Valley folks divided over giant Teviot wind farm

SPECIAL FEATURE ON A DEVELOPING BORDERS CONTROVERSY

Soon after a Scottish Government planning reporter retired to consider her verdict on a proposed 45-turbine wind farm in a remote corner of the Scottish Borders campaigners are involved in a new skirmish centred on an even bigger project in a neighbouring valley.

A public inquiry into the Faw Side community wind farm in the Newcastleton-Langholm area concluded its series of hearings earlier this month with a decision expected by early December. Opponents claim the scheme would ruin an unspoilt landscape while supporters point to potential jobs and financial benefits for local projects.

Now, virtually identical arguments are being advanced as the planning process for a 62-turbine facility in the Teviotdale valley, near Hawick, grinds into action. And a number of the parties who expressed strong views over Faw Side seem to be equally passionate about Muirhall Energy's Teviot plans. Letters of objection have arrived from as far away as Australia and California.

This time some opponents are warning of threats to the Teviothead Volcanic Complex and to UNESCO's World Heritage Roman Frontier. But those in favour say they had not heard of these two 'important natural assets' until Muirhall's planning application went in. 

A large bundle of correspondence has already been deposited on the government's Economic Consents Unit website, illustrating the sharp divide within the local community and beyond.

There is strong support for Muirhall's Teviot wind energy concept from the Duke of Buccleuch's estates with a number of the turbines to be sited on Buccleuch land or on the fields and hillsides of the estate's tenants.

But one of the scheme's biggest critics (so far) is a former Buccleuch tenant who bought her 155-acre agricultural holding from the duke before setting up an acclaimed luxury visitor attraction.

The establishment of the top-of-the-range Stouslie farm glamping pods was fraught with difficulty for Carly Anderson after she applied for planning permission for her ambitious venture in the hills beyond Hawick.

Planners at Scottish Borders Council initially rejected the proposals claiming the pods would be an intrusion in the landscape. Permission was refused in July 2020. But three months later the council's Local Review Body [LRB] overturned that negative decision.

The LRB declared: "The development is considered to be an appropriate and justified tourism use in an attractive location".

Now the Andersons are faced with the prospect of their fledgling business being ruined if Muirhall is allowed to erect skyscraper-sized turbines directly opposite the glamping site.

In her detailed submission to the Energy Consents Unit, Mrs Anderson explains: "Last year we began the construction of small family run Glamping site called Stouslie Snugs Luxury Farm Glamping and opened at the very end of June 2021. The reason for this farm diversification was to secure our farming future and provide a tangible opportunity for our son if he would like to continue farming when he grows up."

She describes obtaining planning permission for the site as "a difficult experience" that lead to the proposal initially being rejected as the planning officer decided that 3.2m high and 7m long timber Glamping pods that were only 175m away from the farm house were in a... "site that occupies an isolated and exposed location where the landscape and visual impacts of the proposals fail to sympathetically integrate with the character, appearance and sense of place of the surrounding rural area."

Mrs Anderson continues: "Now by comparison, this new onshore wind farm proposal is on a whole new level. It isn't just an average onshore wind farm where the total height of a wind turbine is around 125m. This goes way above and beyond that with tip heights at 240 metres. 

"This is higher than some of the UK's largest skyscrapers based in London such as the 30 St Mary Axe (The Gherkin) at 180m and more than double the height of Big Ben which is 96 metres tall. You combine that height with the volume of structures and this wind farm will catastrophically change our landscape forever! The industrialisation of what is a picturesque landscape towering over the historic borders town of Hawick. 

"How can this proposal comply with any part of our Local Development Plan? A plan that was put in place to safeguard our beautiful untouched landscape and prevent development that will ruin our region. I hope this application is treated with the same scrutiny, regulations and rules that applied to our small 3.2m high Glamping pods that were ultimately deemed too visible."

Her powerful argument includes an extremely gloomy prediction should the Teviot wind farm get the go-ahead.

"For us personally, the sheer magnitude and area covered by this proposal will undoubtedly have a dramatic effect on our Glamping business. Our site was designed in every way around the view over the rolling hills and skyline of the Teviotdale valley either side of Skelfhill Pen. Each pod is pointed towards this view and we installed floor to ceiling full glass front to enjoy the view even when you are inside the pod. 

"It is what every single guest that has stayed with us comments on... Wow! That. View! It's our unique selling point and the reason that guests choose to stay with us over other Glamping sites across the UK. If this wind farm is approved this view (one that everyone loves and appreciates) will be destroyed."

Mrs Anderson goes on to state: "Every small business contributes to prosperity of the town and region not just a company that dangles a golden carrot in front of a town in order to get their approval. We have invested a serious amount of money into this business but what happens to us when the bookings drop? And they will drop. Quite honestly all the hard work we have put in so far feels like it has been ripped away from under our feet with this proposal. It's enough to make you cry."

Those views are certainly not shared by Jon Alexander, chief operating officer for Buccleuch.

According to Mr Alexander, Buccleuch have worked closely with the team at Muirhall Energy to understand the Teviot scheme and the positive benefits it will have for the environment, community, and local economy during construction and throughout its lifetime. 

His written submission says: "I should declare that Buccleuch have made land available for the scheme, but this has been after careful thought and consideration. Every land use decision Buccleuch takes involves a delicate balancing act between environmental, community and economic interests and our guiding priorities have environment and community at their core. 

