Ex-planning 'chair' denounced housing project

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

The publication of hundreds of written representations linked to Scottish Borders Council's new Local Development Plan shows the authority's former executive member for planning to be a strong critic of a proposed residential development close to Abbotsford House, home of novelist Sir Walter Scott.

Tom Miers (Conservative) was 'removed' from his influential position in Augiust 2020, a month before the Local Development Plan [LDP] was presented to councillors by planning officers. He claimed at the time to have been voted out "without explanation".

Writer and consultant Mr Miers, who was elected to represent the Leaderdale & Melrose ward on SBC in 2017 is not standing at the forthcoming local government elections next month. He has alleged in articles published on his blog site tommiers.wordpress.com  that the council is, for the most part, run by officials rather than by elected members.

As we recently reported, some 500 letters of objection were lodged with the council during the LDP consultation period against the inclusion of land at Netherbarns, 400 metres from Abbotsford, being included in the plan. It is claimed the 45 houses would have a devastating impact on Abbotsford's 'idyllic setting'.

Mr Miers' hard hitting criticisms of the Netherbarns proposal included details of a formal complaint he had made to the council about the site's inclusion in the LDP.

He wrote: "The process whereby SBC inserted this site into the draft LDP is open to question and is subject to a formal complaint by me as well as (I understand) an FOI request and a Standards investigation by members of the public. These are all presumably being considered by SBC separately. 

"Further to my complaint on process I object to the inclusion of Netherbarns in the Galashiels settlement boundary for the following reasons: allocating Netherbarns for housing goes against explicit national planning policy (for example NPF3 and its references to protecting our cultural heritage) and also council policy set out elsewhere in council documents. Many individual polices on protecting the heritage and economic potential of the Borders contradict the idea of development at Netherbarns, not least the ‘Countryside around towns’ policy EP6 (which of course is now proposed for amendment to fit). 

"More generally the proposed Local Development Plan includes among its core aims to “protect strategically important business opportunities” and to “preserve and enhance the natural and built environment”. Of course, it also aims to “provide a generous supply of ... land for housing” but that should be done if possible without conflict with the previous two. There is no pressing need for housing here since demand for housing land across the Borders is low (something acknowledged by SBC) and so no need for any such conflict. Therefore the economic, cultural and environmental risks highlighted by so many individuals and institutions have no justification (apart from assuaging the lobbying of the developer). There is simply no reason to contradict other policies."

Mr Miers explained that while the developer had made changes to the plans for housing on the site, the fundamentals were the same as previous submissions. Essentially a large-scale suburban-style housing estate on this site was inappropriate because it would impinge on the landscape setting of Abbotsford House.

"The landscape setting is part of Walter Scott’s vision for this property and so is an integral part of the cultural legacy of the site. Suburban style housing estates are completely out of context here. The council has not addressed this fundamental problem."

And Mr Miers said the council had not considered reasonable alternatives to a large-scale development here. For example the site could be suitable for a handful of houses set organically in grounds as commonly found on the edges of towns (not least just to the south of the site). This could ‘book-end’ Galashiels development in this direction, provide a natural ‘blended’ border between town and country while preserving the rural landscape setting of Abbotsford.

SBC's planning department has produced a document extending to 850 pages which seeks to respond to all LDP submissions.

In a direct reference to Mr Miers' observations, the council states: "In respect of the formal complaint referred to by contributor 1037 (the number assigned to Mr Miers' paperwork) the department has no knowledge of findings of fault. The department strongly refutes any claims of procedural irregularities".

Planners unimpressed by 500 Abbotsford "protestors"

SPECIAL FEATURE by DOUG COLLIE

The case made by hundreds of objectors from around the world, including aristocrats and transatlantic foundations, all of them seeking to protect Abbotsford House, home of the writer Sir Walter Scott from a controversial housing project has been demolished and rejected by Scottish Borders Council.

And the local authority's planners have hit back, claiming a modern visitor centre constructed by Abbotsford's Trustees, was clearly never part of the original heritage and setting of Abbotsford.

