Second astonishing attack on senior law officer

 by EWAN LAMB

Company boss Martin Frost has mounted a second blistering attack on a Scottish procurator fiscal, accusing the senior law officer of bringing 'law, order and justice into disrespect' in a shareholder letter circulated to hundreds of investors in Avocet Natural Capital Ltd.

Because fiscals are precluded from speaking as individuals Not Just Sheep & Rugby, which reported Mr Frost's first broadside, has again decided not to name the PF concerned in the interests of fairness.

And it is understood there are currently three active Summary cases which are active for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

This time round Mr Frost also included a picture of the prosecutor together detailed allegations concerning his alleged conduct.

The Avocet chairman's strongly worded statement starts with yet another attach on the joint administrators of Orrdone Farms Limited, an insolvent Avocet subsidiary.

According to Mr Frost: "In terms of their High Court appointments they (the administrators) do not have their boasted Scottish legal rights. Thus, the Orrdone Administrators are guilty of theft, and tortious trespass from April 2020 in respect of their intromissions on the Harcarse Hill properties and that of the Sunwick Farm cottages owned by Avocet Faculties Limited."

Harcarse Hill and Sunwick are two of the locations where Avocet's agricultural activities were based. Orrdone Farms Ltd. has a list of creditors said to be owed significant sums of money.

But Mr Frost now claims: "Because they wrongly perceived that the Orrdone Administrators had authority, it flows that the actions of Police Scotland, Procreator (sic) Fiscal, Mrs. Aileen Orr, [lives at Sunwick] Ms.Sarah Shotton [former Avocet employee currently pursuing an employment tribunal case against the company], and others acted unlawfully in respect of these properties. It is also apparent that (the fiscal) has conspired to cause Martin Frost, Dr. Bob Jennings [fellow Avocet director], Janet Orr Frost [Martin Frost's partner], Avocet, Agritech Limited, Avocet, ANC Plc, Loch Lomond Heritage, Omega Infinite Plc and others loss and damage."

Then Mr Frost tells shareholders: "A corrupt act during one step of the criminal justice chain can severely harm the whole process or even nullify its essence and erode public trust in law and order; disrespect for the equal application of the law undermines the legitimacy of public institutions and contributes to impunity.

"The complaint levelled at the PF is that he has brought law, order, and Scottish justice into disrespect because he failed in law to see if the securities upon which the Orrdone Administrators acted gave them the authority to invade and seize goods and property at Harcarse Hill farm and the Sunwick cottages."

Further accusations follow: "The PF allowed himself to be misled by Mrs. Aileen Orr and her harpies. The fiscal then gave Mrs. Orr and her harpies credence to congregate in an unlawful conspiracy (full details of which are in preparation by Mrs. Eirlys Lloyd - Avocet's company secretary - and others) to which the PF then became a prime mover."Because of his social and political bias and his lack of understanding of the law the fiscal broke the criminal law (full details of which are in preparation by Mrs. Eirlys Lloyd and others).

"The fiscal allowed (overlooked) acts of physical damage and theft to occur and so gave credence to many acts of wrongdoing by members of Police Scotland who were and are duped by a naïve and ‘rogue’ procreator (sic) fiscal.

"The PF ignored thousands of examples of bad mouthing prompted by his fellow conspirators on public forums but instead choose (sic) himself to act on private correspondence (full details of which are in preparation by Mrs. Eirlys Lloyd and other). It is more than a little apparent that the PF has allowed himself to lead a Cabal whose main motivations are to please Mrs. Orr and ‘kill off’ Frost and Avocet."

And Mr Frost concludes: "From the above you will see that Avocet has collated and is collating good evidence to support sizeable damages awards for its shareholders. Obviously, I am greatly pleased that at long last we have moved into the attack. How much will be forthcoming – well as yet, sums are speculation though a guide was given by one lawyer as somewhere in between seven and eight figures.

A spokesman for the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) told us: "There is no comment we could make on active criminal proceedings."

Thumbs down for sky high turbines?

 EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

The proposed construction of 45 massive wind turbines in the Southern Uplands landscape would bring unacceptable harm to the local environment, Borders planning officers have concluded.

