Gym sign 'harmful to safety and amenity'

by LESTER CROSS

The owner of a Borders fitness centre has lost a planning appeal which means a large advertising sign he had erected in Galashiels without permission to promote his gym will have to be taken down.

Conrad Campbell, who runs his Unit8 Gym in Tweedbank, asked Andrew Sikes, a Scottish Government planning reporter to overturn the decision by Scottish Borders Council to deny approval for the sign on a gable wall in Hall Street. Galashiels.

In a decision notice issued at the weekend, Mr Sikes agreed with the Borders planning department that the sign is harmful to both amenity and road safety.

A supporting statement from Mr Campbell included the following: "The purpose of the sign installation at this location is to increase awareness of the gym’s presence to those residing and working within the central and west side of Galashiels. The gym currently has over 250 members and I’m trying to further increase membership, offering its facilities to everyone in Galashiels and the surrounding areas."

But the planning authority maintained that the advertisement would represent a threat to road safety and would, as a result, impact adversely on public safety at this location. And the advertisement would not relate well to the location at which it is displayed or be in keeping with the character of the building to which it is attached, and would contribute to unsightly clutter, thereby having an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

Mr Sikes issued his decision to reject Mr Campbell's appeal following a site visit to the location.

In his written decision notice, the reporter says: "The proposal is a 3- metre-wide x 2-metre-high non-illuminated static advertisement set within a matt black aluminium frame. The advertisement has been attached at first floor level to the gable end of a two-storey stone-built terraced residential property. The advert promotes a gym in Tweedbank, located approximately 5 kilometres (3.5 miles) from the appeal site."

And, according to Mr Sikes: ". I note the range of views expressed in representations regarding the design and obtrusiveness of the advertisement; some consider it an eyesore, while others comment that it is unobtrusive and fits well with the character of the area. 

"In my assessment, while simple in design and production, the advertisement is large, inappropriately positioned high on the gable end of a residential property and sited in a prominent location close to a principal road. As such, I consider the advertisement obtrusive. Neither does the advert relate to the location at which it is being displayed. 

"Moreover, the street in which it is located is residential in character and, in the vicinity of the appeal site, free of advertising. While there are advertisements in the wider area these are restricted to retail and commercial properties and relate directly to the location at which they are being displayed. Taking these factors together, I agree with the council that the advertisement would be harmful to the character of the building, the amenity of Hall Street and the wider area."

The reporter agreed with the council that the advertisement could cause driver distraction and unacceptably increase risk to public safety. He conclude that the advertisement was detrimental to public safety and as such was contrary to the provisions of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan (2016).

The decision notice concludes: "In addition to comments on the appearance and location of the advert, the appellant [Mr Campbell]refers to a number of other matters in his supporting statement, particularly its purpose, benefits of physical activity and the consent of the property owner to display the advert. While I note the comments, they are not matters relevant to my consideration of this appeal. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed advertisement would be contrary to the interest of amenity and public safety and, accordingly, that advertisement consent should not be granted."

 

  

Open Letter To A Genfro Life President

 DEAR MR LIFE PRESIDENT,

 Apologies for the delay in responding to your 17^th April Genfro shareholders’ letter, but it took me quite a while to disentangle your “crystallised journalist” reference. It was certainly a new one on me, and even after contacting a number of colleagues within our noble profession I was none the wiser. For they had not heard of such a specimen either!

However, after consulting this media outlet’s collection of rare and valuable dictionaries – assembled during a lifetime of writing articles about failed business ventures – I discovered the exact meaning of CRYSTALLISE: “to make or become definite and clear”.

 So, unlike the abusive verbal insults you’ve hurled at me in the past – scant reward for my best journalistic efforts – this time you appear to have unwittingly paid me a back-handed compliment. Because any reporter worth his salt strives to make things definite and clear.

Nevertheless, I have to say it has been particularly demanding to achieve crystallisation during the Avocet fiasco with so much of the information concerning bust businesses locked safely away. Add to that failure to file accounts, and empty promises of investment from wealthy but unidentified sugar daddies and it is easy to see why my task has been so devilishly difficult.