Although original proposals for 45 houses on land at Netherbarns, 400 metres from Scott's 'A' listed mansion, were rejected by Scottish Government officials and ministers over 15 years ago, the council is insisting a revised proposal by the landowner should be included in a new Local Development Plan (LDP) for the Borders.

It means the Netherbarns scheme will now be examined again by government planning reporters when they consider the proposed LDP in its entirety. More than a thousand responses were submitted during the plan's consultation period, some 500 of them relating to the perceived threat to Abbotsford.

The Netherbarns housing was strongly condemned by Douglas Pringle, an attorney based in Wichita, Kansas, who is president of the wealthy K T Wiedemann Foundation. The organisation has donated well over $150,000 to the Abbotsford Trust to help with restoration of the house and its outstanding collection of Scott books and artefacts. 

Mr Pringle told SBC in his written submission on behalf of the Foundation: "The [Netherbarns] proposals have a highly negative impact on Abbotsford. It would be a pity to see this idyllic setting destroyed by this project".

There were protests too from the Dandie Dinmont Terrier Clubs of Canada and the United States, from art expert Bendor Grosvenor, and from Conservative peer Lord Sanderson of Bowden, former chairman of Abbotsford Trustees.

Abbotsford chief executive Giles Ingram wrote: "We hope we can forestall the site's inclusion in future LDPs by putting forward our case, now and forever, on the detrimental impact of a development at Netherbarns on Abbotsford, the jewel in the crown of the Borders".

Opposition also came from the University of Wyoming in Scotland Program, Save Britain's Heritage, Europa Nostra, and the Faculty of Advocates Abbotsford Collection Trust which owns many important Scott-related objects including his 9,000 books.

However, a document running to more than 850 pages, which includes responses by planning officials to the representations, was approved by the Conservative/Independent controlled council last month. The strongly worded document does not appear to have received any media coverage. In the past SBC has donated £1.5 million towards Abbotsford's renovation work.

The section on Netherbarns says: "It is acknowledged that the site has a history and has previously been omitted from the Plan by Reporters from the Scottish Government. However, it is not uncommon for submissions to be made again for sites that have been dismissed previously. 

"What needs to be considered is whether there are any new material considerations and amendments to the proposal which have not previously been tabled which could justify the site being considered for inclusion within the Plan. In respect of these new proposals, amongst other matters it is noted that the location for the proposed houses are on a different part of the overall site compared to submissions previously. No development is now proposed on the larger eastern part of the site closest to Abbotsford House and more new planting is proposed throughout the site to screen it further. 

"Taking these points into consideration there is no doubt that this new amended proposal has not been subject to previous Examination and it is entirely inaccurate to state otherwise. Consequently the new amended proposal has the right to be considered for inclusion within the LDP as is the case for all other proposals for other sites across the region which offer new material changes which have not previously been subject to Examination. The Applicants have taken on board previous reasons for the site being rejected and have amended the plans in an effort to address this.

A full planning application was submitted under an interim housing policy for the development of 79 dwelling houses on the site in 2004. The application was approved by the Planning Committee. However, ultimately it was refused by Scottish Ministers after it was called-in."

SBC adds that officers have visited the grounds of Abbotsford during winter months and remain strongly of the view that only fleeting glimpses of the site are visible, even in the months when tree coverage is less.

It is therefore recommended that this further site requirement is added to the Plan stipulating the following: ‘No development to take place on the lower eastern part of the site closest to Abbotsford House and bounded by the existing stone wall to the north west as shown on the plan submitted by the landowner. The land to be utilised as open space’

The council acknowledged that members of the public still walk around the grounds of Abbotsford during the winter months. It is considered members of the public are much more likely to look backwards towards the House to appreciate its undoubted attractive build and setting, and when looking from the grounds in the other direction, the predominant focus of attention is the River Tweed and the mature tree belt on the other side, as opposed to any fleeting glimpses, which would be absolutely minimal if at all, of the proposed houses. 