Now, members of Scottish Borders Council will be advised to lodge a formal objection to the so-called Faw Side wind farm which would cover 23 square kilometres in a vast swathe of open countryside stretching from Teviothead, near Hawick, to beyond Langholm in Dumfries & Galloway.

The final decision on Community Wind Power Ltd's [CWP] proposals which would see the tallest turbines so far to be erected in the Borders will rest with the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit. But a 40-page report prepared by local planners outlines the range of negative impacts CWP's project would have on an area so far largely unaffected by wind farms.

As report author Scott Shearer explains: "Each of the turbines will be three bladed and consist of the following specification; 40 turbines with a 200 metre tip height, comprising 125m hub and 150m blade diameter;  5 turbines with a 179.5m tip height, comprising 104.5m hub and 150m blade diameter Of the 45 turbines, 13 are located within the Scottish Borders. Their turbine numbers are T1-11 and T18 and T19. All other turbines are located in Dumfries and Galloway."

The document emphasises that Scottish Borders Council remains positive towards the principle of wind energy development, as reflected in its policies and guidance. As required by policy considerations, the benefits of energy production, and the dis-benefits of environmental impact must be weighed carefully against one another. 

"The development of a new large commercial wind farm at Faw Side would result in a significant displacement in carbon dioxide and make a large contribution towards the Scottish Government targets from renewable energy production. The development would provide inward investment into the Scottish Borders and create jobs. However, these benefits have to be finely balanced against the environmental impacts of the development.

"The height of the proposed turbines would be the tallest wind turbines within the Scottish Borders and some of the tallest onshore turbines anywhere in Scotland. The development is located within part of the Southern Uplands which has been largely untouched by wind energy development."

In the view of SBC's planning officers the excessive scale and layout of the proposed turbines and their access tracks will result in an unacceptable, significant and adverse visual impact which will harm the rural character of the minor road to Commonbrae, used regularly by local residents and tourists using the road to visit Hizzy Cairn.

The cairn is a memorial to Steve Hislop, the Hawick-born motor cycling ace who won the Isle of Man TT eleven times. The memorial is close to the spot where Hislop died, aged 41, in 2003 when the helicopter he was piloting crashed into a remote hillside. 

And the report continues: "The development will also affect users of the A7 and while these views may be intermittent, they will still have an unacceptable and significant adverse visual effect for the experience of residents, commuters and tourists travelling to and from the Scottish Borders, including sequential cumulative impacts. 

"The scale of the turbines require the installation of aviation lighting. Turbine lighting has the potential to affect the experience of a number of people travelling on roads and paths within southern and central parts of the Scottish Borders when a cluster of industrial red lights would appear in elevated positions which would detract from the visual amenities of the otherwise dark rural setting including its sense of remoteness and tranquillity."

The recommendation to elected members of the council consists of the following text:

" That the Council indicate to the Energy Consents Unit that it objects to the proposed development for the following reasons; 

"Reason for Objection 1: Impact on Landscape Character The proposed development would be contrary to Local Development Plan Policy ED9 the Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance and the Landscape Capacity and Cumulative Impact Study, in that the scale, form, layout and location of the development would represent a significant and unacceptable adverse change to the existing landscape character of the area, particularly impacting on the scale, appreciation and character of the Cauldcleuch Head and Craik Landscape Character Areas.

"Reason for Objection 2: Visual Impact The proposed development would be contrary to Local Development Plan Policy ED9 the Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance and the Landscape Capacity and Cumulative Impact Study, in that the excessive scale and layout of the proposed development will result in significant and unacceptable adverse visual impacts to sensitive receptors using the minor road to Commonbrae and travelling to and from the Scottish Borders on the A7.

"Reason for Objection 3: Aviation Lighting The proposed development would be contrary to Local Development Plan Policy ED9 and the Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance in that the visual impact of red aviation lights on the wind turbines, will create significant and unacceptable adverse visual effects, incongruous and visible over considerable distance. This will introduce urban characteristics into a dark rural environment largely unaffected by artificial light experienced by receptors travelling on public roads and paths within the area and would also detract from the sense of remoteness and tranquility of the Cauldcleuch Head and Craik Landscape Character Areas.

