paying".

The FOI to the VOA stated: "Given the high level of public interest in this transaction, and because council taxpayers will be paying for the purchase of Lowood Estate please provide the valuation figure which the District Valuer placed on the estate with vacant possession and also the adjusted valuation with the 'special assumption' referred to by Mr Bell."

In response the VOA declared: "Under section 44(2) of the FOIA I cannot confirm whether or not the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) holds information falling within the scope of your request as doing so is prohibited by an enactment. Section 44(2) removes the obligation at section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The relevant enactment is section 23(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act (CRCA) 2005. To determine whether the requested information, if it were held would be covered by section 23(1) CRCA."

There was more, but how is anyone outside the VOA supposed to comprehend that answer? And how is the VOA allowed to give such a response to a FOI request, then promptly proceed to tell Scottish Borders Council it must not disclose the DV's Lowood calculation?

For this is how SBC reacted initially to a virtually identical question on Lowood which will in fact cost taxpayers at least £11 million when fees and loan charges are added.

"The Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 allows a public authority to withhold information in response to a request, where one or more exception listed in EI(S)R applies. In this case Scottish Borders Council considers that the following exception applies: 10(5)(e) Confidentiality of commercial and industrial information. It is the Council’s view that its disclosure would be likely to cause the substantial prejudice envisaged by this exemption.

"The Council accepts that there is public interest in making information available in order to improve accountability and transparency, ensuring effective oversight of expenditure of public funds and that the public obtains value for money. However, it is the Council’s view that disclosing the information requested would prejudice the Council’s ability to negotiate in private and consult on matters internally and externally. Releasing would inhibit the Council’s ability to carry out transactions with third parties. It is also considered that the public interest in interrogating transactions is effectively met through other restrictions such as approvals being made by full Council.

"In addition, the Council is subject to a legally binding duty of confidence in terms of the report (obtained on the valuation) between the Council and the District Valuer Scotland (DVS). The Council consulted with the DVS and it is their view that no information should be released, as stated within the report. Disclosure of the information would cause substantial harm to the legitimate economic interests of the Council by releasing this information as it could prejudice the ability of the Council to compete in the open market in the future. Furthermore, it could put in jeopardy the Council’s integrity and trust with the DVS. It is the Council’s view that the DVS’ economic interests may also be damaged by providing this information and it is therefore the Council’s decision that the public interest lies in favour of withholding the information at this time."  

The council was asked to review its refusal to disclose, but produced a virtually identical response.

"The Council's FOI Advice Group acknowledged that the public had an interest in obtaining the information requested in order to scrutinise the council's decisions in light of its obligations to achieve best value.

"However, the Group also noted that the DV had asked the council to observe the confidentiality of the information requested, and not to release it. It was therefore noted by the Group that release of the information requested into the public domain would prejudice the council's relationship with the DV.

"The Group concluded that it is crucial to preserve this relationship in order to ensure that it achieves best value in future transactions. In addition the Group felt that releasing the requested information may affect the council's ability to make a profitable return on the future marketing of this property, or any part of it.

"This is because of the risk that releasing the details of the valuation into the public domain could place prospective developers at a commercial advantage in any future negotiations". 

One conclusion to be drawn from this elaborate cover-up...The VOA DOES have the information it was asked for!

Council's long haul to cost £47 million

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

Scottish Borders Council's taxpayers will face a bill of £47 million over the next five years to solve the region's waste treatment issues which were exacerbated by the collapse of another multi-million pounds contract four years ago.

A press statement issued by the council earlier this week confirmed around 42,000 tonnes of municipal waste produced in the Borders each year was to be hauled by road the 50 miles from Galashiels to Forth, on the West Lothian-Lanarkshire border to be treated for disposal.

A procurement expert told Not Just Sheep & Rugby: "Carbon footprint may not look too good. I would estimate around 30 trips a week, assuming 27 tonnes per load.On the plus side local waste will not be going to landfill".