"Critically it must be recognised that any existing fleeting glimpses of where the proposed houses will be located will be hidden by proposed new planting. The Council is not aware of any evidence that any glimpses of existing houses at Kingknowes or Netherbank (located across the A7 from the site) through the existing mature tree belt in any way affects the public’s enjoyment or experience of walking the grounds of Abbotsford House.

SBC then makes reference to the  changing landscape and the Abbotsford visitor centre.

"One of the major concerns raised with regards to the views from Abbotsford House and its grounds is that the land should remain sacrosanct and should not be altered in any way which would blight views in this direction. Landscapes naturally change over time and at one point views from Abbotsford House and the surrounding land would have looked over towards an operational railway line. Obviously times have moved on, trees have grown, approximately 90 houses have been built around the Kingsknowes Hotel, some of which can be seen from Abbotsford House and its grounds. Fleeting glimpses can also be seen of Netherbank through the trees given their elevated position above the A7. Consequently, it is not considered that this new proposal can reasonably be considered to be inappropriate in light of other changes over the years.

"There can be absolutely no doubt that the Visitor Centre located on the south east side of Abbotsford House is extremely prominent within the setting of Abbotsford House and the surrounding landscape. This is even more significant given it is the first building viewed by members of the public from the public car park. There is little doubt that the building has been successful but nevertheless it is of modern and innovative design which was clearly never part of the original heritage and setting of Abbotsford House. However, the Council is unaware of any evidence at all that this large prominent and dominant modern building has in any way diluted the enjoyment of parties visiting the site. It is therefore not agreed that any of the proposed dwelling houses, which would be located some 400 metres away from Abbotsford House and hidden behind existing and proposed trees, would have any impact remotely like the visitor centre or indeed existing houses which are partly visible.

The council says it is not aware of any evidence that existing development within the vicinity of Abbotsford has a negative impact upon the local/national economy including hotels, restaurants and other local businesses involved in tourism as well as upon the Southern Upland Way and fisherman. It cannot therefore be argued that the Netherbarns proposal will have an unacceptable impact on these factors given existing cumulative developments, which are considerably greater, have no such impacts.

In its Conclusions section the document states: "It is considered that the new amended plans, which have not been subject to previous Examination, satisfactorily address the reasons for the site’s previous rejections which includes matters such as where houses are proposed within the site, land to be kept free from development and proposed further planting.

"It is considered any impacts on Abbotsford House, its grounds and its setting will be minimal if at all, and undoubtedly the proposals will have much less impact than existing developments such as existing houses at Kingsknowes and Netherbank and the Visitor Centre. The Council is unaware of any evidence that these developments have impacted on visitors / members of the public’s enjoyment and experience of visiting Abbotsford House and its grounds. As is the case with many other existing developments either within or within the vicinity of the Garden and Designed Landscape designation, it is not considered this proposal will have any detrimental impacts on it. It is considered the site requirements, including added confirmation that no development should take place on the eastern part of the site closest to Abbotsford House, will ensure satisfactory control of the proposal along with addressing all necessary mitigation measures. The Masterplan will offer the opportunity for interested parties to input into the site’s development. It is concluded there are no justifiable reasons to now oppose these new amended plans and the site should be included within the Local Development Plan".

Lowood planning process deemed "unlawful"

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

The initial phase of the largest development project to be undertaken in the Scottish Borders this century could face a legal challenge after a leading planner claimed the process being used to progress the scheme 'would be unlawful'.

As previously reported here Scottish Borders Council has lodged an application with its own planning authority for permission to construct roads and carry out earthworks on Lowood Estate, near Melrose to accommodate a £106 million programme of house building and commercial development adjacent to Tweedbank village.

SBC paid £11 million, including legal and other costs, to purchase the Lowood land from two offshore trusts in 2018. Critics maintain the development of the estate is an unnecessary expense and will not be financially viable. But the council has consistently claimed the provision of at least 300 new homes and ancillary facilities is essential for the economic wellbeing of the central Borders. The costs will be recouped from private developers.

But now the first objection to the road building proposals on the estate have been submitted to the Borders planning department on behalf of Gowanloch Investments, owners of salmon fishing rights on a stretch of the River Tweed right next to Lowood. 