"We now find ourselves in a time of climate crisis, which threatens to change our landscape irrevocably. As a business and a nation, we must make decisions and find solutions to do our part to reverse this, and Teviot windfarm will play an important role in this, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. The proposed development is predicted to produce enough electricity to power 440,000 homes, and offset 412,000 CO2 equivalent each year, when compared to traditional electricity production."

Mr Alexander claims Muirhall, and Buccleuch have thoughtfully discussed the windfarm and Buccleuch were keen to understand the ecological and environmental mitigations included within the development. 

"I was heartened that the wider proposals include innovative landscape enhancement plans, which have been sensitively designed to benefit and enhance the natural environment. The native woodland planting outlined will grow to be enjoyed by future generations, and also brings with it natural climate resilience. Alongside this, there will also be peatland restoration and habitat creation, all of which will increase the biodiversity of the area."

Both Buccleuch and Muirhall were keen that the Teviot windfarm works for the community. Following consultation, the number of turbines was reduced. 

"These will sit across various landholdings in the area, with the majority situated outwith Buccleuch’s Borders Estate. When constructed, Teviot windfarm will also work for the community financially by providing the largest community investment package of its kind in the UK. Muirhall have estimated that the scheme could produce £2.8m annually for local communities to spend on what matters to them most."

Mr Alexander concludes: "We find ourselves at a pivotal moment when we can make positive changes to address the climate crisis. At times, these will be difficult and challenge our thoughts on the natural environment. Our landscapes are ever changing and have been so ever since our ancestors first settled many millennia ago. It is continually being reshaped and will continue to be so long after you and I are gone. It is important that we endeavour to do the right thing for both our environment and communities while making these decisions. The Teviot Windfarm, which will be in place for a finite period, is an opportunity to help redress the climate imbalance and hopefully provide a sustainable future for the next generation."  

Avocet's £200,000 Loch Lomond jetty sells for £22,500

DOUGLAS SHEPHERD reports on MORE INSOLVENCY WOES FOR AVOCET

A dilapidated pier on the shores of Loch Lomond which was purchased by the directors of Avocet Faculties PLC for £200,000 in 2017 has realised a tenth of that sum in a fire sale organised by the company's joint administrators.

News of the £22,500 price tag on the recently-sold clapped out landing stage at Port a Chaipuill, Arrochar is included in a final report by administrators appointed to Avocet Faculties before the insolvent business transfers from administration to a Creditors' Voluntary Liquidation (CVL).

It is the latest financial setback for the troubled Avocet Group of companies, formerly chaired by bankrupt businessman Martin Frost.

The jetty and a narrow strip of land was being been used as security for a loan Faculties had arranged with its former parent Avocet Infinite PLC (now called Omega Infinite and in compulsory liquidation). The administrators of Faculties and the liquidators of Omega are both employed by insolvency practitioners Begbies Traynor.

When shareholders discovered details of the £200,000 jetty purchase, which took place in October 2017, there was strong criticism of Faculties' management - Mr Frost who resigned as a director in 2020, and his colleague Dr Bob Jennings.

Faculties' joint administrator Jason Ainge writes in the latest report on inquiries into the company's failure: "The joint administrators previously identified unusual payments that required further investigation and time has been incurred liaising with the company's bank to obtain additional information.

"It would be prejudicial to the investigations to comment in any further detail at this stage. It is uncertain whether these investigations will provide a financial benefit to creditors".

The report also reveals that an offer in the sum of £280,000 was received and accepted for two Berwickshire farm cottages - the subject of a separate financial security arrangement with Omega which was owed a total of £807,000 when Faculties descended into administration.

Mr Ainge comments: "Advice was received as to the validity of the security granted to Omega".

It has also emerged that the company owed money on various fronts to HMRC. These debts comprised VAT, PAYE Income Tax, employee National Insurance contributions, student loan deductions and Construction Industry Scheme deductions. HMRC has a secondary preferential claim of £21,860 relating to outstanding PAYE for the period April 2018 to July 2019. Unsecured creditors have filed claims totalling £110,334.

Mr Ainge explains that administrators have a statutory duty to investigate the conduct of the directors and any person they consider to be or have been a shadow or de facto director during the period of three years before the date of their appointment, in relation to their management of the affairs of the company and the causes of its failure.

He states: "The joint administrators have undertaken a detailed investigation of the manner in which the business was conducted prior to administration and have submitted their report to the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [BEIS] in this regard.

"The joint administrators have continued to liaise with and provide information and documentation to BEIS in relation to queries that have arisen relative to the report".

A shareholder who contacted us after reading Mr Ainge's report said: "We're no nearer to finding out why Frost and co splurged £200,000 of our cash on a low value ribbon of land and a rotting jetty hundreds of miles from where Avocet was supposed to be developing cutting edge fuel products and working on revolutionary agricultural processes. Surely we have a right to know".

Avocet directors' conduct under fire again

EXCLUSIVE by OUR BUSINESS EDITOR

The directors and company secretary of an insolvent Avocet businesses attempted to 'divert' company assets while they were being sold by the firm's administrator for the benefit of creditors, it has been claimed.