"Reason for Objection 4: Archaeology Impacts The proposed development would be contrary to Local Development Plan Policies ED9, EP8 and the Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the direct physical impacts of the development would not be significant and unacceptable on sites of `national, regional and local archaeological significance within the site. Furthermore, the size and location of turbines 8 and 19 would have an unacceptable and significantly adverse impact on the setting of Pikethaw Cairn, without adequate mitigation or demonstration that the benefits of the scheme outweigh such impact."

The report is due to be considered by SBC's Planning & Building Standards Committee on March 1st.

Gennfros leak inquiry fingers "stool pigeons"

 by OUR LEAK INQUIRY STAFF

A wide ranging leak inquiry in the United States and the UK has concluded that more than 21 per cent of shareholders in the secretive Gennfros businesses may have breached regulations by forwarding confidential information about the company to others.

Gennfros was set up last year as a successor to the controversial Avocet group headed by directors Martin Frost and Dr Bob Jennings. One of the main aims of the new set up - Frost and Jennings are life presidents on £24,000 a year - was to end so-called damaging leaks by investors who were sharing shareholder letters with 'outsiders'.

In a recent move a company previously called Avocet NC Ltd changed its name to Gennfros Trading with Lancashire accountant Paul Charles Newsham identified as executive director.

But it is clear that Gennfros, which plans to take forward the 'revolutionary' green fuel previously under Avocet's control for six years has already been hit by unauthorised disclosures of company information. According to one observer "When you read the outcome of the internal inquiry it seems Gennfros is leaking like a sieve".

Two separate newsletters from Gennfros which have been seen by our team describe the crackdown on alleged breaches of Non Disclosure Agreements [NDAs] using sophisticated tracking technology. A total of eight 'offenders' have been identified so far.

A Gennfros communication to its 290 shareholders dated February 2nd gave notice of the inquiry. 

It stated: "You are aware that this email is sent to you from Pennsylvania State, USA. Those of you who are lawfully in receipt of this newsletter are bound by the Articles of Association of Gennfros Ltd which contain a specific NDA. You are aware that a NDA is a legally binding contract that establishes a confidential relationship.

"The new investors into Gennfros Ltd (who command some of the world's best tracking mechanisms) are appalled that no Gennfros shareholder has sought permission from Mrs Eirlys Lloyd [the Gennfros and Avocet company secretary] prior to copying on or passing on of confidential information shared between Gennfros and you.

"Even more upsetting is that some Gennfros shareholders have seen fit to share private Gennfros information with those who are apparently plotting to cause harm to Gennfros. Gennfros's new investors insist that Gennfros takes an extremely hard line over these NDA breaches".

The newsletter then called on all lawful recipients of the correspondence to write to Archie Gardner (a director of Avocet subsidiary Avocet Fuel Ltd) by 5 pm UK time on February 10th delineating all those with whom they shared an electronic or paper copy of Gennfros information.

There was also a warning: "Failure by a shareholder to provide a comprehensive list which matches the tracking will oblige Gennfros to suspend the share ownership of their Gennfros shares. For the avoidance of doubt, those Gennfros shareholders who have knowingly passed on Gennfros confidential information to conspirators or acolytes of Aileen Orr (member of a Berwickshire farming family) will immediately lose their Gennfros share entitlement.

"Finally our new investors are adamant that those Gennfros shareholders who knowingly have done wrong with intent to cause Gennfros harm must be sued to the limits of both civil and criminal law".

The swift results from the investigation are included in a subsequent letter dated February 8th with executive director Mr Newsham named at the top of the page. Mention is also made of a shareholder visiting the proposed Gennfros research and development centre in Lancashire, and meeting with Mr Newsham.

The Gennfros message reveals: "Our overseas trackers (coordinated from the USA) identified some 62 shareholders who had possibly shared shareholder communications without first obtaining permission from Mrs Lloyd.

"From this 62 no less than eight are found to be in breach of Gennfros's Articles of Association. While awaiting further investigation six of the eight have had their newsletter access suspended; two of the eight are ejected from membership of Gennfros.

"Gennfros's overseas trackers identified [a] unlawful information routes over which Gennfros confidential information passed, and [b] the authorship of the anonymous (out of the bogus Avocet forum) who are found to be stool pigeons associated with Mrs Aileen Orr (a lady who apparently seeks Gennfros's destruction).