Their representative points out in a letter that Gowanloch, as neighbours of Lowood, have not been notified about the planning application.

The written objection from planning consultant David Bell has been posted on SBC's planning portal. Mr Bell states: " The submitted planning application form makes it clear that the proposed development relates to the first and second phases of a much larger project, which is a large-scale mixed-use development (that will cover some 34 hectares in area) and which has been the subject of the preparation of Supplementary Guidance."

He points out that the project, of which the proposed first and second phase road infrastructure form part, will include extensive residential and business uses, neighbourhood centre, bridge infrastructure, substantial civil engineering works, drainage infrastructure, more extensive road development and extensive public utilities and impact on woodland. The extent of the proposed development areas are clearly set out in the Council’s Supplementary Guidance for the Lowood Estate. 

"The site and immediate wider locale is a sensitive environment including being 130 metres to the west of the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area. The entire length of the River Tweed corridor, including the section that bounds the Lowood Estate is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

"It is considered that the planning application is not competent as such an approach, namely to apply for part of the road infrastructure by way of a planning application without undertaking Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening is in breach of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) EIA Regulations 2017 and would be unlawful."

Mr Bell adds that the approach being taken would seem to be to try and circumvent the EIA requirements by splitting up what is evidently a single development project. The Lowood expansion / development project is considered, without doubt, to be an integrated development project and indeed the Council’s own Supplementary Guidance sets out that clear position. 

"The approach the Council is taking therefore is to split the project into sub-projects (and planning applications) and by doing this, the divided works fall into characteristics which on their own may fall below the threshold for EIA. Such avoidance of environmental obligations is not considered to be acceptable and as noted would be contrary to the Regulations."

In conclusion Mr Bell warns the matter of EIA must be addressed and to grant planning permission on the basis of the current planning application approach in light of what is evidently a much larger development project is not considered to be competent. 

"The proposed development, the subject of this planning application should not be considered in isolation – it should properly be regarded as an integral part of a more substantial development. There is well established planning case law on this matter." 

Have our councillors delivered on their promises?

ELECTION COMMENTARY (PART TWO) by JED FORRESTER 

The frankly appalling state of the roads in the Scottish Borders warranted a detailed pre-election commentary which we attempted to provide in a recently published article.

Our facts, figures and opinions appear to have struck a chord with many citizens who are sick and tired of driving over the region's run down and neglected highways and byways.

But the condition of roads will not be the only local issue exercising the minds of voters when they choose their preferred candidates by post in advance or on May 5th itself.

In case any of the candidates in the forthcoming election are tempted to make exaggerated claims or gloss over the true facts....

Here are a few other topics for consideration.

LATEST AVAILABLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BENCHMARKING DATA FOR SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL [SBC]*

ADMINISTRATION

SBC spends a greater proportion of its revenue on administration and support services (7%) than any other local authority in Scotland with the Scottish average spend on so-called Central Services at 4%. A further 9% of SBC's cash is used to service debt, the fifth highest figure out of 32 councils. The average percentage is 6%.

EDUCATION

SBC's spend per primary school pupil at £5,619 is slightly below Scotland's average figure of £5,897. But in the secondary sector the Borders local authority statistic of £7,745 per pupil is above Scotland's £7,629. The latest returns reported by the benchmarking service suggest 70.2% of Borders residents are satisfied with local schools (Scottish average 71.8%).

ADULT SOCIAL CARE

The amount spent to support older people to live at home (£ per hour): SBC £19.81 (Scotland average £27.65) meaning the Borders total is the fourth lowest in the country. The number of days people spend in hospital when they are ready to be discharged (per 1,000 over 75): SBC 588 days; Scotland's average 484 days.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

How many unemployed people have been assisted into work by the council?: SBC 1.4%, the second lowest figure in Scotland. The Scottish average is given as 6%.

Percentage of council's procurement spent on local enterprises: SBC 22%; Scottish average 29%.

Number of business gateway start ups: Borders 0.3, by far the lowest in Scotland; Average for the 32 councils is 11.2.