Emma Porter, the administrator of Orrdone Farms Ltd. (formerly called Avocet Farms) describes the efforts to frustrate the disposal of Agricultural Entitlements in a newly published progress report to Orrdone's 150 creditors.

Ms Porter, of the accountancy firm Aver, has been bombarded with verbal abuse since her appointment in 2020 by former Avocet chairman Martin Frost, the bankrupt businessman who fronted the failed Avocet enterprise. It was supposed to revolutionise fuel production and agricultural processes, but now shareholders fear they have lost an estimated £20 million pounds.

Earlier this month, an email sent to investors by Mr Frost but carrying the name of a mysterious individual named Tim Carter issued a sinister pledge to 'exterminate' Ms Porter's Edinburgh-based firm of accountants.

Mr Frost's repeated letters to shareholders in which he vowed to sue Ms Porter and a host of others he blames for Avocet's "£200 million losses" appear to have had little affect on the Orrdone administration.

Ms Porter repeats her earlier dismissal of the various allegations levelled against her by Mr Frost in her new report.

She writes: "I continue to be made aware from a number of sources of extensive correspondence issued to a wide variety of parties commenting directly on the administration procedure or the administrator personally.

"The extensive correspondence continues to be at best, often inaccurate and in many instances inappropriate. As stated in previous reports, our investigations suggest the primary purpose of these communications is to deflect attention away from the matters in hand in order to cause unnecessary delay to the progress of the administration".

Ms Porter also confirms the continuation of the non-cooperation of all the directors which has been a feature of the administration from the outset. "As this is in direct contravention of their statutory duties as directors, the joint administrators are pursuing legal channels available to them under the Insolvency Act".

The background to the sale of Orrdone's so-called Agricultural Entitlements is set out in detail in Ms Porter's report. The Entitlements are rights that a farmer must hold to claim direct payments under the Basic Payment Scheme. Each entitlement has a value and must be matched against an eligible hectare of land.

The company owned 129.14 hectares of entitlements when it entered administration. Sales were agreed with independent third parties and the documentation was passed to the Rural Payments and Inspection Division [RIPD] to process the transfers.

Ms Porter states: "It is noted the directors and the company secretary (of Orrdone) also attempted to interfere with the process to divert these assets and to prevent these from being realised for the benefit of the creditors. The matter has been resolved with £16,967.71 being realised net of costs".

The administrator also notes that shortly after the period covered by her latest report (January to July 2022) she was notified by Companies House that Eirlys Lloyd Company Services Ltd. had resigned as Orrdone's company secretary.

"The administrator did not consent to this or receive any advance notice of the intention to resign. During the next period we will be liaising with Companies House to clarify why the resignation was accepted without the administrator's consent".

Orrdone's secured creditor UK Agricultural Lending Ltd. was owed £3.25 million at the outset of the administration. The report reveals: "As of May 1, 2022 the sum of £4,568,090.07 remains outstanding. Interest will continue to run on the outstanding debt until it has been settled".

The total claimed by creditors amounts to £11,350,601 including £10,395,737 from former parent company Omega Infinite PLC which is in compulsory liquidation.

Ms Porter says she is monitoring the progress of Mr and Mrs Frost's bankruptcies as any dividend payable will have an impact on the company's position.

Wimbledon hospitality for Borders MPs

by OUR POLITICAL STAFF

The latest edition of Private Eye magazine includes a "Summer of Freebies Special" which catalogues the generous hospitality dished out by companies to Westminster MPs who somehow found time to attend prime sporting events and escape from their demanding political life for a short while. 

The long list of beneficiaries included the two members of parliament with constituencies in the Scottish Borders who were the recipients of 'freebies' on the same day and at the same venue.

John Lamont (Conservative), the member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, and his Tory colleague David Mundell who represents Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale along with Douglas Ross, their party leader in Scotland were treated to a day at Wimbledon's All England Tennis Club for the championships on July 4.

The day out "with associated hospitality" was provided for the three MPs by Diageo, Scotland's largest whisky producer which owns a range of drinks brands including Guinness and Johnnie Walker.

According to the latest entries in the House of Commons Register of Members' Interests the value of the entertainment provided for each of the trio is given as £475.

At the same time the House was sitting on July 4th with a busy schedule for those in attendance. The 'official' summer recess did not begin until July 21.

On US Independence Day this country's MPs were given a detailed statement by Prime Minister Boris Johnson following the NATO, G7 and Commonwealth summits. following Education Questions.

In the evening there was a series of Divisions during a debate on the important Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill. According to Hansard, the official parliamentary record of House of Commons proceedings the three Wimbledon attendees did not vote in any of the Divisions.

That was also the case when a vote was required to approve the Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Regulations. The House finally adjourned at 10.19 pm.

Meanwhile in nearby Westminster Hall a three hour long debate heard multiple views and opinions on the subject of Assisted Dying.

The Private Eye coverage of the 'summer of schmoozing' ends with this observation: "Once a variety of other great British days out including golf at the Open and racing at Ascot are added in, up to about the middle of July, MPs had, by the Eye's reckoning, enjoyed more than 70 summer junkets owing to the generosity of paymasters who want something from them.

"Constituents who can afford neither to schmooze to get their views heard nor to pay for anything like the recreation their representatives get free of charge will surely be delighted for them".