But the upbeat statement, heralding the end of landfilling rubbish at Easter Langlee's tip after half a century, made no mention of the value of four separate contract lots handed to Forth-based Levenseat Ltd. The successful bidders for a five-year contract originally advertised by SBC in June 2018 were given the deal on June 20th 2019, according to newly published paperwork.

Readers of these columns will know the council was forced down the road haulage route after the disastrous collapse of SBC's liaison with New Earth Solutions and offshore funders New Earth Recycling & Renewables [Infrastructure] PLC (NERR) based in the Isle of Man.

Both of those entities are now bankrupt and dissolved with an ongoing investigation into the affairs of the investment fund by Manx liquidators Deloitte. NERR was selected by Borders councillors to bankroll a £23 million waste treatment plant at Easter Langlee which was meant to make SBC the leading waste management authority in Scotland.

However, after changes to the original contract were rubber stamped by the elected members the preferred brand of technology to be installed at Galashiels could not be made to function commercially and NERR could not come up with the cash even though its directors and managers were picking up millions of pounds in fees over the lifetime of the contract with the Borders council.

Eventually the penny dropped and the contract was terminated. But not until SBC had squandered at least £2.4 million on expensive consultants and lawyers as they attempted to rescue the catastrophic project.

A revised waste strategy based on hundreds of lorry journeys each year was approved in August 2015, the New Earth debacle having been finally put to rest in February of that year.

The costs associated with the Levenseat deal were revealed today with the publication of the statutory contracts award notice on the Public Contracts Scotland website.

When it invited bids last June SBC wrote in its contract notice: "The Authority currently manages around 42,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum. The majority of this waste is deposited at Easter Langlee landfill site which is owned and operated by the Authority. A decision was taken not to expand the Easter Langlee landfill site once its current capacity is exhausted (by mid-2019) but instead develop a new Waste Transfer Station in its place." The new station has cost a further £5.5 million, another necessity following the New Earth fiasco.

The notice added: "This will enable the Authority to comply with the ban on sending biodegradable municipal waste to landfill which comes into effect from 1st January 2021 by exporting waste out of the Borders for treatment and disposal. The Authority reserves the right to take responsibility for haulage for part of the Contract Waste to the Contractors Delivery Site in order to gain benefits through utilising its own Authority Haulage Vehicles. The Authority is looking for a haulage, treatment and disposal solution that provides a reliable and robust means of managing contract waste from mid 2019."

The proposed contract was divided into four lots - Lot 1 – municipal residual waste; Lot 2 – bulky residual waste; Lot 3 – Commercial & demolition waste; Lot 4 – Street Cleansing waste. A five year deal also contained an option for the parties to agree to extend the Contract on a yearly basis up to a maximum of a further five years subject to the terms within the Conditions of Contract after expiry of the initial term.

By winning all four lots on offer Levenseat has secured a £47 million contract over the five years from July 1st 2019. The price for lot one which attracted four bids was £33.75 million. The treatment of bulky residual waste (£10.5 million) received two offers. Levenseat were the only bidders for lots three and four worth £1.5 million and £1.25 million respectively.

As well as the multiple trips which will now be needed to Levenseat's Forth treatment centre SBC sends its dry recyclabes on an even longer journey - to J B Recycling's premises in Hartlepool, 108 miles from Galashiels.

Leaving Common Market disastrous for Borders - Thatcher

by OUR POLITICAL STAFF

Boris Johnson, currently touring the country in his bid for the top job and promising the hardest of hard Brexits if necessary, appears to have overlooked the warning given by his political heroine Margaret Thatcher that leaving the Common Market would be disastrous for the Borders knitwear industry and for Border farmers.

The favourite to succeed Theresa May as Prime Minister has never hidden his unwavering admiration for Britain's first female leader. He has even promoted the idea of having a London airport named in her honour. And he lionised "Maggie" in his 2013 Margaret Thatcher Lecture, not long after her death.