Amount spent on economic development and tourism (per 1,000 population: SBC £73,794; Scotland-wide £87,793.

How many people in the council area earn less than the real living wage?: SBC 24.6%; average 15.2%; Borders figure the fifth highest in Scotland.

Gross Value Added (GVA) in pounds per person: SBC £20,405; Scottish average £26,420.

SPORT AND LEISURE - Note: The council pays an outside agency to run some of these services

How satisfied are residents with local libraries?: SBC 54.3%; Scotland average 72.4%. Borders percentage is the second lowest in the country.

How satisfied are local residents with local museums and art galleries?: SBC 46.1%; average for Scotland 69.3%. Borders has the second lowest satisfaction rate in Scotland.

How satisfied are residents with local parks and open spaces?: SBC 77.8%; Scotland average 85%.

How satisfied are residents with local leisure facilities?: SBC 59.6%; Scotland-wide 70.1%. Borders has the third lowest approval rate nationally.

*Some ratings are for 2020/2021. Other cover the period 2017/2021 or 2019/20..

Borders council's 37% debt spike since 2017

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

The outstanding total of Scottish Borders Council's indebtedness to HM Treasury has spiralled by more than 35 per cent under the current administration, and now stands at £176 million on a total of 49 separate loans.

Figures have just been published by the Public Works Loan Board [PWLB] showing the amount of money due from every public body in the United Kingdom as of March 31st 2022. These debt totals are known as residual maturity.

Despite "achieving" permanent savings/spending cuts in recent years of £63 million, SBC's level of debt is now some 56% higher than it was in March 2010, the first financial year for which information is available.

Meanwhile the total in the 'Outstanding' column compared to 2017 when the ruling group took control is 37% higher, up more than £35 million from £139 million at the beginning of the five year Scottish local government term.

As we reported exclusively last week the council took a sizeable £20 million loan from PWLB on March 23rd this year, shortly before the Conservative/Independent alliance which has controlled local government services since 2017 was due to leave office in preparation for May's municipal elections. It was the biggest single cash advance taken by SBC since 2007.

The money, we were told, would help pay for Hawick's Flood Prevention Scheme, and replacements for Galashiels Academy and Peebles High School.

On taking control in 2017 the balance owed by the council to the loans board stood at £139.631 million, a figure which had reached £166.369 million by March 2021. The latest statistics from PWLB published data shows SBC's outstanding balance at £176.086 million. The annual cost to local taxpayers of servicing PWLB debt in the Borders exceeds £11 million and does not include a similar sum needed for PPP [Public Private Partnership] schools finance.

Here is a complete breakdown of the 49 SBC loans listed on the PWLB website:

Start date      end date       Principal balance      Interest rate       Year end balance

Sep. 1993       May 2053             507,816                     8.0%                 1,308,000

Sep. 1993       May 2053               60,839                     7.88%                  154,829

Jan.  1994       Nov 2053           1,354,176                    7.0%                 3,181,419

Apr. 1995       Nov 2022              381,114                     8.5%                    411,147

Apr  1995       Nov 2023              381,114                     8.5%                    438,656

Apr  1995       Nov 2024              381,114                     8.5%                    464,711

May 1995       Nov 2022              381,114                     8.25%                  410,195

May 1995       Nov 2023              190,557                     8.25%                  218,382

Jun   1995       Apr  2022           1,015,632                     8.13%               1,056,991

Nov  1995       Oct  2055           2,031,264                     8.0%                 5,473,687

Jan   1996       Nov  2055          2,031,264                      8.0%                 5,463,259

Aug  1996      May  2055          1,692,720                      8.25%               4,622,373

Aug  1996      May 2055           1,692,720                      8.25%               4,622,373   

Sep   1996      May 2054              677,088                      8.13%               1,797,603

Sep   1996      May 2054              677,088                      8.13%               1,797,603

Feb   1997      Nov 2051           2,288,994                       7.38%               5,404,286

May  1997      May 2057          1,354,176                       7.13%               3,401,972