Audit of Borders Food Law service uncovers serious weaknesses

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Auditors who carried out an inspection of Scottish Borders Council's Food Law enforcement service identified serious weaknesses in a department understaffed by more than 50 per cent as a result of recruitment issues.

Scottish Government agency Food Standards Scotland has published the findings of its first audit of the Borders regime since 2016. While a number of recommendations have been implemented following the audit in early 2022 there are a number of passages in the document which appear to give cause for concern.

In a section headed Level of Assurance the auditors use generous helpings of red ink to state: "Insufficient Assurance Controls are not acceptable and have notable weaknesses. There are significant weaknesses in the current risk, governance and/or control procedures, to the extent that the delivery of objectives is at risk. Exposure to the weaknesses identified is sizeable and requires urgent mitigating action."

The main aim of the so-called Capacity and Capability Audit is to maintain and improve consumer protection and confidence by ensuring that local authorities are providing an effective food law enforcement service.  

Specifically, this audit aimed to evaluate the organisational, management and information systems in place to ensure they are effective and suitable to achieve the objectives of the relevant food law; assess the capacity and capability of the council to deliver the food service; and provide a means to identify under performance in local authority food law enforcement systems.

According to the report on SBC: "Currently, the team leader is supported by two Environmental Health Officers and one Food Safety Officer. The total number of officers in the team equates to a total of 2.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). At present, the team is operating with an over 50% deficit in personnel. The total allocated operational FTE within the planned structure is 5.5."

On capacity the audit found that the council's current resource for conducting a full programme of official controls was insufficient.

"The authority has not produced a current Service Delivery Plan. The Service plan provided for the purposes of the audit was last updated in 2019 and therefore is no longer relevant or current. The accuracy of the Management Information System [MIS] was difficult to establish during the audit.

"A number of different spreadsheets were provided with different figures which the Auditors were unable to verify. The authority was not able to provide a full database download of all registered food establishments, with risk ratings and dates of last and due interventions."

So far as capability is concerned the auditors' report comments: "The authority has not implemented in full the Food Law Rating System as required by the Interventions Food Law Code of Practice 2019 and the LA [Local Authority] Recovery Process. The intervention programme provided was incomplete and not produced in line with the LA Recovery Process. Interventions in some approved establishments have not been completed at the required frequencies and a number of interventions are overdue." 

It was difficult to attain an accurate record of the number of registered Borders food establishments during the audit. A number of different spreadsheets were provided, each with different figures. These did not match data held on the Scottish National Database and as a result, auditors were unable to verify the information. The Authority was not able to provide a full database download of all registered food establishments, with risk ratings and dates of the last and due interventions.

"It became apparent during the audit that there is difficulty with generating management reports from the LA’s Management Information System (MIS) due to the lack of experienced staff trained in the MIS. There is a lack of administration support for the food team and the expertise in running and accessing the MIS appear to sit out with the team in another department. The proposed new Enterprise system should improve the ability to run reports from the MIS but it would be beneficial if officers within the Food and Health and Safety team received training to allow them to run MIS reports rather than rely on persons out with the service."

An intervention programme was created and restarted on the 1st of September 2021, however, it became apparent during the audit that not all food establishments had been included in the intervention programme, and there was a portion of approximately 800 premises which were currently sitting outside of the programme with no risk rating. 

"The Auditors were informed that these premises were allocated to an officer last year to complete the desktop transfer to the Food Law Rating System (FLRS), (Step 1 of the recovery process) which was started but was not finished due to the officer leaving."

Food Standards Scotland also explain in the report that taken from the spreadsheets provided, a total of 104 planned interventions and 64 new business interventions had been completed to date. There were  81 overdue interventions on the current programme dated up until the 28th of February 2022. 

"Unfortunately, due to the way in which the spreadsheets were provided, the Auditors were unable to determine whether planned interventions were being completed on time (within 28 days of the planned date of inspection) in accordance with the Food Law Code of Practice. The spreadsheets on interventions completed did not show the date the intervention was completed and therefore the Auditors were unable to assess if these had been completed on time. Evidence indicated that on some occasions the period of time between interventions in approved establishments has and is exceeding 12 months. This is not in compliance with SBC’s own procedures on approved establishments."

Scottish Borders Council did not provide its internal monitoring procedure at the time of Audit. An internal monitoring procedure for programmed food inspections last reviewed in 2015 was provided after the Audit. However, it was noted that no evidence of the procedure being in practice was identified during the audit. 

"There was a notable lack of evidence provided to demonstrate regular qualitative or quantitative internal monitoring of food law interventions carried out by officers. The intervention programme is not being routinely monitored. Some policies and procedures are documented but have not been reviewed, maintained and/or approved (where required). 

"Fifteen out of seventeen policies and procedures requested for the audit remain outstanding for one or more of the above reasons. A timetable to review all policies and procedures is required, for which the authority is aware and is already starting to put plans in place for."

Council's "two chief executives" mystery

by LESTER CROSS

A brief article in a local government 'trade' magazine has provoked speculation over the status of Scottish Borders Council's departing chief executive although a number of elected councillors claim they are completely in the dark and have not been told about the latest developments.

Although it was announced in June that the current head of service Netta Meadows would be leaving her £130,000-a-year post in September after just 18 months in the job, a council statement made it clear she would be continuing in the role during a three-month notice period.