'The Iron Lady's' doom-laden sentiments on the impact a British exit from Europe would have on Borders industry and agriculture were contained in a letter dated May 17th 1983 which she sent to Tory hopeful the late Iain Sproat, her party's candidate in the Roxburgh & Berwickshire constituency.

Sproat had successfully won and retained the Aberdeen South seat throughout the 1970s, but feared for his political life at the 1983 General Election. So he abandoned his constituents and sought refuge in the Borders where he thought his chances of a safe return to Westminster were much higher. He could not have been more wrong!

But he must have been heartened by the arrival of Margaret Thatcher's letter which predicted success for him in his efforts to unseat Roxburgh & Berwickshire's Liberal MP Archy Kirkwood. The correspondence was declassified un 2013 under the so-called 30-year rule and is among a vast collection of papers and letters which can be accessed on the website of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.

The PM of the day wrote: "I was very disappointed indeed that the announcement of the General Election prevented me from visiting the Borders as you had arranged for me to do. I very much hope that after the Election, with you as the Member of Parliament, it will be possible to rearrange my visit. I was much looking forward to visiting Hawick again.

"Hawick traditionally typifies so many of those qualities of hard work, self-respect and independence that I admire so much. In particular, I was looking forward to seeing round Pringle's, and also to meeting representatives of the rest of the knitwear industry in Hawick, during my visit. I have been greatly impressed by the magnificent achievements of the knitwear industry in the Borders in spite of the enormous difficulties caused by the world recession, and now that it seems that we are pulling out of the recession, the knitwear industry in the Borders will be well placed to take advantage of new conditions.

 

"Thinking about the knitwear industry, underlines one other reason, of course, why it is so important that a Conservative Government, which has already proved how it can bring down inflation, and interest rates, is returned at the Election. It is a grim thought what the spendthrift policies of any future Labour Government (under Michael Foot) would do to places like Hawick: rocketing inflation and interest rates would be inevitable under Labour and ruinous to the knitwear industry - as well as to so many other industries and businesses in the Borders. Labour's policy of taking this country out of the Common Market would also be disastrous for the knitwear industry - as well as for the Border farmers.

 

"I know that Borderers have always been too sensible in the past to vote Labour, and I am sure they will not vote Labour this time either. But it would be a tragedy for the Borders if by voting Liberal in the Borders, they(let Michael Foot and) the Socialists in at Westminster. The only way to keep the Socialists out of Government is by voting Conservative. And by voting for you as their Conservative MP, Borderers will have the satisfaction of knowing that they will have as their MP somebody who, as a Borderer himself, can put over the Border view where it really matters - with the next Conservative Government!"

In a hand written note on the draft letter Mrs Thatcher ordered "Please keep out all references to Labour personalities. We fight on policies."

So the references to Michael Foot which we have enclosed in brackets were removed from the final text.

Brexit in 2019 may still be 'disastrous' for what little is left of the local knitwear industry and for the farmers who stand to lose the Common Agricultural Policy payments from Europe. But Boris Johnson, unlike his hero, doesn't seem to think so.

Footnote: For the record Iain Sproat, branded a carpetbagger and an opportunist by critics lost to Kirkwood while, ironically, the Tories held Aberdeen South. The 1983 Roxburgh & Berwickshire result was:

A Kirkwood (Liberal) 15,920 (50.3% of votes cast); I Sproat (Conservative) 12,524 (39.6%); D Briggs (Labour) 2,326 (7.4%); R Shirley (SNP) 852 (2.7%). The Labour and SNP candidates lost their deposits. The turnout was 75.8%.

Results were very different at a national level with Mrs Thatcher racking up a landslide victory and a majority of over 140 seats. The final outcome - Conservatives 13 million votes, 397 seats (+58) and 42.4% share of the vote; Labour 8.4 million votes, 209 seats (-60) and 28.3% of the vote; and Liberal/SDP 7.7 million votes, 23 seats (+12) and 25.4% of the vote.