May  1997      May 2057          1,354,176                       7.13%               3,401,972

May  1997      May 2057          1, 354,176                      7.13%               3,401,972

May  1997      May 2057          1,354,176                        7.13%              3,401,972

May  1997      May 2057          1,354,176                        7.13%              3,401,972

Jul    1997       Apr   2027         1,291,858                        7.0%                1,690,361

Aug  1997       May  2047         3,385,441                        6.88%             7,032,626

Aug  1997       May  2026         1,608,589                        6.88%             2,009,434

Oct   1997       May  2057          1,354,176                        6.38%             3,125,597

Dec  1997       Nov   2047          2,350,104                        6.25%             4,619,387

Dec  1997       Nov   2047          1,354,176                        6.25%             2,661,782

Mar  1998       Nov   2052          1,481,383                        6.0%               3,065,080

Jun   1998       May   2055          2,708,353                        5.38%             5,373,363

Sep   1998       May  2054          2,031,264                        4.88%              3,719,552

Dec   1999      Nov   2057          1,692,720                        4.88%              3,238,928

Dec   1999      Nov   2057          1,692,720                        4.88%              3,238,928

Feb   2000      Nov   2054           2,031,264                        5.25%              3,934,399

Feb   2000      May   2054          1,354,176                         5.13%              2,565,509

Jul    2001       May  2061          3,031,233                         5.13%               6,274,625

Mar  2007       Nov  2052         10,000,000                         4.4%               16,790,261

May  2007      Nov   2052         24,000,000                         4.6%               44,466,747

Nov  2007       Nov  2052         24,000,000                          4.6%              44,466,747

Dec   2007      Nov   2057          2,000,000                           4.48%             3,609,318

Sep   2016      Sep    2026          4,000,000                           1.49%             4,033,541

Feb   2017      Feb    2027          8,000,000                           2.05%             8,292,590

Apr   2017     Mar    2027         10,000,000                          1.9%              10,282,685

Dec   2018     Dec    2048         10,000,000                          2.74%            12,334,312

Sep   2019     Sep     2034          7,500,000                           1.67%             7,562,222

Mar  2022     Mar     2032        20,000,000                           2.41%            21,711,481

£106 million Lowood Estate development to get underway

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

The first phase of a multi-million pound project to deliver hundreds of houses and commercial facilities on farm land in the Central Borders is set to start more than three years after the local council purchased the 44-hectare Lowood Estate from two trusts in the Cayman Islands for £11 million, including costs.

Scottish Borders Council has lodged an application with its own planning authority for permission, involving change of use, to construct a road infrastructure which will include earthworks, initial development platforming, drainage, footways and landscape planting works.

The £106 million Lowood element is part of a much bigger project which will see a major expansion of Tweedbank village estimated to require a total investment of some £220 million.

While critics maintain the scheme is uneconomic and unnecessary, the council claims it is confident the public money needed, including £21 million for infrastructure at Lowood, will be recouped from private developers. A new bridge spanning the River Tweed may be required at some stage in the development programme.

The planning application in the name of council project manager David Johnston is accompanied by more than 20 documents, most of them drawings showing the location of the first section of the roads network.

Scottish Borders Council faced criticism from several quarters after the acquisition of Lowood from the Hamilton family was confirmed in December 2018. 

The Cayman transactions involving island-based companies identified as Lowood Estates Ltd. and Genesis Trust & Corporate Services Ltd were uncovered by former SBC councillor the late Andrew Farquhar via a Freedom of Information [FOI] request.

An earlier information request revealed the list of additional costs incurred by the council on behalf of its taxpayers. These were:  Foreign Options £3,100.00; Surveyors Fees  £80,944.03; Sellers Solicitors Legal Fees & Outlays  £72,170.55; VAT on Surveyors & Legal Fees £30,596.92; Land & Buildings Transaction Tax  £422,250.00; Deed registration Lowood, Melrose  £7,500; Valuation Reports £16,163.80. On top of that the costs of temporary borrowing for the purchase of Lowood were estimated at £780,000.