The announcement from SBC took many by surprise. But, according to Councillor Euan Jardine, the Conservative member who was chosen to be council leader following May's local government elections: "We wish Netta all the best in her future venture, and until her departure in September, I am very much looking forward to continuing to work closely with her and her senior leadership team.”

But the article on the website of the respected Municipal Journal claims Ms Meadows is in fact believed to be on gardening leave while she serves her notice.

And the news story goes much further than that.

It says: "A council chief executive who announced she would be stepping down after just 18 months in the role is understood to have submitted a grievance.

"Well-placed sources have said the council has turned down a request for an independent investigation into her grievance.

"A hearing to discuss the grievance has been scheduled for Thursday 8 September – the day before Ms Meadows is due to leave."

The journal adds that a council spokesperson said Ms Meadows was still employed as chief executive but declined to comment on whether any grievance had been submitted or whether she was working as normal. The article ends by stating "The subject of the grievance is not known."

At the same time it is confirmed that David Robertson, SBC's Chief Financial Officer is currently Acting Chief Executive although there has been no formal announcement concerning that appointment.

It is not clear when Mr Robertson took over the chief executive function. But a document dated July 27th and titled update from SLT (Senior Leadership Team) is signed off 'David Robertson, Acting Chief Executive, Scottish Borders Council'.

The same designation is used on a number of reports which will be considered by councillors at a full meeting of the local authority this coming Thursday.

But it is apparent that some of those elected members are unhappy not to have been made aware of the full facts surrounding the resignation of Ms Meadows.

One of those told us: "The situation has existed for weeks yet it seems those at the top are determined to keep many of us out of the loop using 'legal reasons' as an excuse. How can that be right when we are all elected to represent the Borders public. After all, it is public money which pays the salaries of our officers".

Another source commented: "The Municipal Journal appears to have been told that Netta Meadows remains chief executive for now. But at the same time Borders Council has an acting chief executive. So, which is it?"

COVID=increased homelessness

by EWAN LAMB

A newly published set of statistics shows the number of homeless households in the Scottish Borders in temporary accommodation in March of this year was at its highest level since 2008, and increased by eleven per cent from the 2021 figure.

However, the Scottish Government, which produced the data, believes the increases in homelessness and the spiralling number of days individuals and families are spending in temporary accommodation is at least partly attributable to the recent Covid pandemic.

The charts show there were 108 Borders households in temporary housing in 2022, up from 97 in 2021. The numbers for previous years indicate there were just six households being accommodated in 2003. But by 2008 the number had soared to 120.

The Borders recorded a 20 per cent increase (30 compared to 25 in 2021) for households with children or a pregnant woman in temporary accommodation. The comparable figures for 2003 and 2008 were nil and 30 respectively.

Also of concern: there were 50 Borders children affected by homelessness, 25 per cent more than the 2021 figure of 40.

The number of households entering temporary accommodation during 2021/22 totalled 204 while in 178 cases those involved were able to exit the temporary arrangements.

Average number of days spent in temporary residences (165) was the highest figure for many years. The averages for previous years were: 2017/18 137 days; 2018/19 152 days; 2019/20 135 days; and 2020/21 135 days.

Single people seeking help averaged 159 days in temporary accommodation while single parents spent an average of 215 days in properties provided by the local authority and housing associations. Borders couples stayed on average for 70 days in this type of accommodation.

There was also a significant increase in the average number of days from assessment to closure for applications assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Borders figure in 2021/22 was 168 days (2020/21 139 days). Back in 2002/3 each case took 37 days on average from assessment to closure.

A report from the Scottish Government which accompanies the national charts and tables explains: "Local authorities are reporting on-going effects of COVID-19 on homelessness service provision. In particular, many are experiencing high levels of backlogs due to both the increase in the number of households in temporary accommodation, and the extended periods households are staying in temporary accommodation. 

"There was an increase in the number of households and length of time in temporary accommodation over the pandemic due to local authorities being unable to close cases. This was a result of restrictions limiting the ability to move households into permanent accommodation, including difficulties in carrying out necessary repairs, challenges conducting viewings due to households shielding or self-isolating, and a lower level of lets due to staff, especially registered social landlords, being furloughed. 

"In addition, some households who had previously chosen not to take up temporary accommodation provided by the local authority, now required it as the alternative arrangements they had made were no longer viable due to the pandemic. These backlogs have more recently been further exacerbated by a shortage of tradespeople and building materials, as well as the increased cost of materials, both of which are limiting the ability to prepare properties for use (as settled and temporary accommodation), particularly between tenancies."

Intellectual ownership patently in doubt

by LESTER CROSS

The dispute over the ownership of intellectual property linked to the Avocet 'wonder' fuel additive has deepened following the emergence of a document purporting to show that a deal to acquire the patents from "previous" owners AFS Ventures Ltd was completed in 2017.

This contrasts sharply with a recently published report from Eric Walls, the joint liquidator of AFS Ventures who claimed last month that the level of consideration in respect of the sale had not been paid.

Mr Walls wrote in his progress report on the liquidation of AFS Ventures - a procedure which has been in progress since 2015 - "Therefore, it is considered that the title to the intellectual property has not passed and remains with the company (AFS). The position remains under review".