"Gennfros's intention is to share its progress openly with shareholders, so once Gennfros is cleansed of ill-wishers, all will be advised of a new secure shareholder interface".

Meanwhile the 650 individuals and businesses with a stake in Avocet Natural Capital - former parent of the Avocet group but which its directors say will be dissolved - wait to hear the fate of their combined investments running into many millions of pounds. The ANC accounts for 2019 should have been lodged at Companies House by December 28th 2020. But a notice on the website simply says 'Accounts overdue'.

Third archaeology expert opposes giant wind farm

 by EWAN LAMB

The proposed construction of a 45-turbine wind farm in a pre-historic Borders landscape has attracted opposition from a third local authority archaeology officer who recommends planning refusal for the project.

In a written submission newly published on Scottish Borders Council's planning website, Keith Elliott, the council's own archaeology officer warns of the impact the Faw Side wind farm would have on scheduled monuments of national and regional importance.

Mr Elliott's criticisms follow those of his predecessor in the post, Dr Chris Bowles, and from neighbouring Dumfries & Galloway Council archaeologist Andrew Nicholson.

The proposals by Community Wind Power Ltd would result in turbines intruding into a landscape covering 23 square kilometres of unspoiled Borders countryside stretching from Teviothead to beyond Langholm.

Mr Elliott's written comments explain: "My predecessor as Archaeology Officer for Scottish Borders Council Dr Chris Bowles was initially consulted and responded about this application which included his visiting of the Ewes Door and Pikethaw monuments referred to in his response during 2019.

"The applicants have not considered all the information given to them with regard to the historic environment; the LiDAR (remote sensing method) information has not been assessed for additions to the HER (Historic Environment Record) coverage for archaeological sites impacted by the development of this site; direct impacts upon the archaeological monuments of the area, as per through the construction of the windfarm, its infrastructure (such as road lines) and borrow pits; impacts upon the setting of archaeological monuments, in particular Ewes Doors and Pikethaw monuments – which remain significantly adverse."

The applicants claimed in a written submission to planners: “It is considered that the presence of turbines in views from and towards the watch tower [Ewes Door scheduled monument of national importance] will not hinder or obstruct any appreciation or understanding of the watch tower’s function during the Roman occupation of Scotland, or of the tower’s relationship with the route of the Roman roads nearby."

But Mr Elliot, who succeeded Dr Bowles last June, says that statement 'may be disputed'.  

In conclusion he writes: "The applicant has yet to address the archaeological issues raised earlier. This is particularly relevant for the associated infrastructure relating to the development of the windfarm. There are also issues regarding the setting of individual known monuments in particular the Pikethaw Cairn and Ewes Door sites which are of regional to national importance. (There are many other monuments of local importance, though these have not been fully discussed or indeed identified by the applicant).

 

"It would be recommended that the application is rejected as not having provided sufficient information on which to base a judgement for the whole scheme and its associated infrastructure. New archaeological sites have been identified by both applicants (though sparingly addressed) and even in response to the information submitted as part of the application by Dr Bowles and myself. 

"Both the development itself and the associated infrastructure of this and related planning applications, such as any overhead power lines, will adversely affect all parts of the setting of what have been already identified as nationally and regionally (but yet may be revealed perhaps as of national) significance. Dr Bowles similarly recommended further environmental information to be submitted, but this still remains lacking".

Dr Bowles, in his assessment, warned: "I do not believe a thorough assessment has been compiled for the range of potential direct impacts. The EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) contains several statements that are either not correct or underestimate significance and impact. In part this is due to information that has emerged since the EIA was completed.

"The walkover of the site described in the EIA, by a single archaeologist over two days, is insufficient for a site this size even if covering just infrastructure and known sites." 

In particular, Dr Bowles claims there are potentially major setting impacts to a newly identified hilltop cairn on Pikethaw Hill which lies within the proposed development area. He wrote: "As it currently appears, the sizeable mound (approximately 5 metres high and 40-50 metres in circumference) is consistent with a hilltop cairn of Neolithic or early Bronze Age date.