A so-called Tweedbank Master Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance [SPG] contained some details of the planned project although the actual number of new homes to be built has not been fixed. In some cases the figure of 300 houses is quoted but in others it is claimed that number will have to increase substantially if the residential element is to be financially viable.

There have also been warnings of flood risks on part of the site, and opponents say the Lowood development will have a scarring effect on an extremely attractive area and will pose a threat to wildlife.

According to a confidential report prepared for the council by consultants Turner & Townsend the grand total needed to complete the Masterplan measures stood at £216.319 million in January 2018, close to a preliminary estimate of £220 million.

The Lowood phase would, said the report, require £106 million, including a £10 million sum to cover acquisition of the estate. Various infrastructure costs linked to the future developments at Tweedbank and set out in the report totalled more than £21 million.

The SPG document produced in 2020 claimed: ""The full development appraisal of the site was considered by Members previously. That initial modelling indicates that the Council’s investment in the site should be recouped through the development phases through the onward sale of the site with 179 jobs created during the construction phase and a further 173 jobs created in the post construction period, and a potential economic impact of £150 million GVA in the economy."

According to consultants LUC: "The high quality environmental setting of the site provides an excellent location for a 'care village' with a dementia hub, the need for which has been identified by the council, where residents and patients could receive therapeutic care.

"The proposed development offers potential to support access along the riverbank, encouraging recreational use of the area, connecting to popular tourist attractions nearby, including Abbotsford House, Melrose Abbey and Scott's View."

Promises! Promises! The Road to Ruin

ELECTION COMMENTARY (PART ONE) by JED FORRESTER

I see the campaign leaflets from candidates keen to secure a perch at Scottish Borders Council for the next five years have started pinging through our letter box.

Here in Jedburgh the Conservatives - they were in joint charge of council services from 2017 until 2022 - and the Scottish National Party who formed the 'official opposition' have already provided us with their respective fanciful lists of promises should we decide to vote for them. No doubt the other political groups won't be far behind.

I was particularly intrigued by the Tories' "five priorities for Jedburgh & District", particularly the pledge regarding our appalling roads and pavements. As a motorist who frequently has the misfortune to judder over the lower half of Jedburgh's Oxnam Road on an almost daily basis I'd certainly welcome some extra cash being used to fill in the widening craters.

And if your suspension survives the Oxnam Road ordeal then why not treat it to a trip of torture across the Howdenburn junction (opposite the former primary school site) where the surface resembles a thoroughfare in Kyiv after a blast from Putin's artillery.

For Oxnam Road and Howdenburn substitute virtually every other street or highway in the royal burgh. Wherever you roam underfoot conditions are simply shocking.

Our Tory hopeful tells us: "Over the last five years we have increased our spending on roads but we need to go further. We also need to develop easier ways to report defects so that repairs can take place quicker".

The situation in the real world is somewhat different. 

Shortly before ending their five-year term at the helm the joint administration at Newtown St Boswells voted through (and heralded) a roads budget which they claimed would be worth an estimated £95 million over the next ten years.

But what they forgot to mention was the small matter of the Borders roads repairs backlog which  is in urgent need of a mere £97.280 million to wipe it out, according to information released in response to a Freedom of Information request. So the new budget will not even halt the decline let alone deliver noticeable improvements.

Scottish local government benchmarking statistics show the very low position occupied by the Borders council in a national league table on roads infrastructure spending.

The data covers all 32 local councils, and the returns for 2021 make for depressing reading from a Borders viewpoint. No less than 37 per cent of our 'A' class roads are in need of attention, a larger proportion than in 2017 while the Scottish average is down at 30 per cent. The Borders percentage is the third highest in the country.

The situation on local 'B' class roads is equally unsatisfactory with 40% in need of repair (Scottish average 34%) while 38% of 'C' routes require extra cash (34% across Scotland). More than half of Scottish Borders unclassified roads (52%) need repairs, way above Scotland's mean figure of 38%.

All of this suggests that if spending on Borders roads has increased over the last five years then it's had little impact on our virulent pothole plague.