After Mr Walls' report received coverage by Not Just Sheep & Rugby, Martin Frost, the now bankrupt former chairman of the Avocet group of companies, alleged in an email sent to 'colleagues' including investors in the troubled business that the Walls report was 'erroneous'.

He stated: "Via subtle pressure upon the AFS Ventures Plc liquidator’s legal advisors an erroneous Ventures company report was recently issued. Such report was seized upon by the media and Police Scotland (who urged on by the Orrite & Lord Advocate) thought they could tarnish ab initio the Avocet UN dossier."

The correspondence from Mr Frost, dated August 5th, also claimed the insolvency and legal professions were indulging in an abuse of power. He said: " The gist of their new ploy is that Avocet never had any intellectual property because the liquidator of AFS Ventures Plc owns it, and furthermore because the intellectual property belongs to Ventures, Omega must have been trading insolvently from an early date."

In an apparent effort to prove his point Mr Frost also circulated copies of a so-called deed signed in March 2017 between Avocet Infinite PLC (now called Omega Infinite and in compulsory liquidation) and AFS Ventures. Mr Frost was a director of both businesses.

The deed states that in December 2014 Ventures agreed to sell its shareholding in AFS Fuels Ltd and ICI Fuels Inc. (a Delaware company) for the sum of £683,000 to certain Ventures creditors.

According to the document, Avocet and Ventures entered into an agreement dated December 18th 2014 relating to the purchase of various intellectual property [IP] rights including those listed in the agreement by Avocet from Ventures.

Following that agreement a total of £303,000 was paid by or on behalf of Avocet to Ventures between December 2014 and December 2015. Meanwhile Ventures entered a solvent members' voluntary liquidation in January 2015.

"On February 23rd 2015 an assignment was entered into between Ventures and Avocet Solutions Inc. (as nominee of Avocet under the December 2014 agreement) regarding some of the IP rights (i.e. the UK patent applications) which James Robert Jennings [a colleague of Mr Frost] was authorised to sign by Eric Walls.

It had been agreed, says the document, in January 2015 between Mr Walls, the liquidator of Ventures and two of Avocet directors that two other companies would agree to accept equity in Avocet Infinite Ltd. instead of any surplus in the Ventures estate (if such arose).

"In the period 2014 to the date of the deed (March 2017) Avocet and or its connected entities and or persons on its behalf made payments in excess of $1 million towards the development of the IP rights."

The deed then reveals that in June 2015 a company called Beech Holdings, registered in Western Samoa, submitted a Proof of Debt for £720,000 in the Ventures liquidation based on a guarantee dated April 2014. "The Ventures liquidator rejected the Proof of Debt in June 2016".

Further proofs of debt were submitted in the Ventures liquidation by three former directors of Ventures.

Eventually, in December 2016 a settlement was entered into by Beech Holdings, Ventures (acting by its liquidator), Avocet and the three ex-executives of Ventures. Payments of £550,000 to Beech Holdings and £120,000 in total to the three former Ventures directors were funded entirely by Avocet, says the deed. Avocet also agreed to pay Ventures legal costs of £138,000.

And it goes on to state: "Eric Walls has confirmed that the figure estimated in the Ventures declaration of solvency of £1,850,000 for trade and expense creditors was over-stated. Similarly, the provision for costs and expenses of £1 million was overstated, and in fact likely to be in the region of £162,000".

A crucial passage of the deed reads: "It is now agreed by Ventures that Avocet has provided £2,780,000 of consideration to date and will provide within 12 months of the date of this deed a further £493,000 of consideration for the transfer of the IP rights under the December 2014 agreement." It is not known whether the outstanding £493,000 was paid to Ventures. 

The next section says that for the avoidance of doubt, from February 23rd 2015 in respect of the Ventures UK patent applications it assigned all of its rights, title, interest and benefit in the IP rights to the Avocet group of companies and that it has received full and final consideration for that assignment.

"Ventures also confirms that it owns no other IP rights whatsoever and that all that it has ever owned are now owned by the Avocet group of companies".

The deed circulated by Mr Frost was apparently signed by Mr Frost and by Janet Orr Frost on behalf of Avocet, and by Mr Walls and by Wayne Harrison as joint liquidators of AFS Ventures.

In a bid to establish the veracity of the 'deed' emails were sent to Mr Walls and to KSA Group, the company he works for, on August 7th. To date Not Just Sheep & Rugby has not received a response from either email address.

In a further email dated August 9th Avocet shareholders were told by 'Tim Carter' (the representative of the mysterious Parachute Holdings): 

"I have not received confirmation from the liquidator of AFS Ventures Plc that he has surrendered all interest in Avocet / Genfro intellectual property. This I expect to receive later this week along with Dr. Bob Jennings Genfro patent assignments."

The good and not so good in Borders fostering and adoption

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

A team of inspectors has given Scottish Borders Council until the end of September to carry out improvements to the region's fostering and adoption services while also listing the strengths of the local regime.

Separate reports published by Scotland's Care Inspectorate today followed visits to the Borders between June 8th and June 29th this year. The inspection resulted in 'adequate' ratings for those aspects of fostering and adoption which came under the watchdog's spotlight. This equates to a 'score' of 3 on a 1-6 scale ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 6 (excellent).