 

Mr Nicholson's submission says: "The walkover survey (by CWL's consultants) was conducted by a single qualified archaeologist over the course of two days. Even allowing for the area already surveyed and the low likelihood of archaeological remains on the steeper hill slopes I do not feel that a single individual could adequately cover the 23 square kilometres of the development site over the course of two days."

He expressed his concerns for a series of ancient Esk Valley forts which would be impacted by the wind farm. In particular the group of forts – Camp Hill, Castle O’er and Bessie’s Knowe - "all have wide-ranging, extensive views across the surrounding landscape."

The two local authorities affected by the development have yet to decide whether or not they favour the Faw Side proposals. The final outcome will be determined by the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit.

Watchdog brands Borders council 'open and transparent'... again

 by DOUG COLLIE

Audit Scotland, the country's public expenditure watchdog, has concluded yet again that Scottish Borders Council conducts its business in an open and transparent fashion despite evidence that a number of crucial issues involving many millions of pounds of taxpayers' cash have been discussed and decided in secret.

The council's transparency 'badge' is pinned to the SBC Annual Audit report for 2019/20, and it bears an uncanny resemblance to the transparency testimony of 2018/19.

Only a few weeks ago it was revealed that councillors and officials at the Borders local authority had conducted all debates linked to a £99 million extension of an IT contract with Canadian based CGI behind closed doors. And even after the deal was signed last September only very limited information concerning the partnership which is set to remain in place until 2040 was made public.

In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request the council finally released dozens of pages of reports and minutes, each one of them stamped either 'confidential' or 'not for publication'. While the issue was 'live' elected members were not allowed to talk about the deal or express their views in public which hardly smacks of transparency.

Not Just Sheep & Rugby gave extensive coverage to the contents of the secret CGI documents only a few days before Audit Scotland published its latest audit report for SBC.

In 2019/20 the Borders council paid Audit Scotland an audit fee of £280,360 to carry out the annual inspection of its accounts. The total over the four financial years from 2016/17 adds up to £1,095,930.

Here is the full text in the 2019/20 audit report relating to Openness and Transparency:

79. There is an increasing focus on how public money is used and what is achieved. In that regard, openness and transparency supports understanding and scrutiny. There are increasing public expectations for more openness and transparency as citizens want to understand how public money is used and, to support their participation in local service design and delivery.

80. A transparent organisation shows the basis for its decisions and shares information about performance and outcomes, including when targets have and have not been achieved as well as how it is using its resources such as money, people and assets.

81. There is evidence from several sources which demonstrate the council's commitment to transparency. Members of the public can attend meetings of the full council, executive and other committees. Minutes of these committee meetings and supporting papers are readily available on the council’s website. The council and committees sometimes consider business in private where there is a need to consider commercially sensitive information. The need to consider business in private should be subject to regular review.

82. The council’s website allows the public to access a wide range of information including the register of members’ interests, current consultations and surveys, and how to make a complaint.

83. Overall, we concluded that the council conducts its business in an open and transparent manner.

And for comparison here is the equivalent passage from the watchdog's 2018/19 audit report:

93. There is an increasing focus on how public money is used and what is achieved. In that regard, openness and transparency supports understanding and scrutiny. There are increasing public expectations for more openness and transparency as citizens want to understand how public money is used and, to support their participation in local service design and delivery.

94. A transparent organisation shows the basis for its decisions and shares information about performance and outcomes, including when targets have and have not been achieved as well as how it is using its resources such as money, people and assets.

95. There is evidence from several sources which demonstrate the council's commitment to transparency. Members of the public can attend meetings of the full council, executive and other committees. Minutes of these committee meetings and supporting papers are readily available on the council’s website. The council and committees do meet and consider business in private where there is a need to consider commercially sensitive information. The need to consider business in private should be subject to regular review.

96. The council’s website allows the public to access a wide range of information including the register of members’ interests, current consultations and surveys and how to make a complaint.

97. Overall, we concluded that the council conducts its business in an open and transparent manner. 

That conclusion followed concerns and criticisms of the council's £9.6 million deal to acquire the Lowood Estate, near Melrose, from the Hamilton family, another issue dealt with exclusively in private.

Research shows Audit Scotland reported an identical outcome - "overall, we concluded that the council conducts its business in an open and transparent manner" - in 2016/17, and again in 2017/18.