The annual spend by SBC on roads (per kilometre) has been distinctly underwhelming - £6,014 compared to the Scottish average figure of £9,667. 

So the 'new' Tory promises on cash for roads without any mention of values or costs should be taken with an extremely large pinch of salt.

To be fair the SNP offering is equally vague. The party's Jedburgh & District leaflet declares: "Improve our roads by increasing investment and using the technology we need to improve how we repair potholes, improve verges and manage flooding".

COMING NEXT: HOW HAS THE COUNCIL PERFORMED IN OTHER SPHERES?

Council borrows £20 million "after start of purdah"

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

It has been revealed that Scottish Borders Council borrowed £20 million from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) last month, the largest single loan taken out by the local authority for 15 years.

And the arrangement which will require annual interest payments of £476,000 was made on March 23rd, barely a week before elected members held their final council meeting on Thursday of this week before demitting office in preparation for Scotland's local government elections on May 5th.

The ten-year loan which will run until March 2032 is the first cash advance requested from PWLB by the Borders local authority since September 2019 when the sum of £7.5 million was borrowed over 15 years. The largest single sum borrowed was £24 million obtained to fund capital projects in November 2007, one of over 50 separate loans in SBC's portfolio. That one runs until 2052.

The current council administration - an alliance of Conservatives and Independents - has been in office since 2017. When nominations for the forthcoming elections closed this week 12 out of 34 councillors had decided not to seek re-election. There will be 77 candidates from a range of political parties contesting the eleven multi-member council wards.

According to Scottish Borders Council - Pre-election Period Guidance Local Government Election 2022 a 13-page document posted on SBC's website: "What is the pre-election period? It is the period between the announcement of an election and the date of the count. It is generally taken to be from the publication of the notice of election until polling day, inclusive of both days. 

"This is the timeframe referred to in the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Government Publicity , which guides Councils on the issue of publicity. For the Local Government Election to be held on 5th May 2022, the pre-election period begins on 14th March 2022. 

"The main significance of the pre-election period is in the need for heightened sensitivity to ensure that public resources are not used in any way that might prejudice the result of an election. The pre-election period has in the past commonly been known as ‘purdah’. However, this is felt by some to be an inappropriate term because of its cultural and religious origins and thus its usage is being phased out."

So, technically, the £20 million loan from PWLB was secured after the beginning of the so-called Pre-election period although there is no suggestion the move may have breached the pre-election code.

We asked the council if the cash was earmarked for a specific project or projects or would it be used to balance the books at the end of the 2021/22 financial year. We also asked what the annual interest payments would be.

In response SBC told us: " It’s a 10 year loan of £20,000,000 from the PWLB at a rate of 2.28% to finance the capital programme. It was taken before the Bank of England MPC [Monetary Policy Committee] hiked the base rate in March by a further 0.25%. This decision therefore saved the Council £50,000 per annum, an estimated £500,000 on a comparative basis over the duration of the loan.

"It was not required to 'balance the books' but was a tactical decision to meet part of the Council’s capital financing requirement as set out in the Council’s published Treasury Strategy. Projects to be funded are set out in the published capital plan and included the ongoing Hawick Flood protection scheme, Galashiels Academy and Peebles High school amongst others.

"The annual interest rate is 2.38%. The cost will be £476,000 per annum which is funded within the approved Budget for loans charges."

Leading councillors and officials in the Borders maintain the authority has plenty of headroom in which to accommodate additional borrowing.

There was no public mention of the £20 million loan during recent budget debates at SBC when spending levels were being set. Members of the ruling group complained about inadequate funding settlements from the SNP Scottish Government which had resulted in some £63 million of expenditure cuts/savings since 2017.

But Councillor Stuart Bell, (SNP), leader of the opposition group warned at a council meeting in February: "This council is forecasting to be paying on average £21.5 million every year in interest costs. An argument can be made to borrow now because interest rates are low, but even at low interest rates the money needs to be repaid.

"Look again at the revenue budget. Think for a moment what services might be provided if just a small part of that £21 million wasn't tied up financing borrowing."