The fostering report explains that in 2021, there was an overall reduction in the number of available foster carers households in the Borders, as three new fostering households were recruited but nine carer households were deregistered. 

This resulted in an overall reduction from 81 to 67 approved places available for children and young people. In recent years, a high proportion of foster placements have converted to continuing care placements as young people have been able to 'stay put' in their foster families, changing the overall profile of the service.

According to the inspectorate the key messages resulting from the investigation were: " Relationships between children and their carers, and carers and the service are strong. Young people are supported to reach their potential in all areas of life. 

"The service needs to bring the language used by the service in line with The Promise, to move away from the use of stigmatising terminology. The service is committed to helping young people maintain connections with their families. The provider [SBC] needs to develop a more robust system for the recording and analysis of incidents and accidents, including child protection concerns and allegations against carers.

"As a matter of urgency, the local authority must ensure that all children in need of permanent care have their assessments completed and plans carried out without unnecessary delay. The provider must ensure that even when a move to a foster family is unplanned, that there is clear identification that the fostering family has the capacity to meet the needs of the child. The service and local authority have embraced the ethos of continuing care, with a large proportion of young people 'staying put' beyond the age of 18.

When it comes to supporting people's wellbeing, the report says: "We have evaluated this key question as adequate, where there were some significant weaknesses which impacted on outcomes for a number of children and young people, but these were just outweighed by important strengths that were found. Many children and young people living in fostering families experienced positive and enduring relationships with their foster carers. Young people felt they were part of their foster families and were valued as individuals."

The council is told: "The service should stop the use of terminology that we know care experienced young people experience as offensive or stigmatising. In particular the service needs to begin to use the national placement descriptor, 'short break' and stop using the term 'respite'"

There were plenty of positives in the report too. Young people experienced continuity in short break provision through the use of friends and family. The service has a clear vision for the provision of short break support for children and carers and is recruiting specifically for this role to provide a pool of carers who can provide consistency to young people who require this service. Carers benefit from a full and varied programme of required training, which supports a therapeutic approach to parenting. Carer progress with training was reviewed in supervision and at the fostering panel.

However, the inspectors also state: "Children in need of permanent care often experience drift and delay in planning and assessment, although we saw some recent examples of good practice. Delay was particularly apparent for children who were older at the time of coming into foster care, and children who were part of large groups of brothers and sisters, but this also applied to some babies and younger children."

The Borders council has permanence monitoring processes in place and supervising social workers and the family placement managers were strong advocates for plans to be progressed, offering knowledgeable support to their children and families team colleagues.

But this had minimal impact on outcomes for many children who remained in temporary care placements, sometimes for many years. As a matter of urgency, the local authority must ensure that all children in need of permanent care have their assessments completed and plans carried out without unnecessary delay.

"Some children and young people experienced moves to foster care that were not well planned and had a destabilising effect on carers and their families. We also noted an example of a carer being outside of statutory limits. The service should improve its referral and matching process, and this will form a requirement. Young people are made aware from an early stage of their right to 'stay put' in continuing care beyond the age of 18, and this ethos has clearly been embraced by the local authority resulting in excellent outcomes for those young people who stay in placement in all areas of wellbeing."

The inspection report says that by 30 September 2022, the provider must ensure that all children in need of permanent care have their assessments completed and plans carried out without unnecessary delay. To do this the provider must, at a minimum, ensure: a) All children in need of permanent fostering have their plans reviewed by managers. b) Managers maintain an overview of all timescales taken when planning for children in need of permanent foster care and address and resource any delays. c) Assessments are carried out and children are presented at permanence panel within timescales. 

And also by 30 September 2022, the provider must ensure that there is clear identification that the fostering family has the capacity to meet the needs of the child. To do this the provider must, at a minimum, ensure: a) There is a clear referral process which outlines the needs to children needing alternative care. b) The strengths and vulnerabilities of carers in relation to meeting the needs of individual children are clearly identified. c) Any carers going over approval are returned to panel for discussion within a short period of time.

The report on the adoption service inspection also makes recommendations aimed at bringing about improvements.

In this case the key messages are: * Relationships between children and their carers, and carers and the service are strong. * Young people are supported to reach their potential in all areas of life. * The service needs to bring the language used by the service in line with The Promise, to move away form the use of stigmatising terminology. * The service is committed to helping young people maintain connections with their families. 

"*The provider needs to develop a more robust system for the recording and analysis of incidents and accidents, including child protection concerns and allegations against carers. * As a matter of urgency, the local authority must ensure that all children in need of permanent care have their assessments completed and plans carried out without unnecessary delay. * The provider must ensure that even when a move to a foster family is unplanned, that there is clear identification that the fostering family has the capacity to meet the needs of the child. * The service should take a more proactive approach to post adoption support."

Requirements - By 30 September 2022, the provider must ensure that all children in need of permanent care have their assessments completed and plans carried out without unnecessary delay. To do this the provider must, at a minimum, ensure: a) All children in need of permanent fostering have their plans reviewed by managers. b) Managers maintain an overview of all timescales taken when planning for children in need of permanent foster care and address and resource any delays. c) Assessments are carried out and children are presented at permanence panel within timescales. 