 As an independent observer who has not invested or lost a single penny in the long-running wonder fuel circus, it has been both fascinating and shocking to watch members of the legal profession including procurators fiscal, judges, well-respected insolvency practitioners and fine upstanding members of the Borders community being subjected to your slurs and accusations when there is no evidence that any of them have had a hand in shaping your current predicament. Meanwhile, whenever this aged scribbler tries to inform his small band of readers about the fast-moving drama, featuring the death rattle of the Avocet Empire, he too is swiftly consigned by you, Mr Life President, to the ‘Bad Buggers’ naughty step.

 I see parallels between the Parable of the Fictional Get Rich Quick Wheeze and a much longer running saga which has occupied a good deal of my time since 2016 and which revels in the title Premier New Earth Recycling & Renewables (Infrastructure) PLC Fund. Just Google it for the complete story.

In both cases the business plans were allegedly based on ‘green’ technologies, designed to save the planet from environmental disaster. Gullible sections of the press and media swallowed both narratives, possibly persuading some to part with their cash. And in both cases, hundreds of creditors have been told by administrators or liquidators they will be unable to recoup their extensive financial losses.

In New Earth’s case over 3,000 souls will never see the £220 million invested in the now defunct Isle of Man-based fund. Simply put, New Earth management generated an even longer list of debts than Avocet Farms and Avocet Infinite combined.

 It is worth noting that Scottish Borders Council fell victim to both catastrophic operations, wasting over £2 million in the case of New Earth and ending up out of pocket to the tune of £31,932 from its involvement with Avocet Farms. More fool them!

 And while you, Mr Life President, seek to blame everyone for Avocet’s worthlessness except yourself, the New Earth fund directors claimed they were victims of a witch hunt after they extracted millions of pounds in management fees from what turned out to be a Ponzi operation.

But the similarities between these two notable business collapses do not even end there. In each instance a lax system of business regulation – in one case the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority, in the other the equivalent UK watchdog - allowed both operations to continue unchecked and run on well past their respective sell by dates. Although it must be said there was no Tim Carter on hand to bail out the Manx disaster with his squillions of US dollars. And the Israeli secret service showed no interest whatsoever in the offshore enticements of Premier New Earth.

Here’s hoping my response to your “newsletter” contains at least a smidgeon of crystallisation.

Yours sincerely,

Lapdog to the Bad Buggers

Borders planners approve first phase of Lowood development

EXCLUSIVE by LESTER CROSS

The controversial proposals by Scottish Borders Council for hundreds of new houses in the countryside near Melrose have come a step closer after the authority's own planning officers granted permission to their colleagues in the Estates Department for earthworks and roadbuilding on the 110-acre site.

A decision on the planning application for works at Lowood/Tweedbank which has been under discussion for over a year has been made under delegated powers without the need for consideration by councillors. A total of 20 conditions are attached to the decision notice in a bid to protect the local ecology, bats, badgers and the nearby River Tweed.

Concerns had been expressed over the proposed width of the new road: it was thought at six metres the carriageways would be too narrow to accommodate two large vehicles travelling in opposite directions. But that issue has been resolved and is dealt with in the application handling report by Lead Planning Officer Julie Hayward.

The report states: " There was some concern raised that a 6m width would not be sufficient for two busses, or larger HGV's, to pass. However, 'Designing Streets' and the 'National Roads Development Guide' confirm a 6m carriageway width as acceptable where the anticipated number of larger vehicles is relatively low. 

"Keeping the carriageway width to a workable minimum will help reduce traffic speeds overall. Marginal widening will be required at the bends in the road to allow extra width for vehicles to pass. This will have a minimal visual impact on the development and will ensure that the road infrastructure will be in keeping with the semi-rural nature of the development and with minimal impact, if any, on trees."

The only objection to the application was lodged by planning consultant David Bell, acting for Gowanloch Investments Limited, the owner of salmon fishing rights on the Tweed adjoining the Lowood Estate.

Mr Bell warned that the planning application was not competent as to apply for part of the road infrastructure by way of a planning application without undertaking Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening would be in breach of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) EIA Regulations, and would be unlawful.