Wind farm's 'threat' to Roman watch tower

by LESTER CROSS

A public inquiry which is hearing objections to the proposed development of a massive windfarm in the Scottish Borders will re-convene later this month when the perceived threat to the cultural heritage in a landscape unchanged for centuries will be examined in detail.

The siting of 45 turbines across a vast tract of unspoilt countryside by CWL Energy Ltd. would make the so-called Faw Side wind farm the largest in the region. However, proposals have been unveiled recently for a 60+ turbine scheme in nearby Teviotdale.

In July the ongoing inquiry being conducted by Scottish Government planning reporter Claire Milne had to be  placed on hold due to the lack of availability of parties to partake in the inquiry and the Ministry of Defence session not taking place. There are serious concerns that the Faw Side blades could have a devastating impact on the unique Eskdalemuir nuclear testing tracking station.

At next week's session Historic Environment Scotland (HES) will set out its position regarding the impact that the proposed wind farm would have on the setting of a nationally important scheduled monument known as Eweslees, Watch Tower, commonly referred to as ‘Ewes Doors Watch Tower’ should the turbines be consented, constructed and become operational.

Among more than 1,200 documents already before the Reporter is a report compiled by Dr Mary MacLeod Rivett of the HES Planning, Consents and Advice Team. Dr MacLeod Rivett considers applications for works to scheduled monuments across southern Scotland and responds to statutory planning consultations relating to scheduled monuments and World Heritage Sites across the same area.

The monument consists of the remains of a Roman Watch Tower (sometimes referred to as a signal station). The remains survive as a small mound approximately 17.5m in diameter, circular in plan and approximately 0.6m high. The small mound is enclosed by a ditch approximately 1.15m wide and 0.15m deep, which is further enclosed by an external bank up to 4m wide and 0.4m high. 

The summit of the mound has been levelled and is approximately 11m in diameter with a circular bank 2.7m wide and 0.15m high. The enclosure has an entrance to the north-north-west which leads to a causeway which crosses the ditch. The interior of the enclosure is approximately 5m across. The timber Roman Watch Tower would have been erected within this area of the enclosure.

Dr MacLeod Rivett explains in her report: "The Watch Tower was first identified in 1962, when it was recorded as circular mound of unknown origin. It was then subsequently visited in 1980 when it was recorded as a possible barrow. This interpretation led to the monument being included as a possible cairn in an inventory of Bronze Age mounds in 1984. 

"The monument was subsequently visited in 1996 by field surveyors who identified the mound as the remains of a timber Roman Watch Tower, a monument type well represented in the archaeological record of Scotland. The monument was further surveyed in 2005 and 2015 , when a detailed plan of the monument was produced. These surveys confirmed the Roman character of the monument. The characteristic form of the monument means that there is no doubt about the type of monument; it is a Roman Watch Tower. Although its date has not been confirmed, it probably dates to the late first century or second century AD, and comparison with other monuments indicates that a late-first/early-second century date is most probable."

The document adds that the monument was scheduled in 2010. It is of national importance because of its field characteristics, its rarity as a visible Watch Tower, and its contribution to our understanding of Roman control over the southern Scotland. The setting of the Roman Watch Tower is integral to its national importance in that it allows the location and function of the Watch Tower to be easily understood, appreciated and experienced. 

Watch Towers were built by the Romans to monitor and control routeways, including strategic passes, glens, roads, and river crossings, as well as at strategic locations with wide views. They functioned by keeping watch, monitoring areas and rapidly transmitting messages. Watch Towers are often associated with adjacent roads. A small group of Roman soldiers would have occupied the Watch Tower. These troops would have been detached from the nearest fort or fortlet and would have been periodically rotated and replaced with fresh troops.

The Roman Watch Tower at Ewes Doors is one of approximately 37 known Roman Watch Towers in Scotland, 31 of which are scheduled. Ewes Doors is one of the better surviving examples of a Roman Watch Tower in Scotland.

Dr MacLeod Rivett makes it clear that from the earliest stage of the scoping consultation for the proposed development, HES have stated that there were significant concerns in relation to the potential impacts of the wind farm on the setting of Ewes Doors Watch Tower.

"The proposed development, of 45 wind turbines, 40 of 200m maximum blade tip height, and 5 of 179.5m blade tip height, together with associated infrastructure would be visible to the north, and west of the scheduled monument, as shown in the applicant's visualisations."

And she concludes: "The proposals would have a significant detrimental impact on the ability to experience, understand and appreciate the factors that contribute so greatly to the setting of the monument and the monument's cultural significance, and thus would have a significant adverse effect on the ability to understand, appreciate and experience the monument, which would not be adequately retained. 

"This effect would be caused by the turbines 6 and 7, and to a lesser degree by turbines 1, 3 and 4. The factors of setting that contribute to cultural significance would be changed such that the understanding, appreciation and experience of the scheduled monument would not be adequately retained. This would have an adverse effect on the integrity of its setting."

The report reveals that HES discussed the impacts of the proposals with the applicant. In a letter of December 2019 a redesign of the proposals was offered to mitigate what were recognised as ‘significant effects on the setting of Eweslees watch tower’. 

HES responded on 8 January 2020 that the redesign, which involved the moving of four turbines, 5, 6, 7 and 9, would be likely to reduce the impacts of the proposals on the setting of the scheduled monument. However, this scheme was not progressed, and the HES objection was not withdrawn.