He claimed that by 'salami slicing' the overall Lowood scheme into small sections the council could avoid detailed scrutiny of its proposals and their potential impact on the environment. He said: "The proposed development should not be considered in isolation; it should properly be regarded as an integral part of a more substantial development."

And according to Mr Bell: "The potential effects of the road and drainage infrastructure needed to support the Lowood project on the River Tweed's conservation objectives may not be properly considered by the Council ahead of its determination of the application.

"Insufficient detail concerning the scale and type of the mixed use development that is expected to come forward on the Estate in terms of the SPG [Supplementary Planning Guidance] is available at this stage in the overall development cycle; the Council should have regarded the road and drainage infrastructure element as constituting an EIA development."

In her report, Ms Hayward explains: ": It is expected that the development of the Lowood Estate will happen over time in a number of phases and applications. Therefore, it is vital that the guidance set out in the SPG and Design Guide is followed, to ensure the vision for the site as a whole is achieved. 

"The Design Statement submitted with this application advises that earthwork slopes will be minimised where possible to ease the road construction into the topography. The road alignment has been specifically designed to fit into the landscape, reflect the parkland nature of the site and minimise disruption to trees. Due to the level differences between the Innovation Park road (at Tweedbank) and the Estate the proposed road would be on an embankment for 130m then lowered."

Ms Hayward says the design of the development includes mitigation to reduce its visual impact; the sweeping nature of road in the views through the parkland reflecting the organic nature of the parkland character, avoiding the mature parkland trees wherever possible, positioning the proposed road against the wooded backdrop away from the River Tweed and Borders Abbey Way to limit dominance of the road from sensitive viewpoints and new planting. 

"The road has been designed to integrate as much as possible with the topography and parkland landscape to reflect the existing estate road character, by avoiding a heavily engineered approach, using a narrow road width, soft verges (no kerbs) and the gradient of banking to either side of the road would be kept as shallow as possible."

The Design Statement advises that a 6m wide road is proposed, designed to fit into the parkland nature of the site. A 2.5m wide shared footway/cycleway will be constructed next to the road from its junction with the Borders Innovation Park road. 

It is claimed the main impact on residential amenities would be during the construction phase of the new road. Such impacts, it is said, would be short term. 

"A Construction Environmental Management Plan [CEMP] will be secured by condition, which would include assessment, monitoring and mitigation in relation to construction traffic, noise, vibration, dust and air pollutants."

The proposed works include a replacement overflow pipe to take excess water from Lowood pond to the river Tweed. 

Environmental watchdog NatureScot have no objections to the proposal but advise that there is potential for the construction of the road network to impact indirectly on the river through diffuse pollution. Due to the high water quality standards of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation they would expect construction and other work to be carried out in accordance with strict environmental safeguards to prevent contamination of the watercourse with silt, construction material or debris of any description. 

Borders counselling service in schools being well used

by EWAN LAMB

The number of Borders school pupils receiving counselling for mental health and emotional issues last year was significantly higher than in many similar sized Scottish local authorities, and markedly above the level in neighbouring Dumfries and Galloway which is a larger council with more schools and considerably more children in education.

A set of statistics covering all 32 of Scotland's local government area in response to a FOI request has revealed numbers of children and young people accessing counselling during the six month period from January to June 2022. The extensive coverage of the topic, based on returns from each council, also indicates outcomes and trends encountered by the various counselling teams.

Scottish Borders Council, which has approximately 16,500 pupils in its education service outsourced its new mental health and emotional well-being service to social care charity Quarriers several years ago.

In the half-year covered by the reports, 493 Borders pupils accessed in-person provision being offered by Quarriers. This compared to a figure of 263 out of the 18,700 pupils in Dumfries and Galloway.

The numbers in Borders were also above those receiving counselling in East Lothian (160 pupils), Fife (456), Midlothian (179), Inverclyde (95), and Moray (458). The 493 Borders pupils included 43 who were attending primary schools.

A breakdown of the counselling statistics submitted by the Borders council shows the following for each school year: Number of children in P6 22;  P7 21. Number of children in S1 81; S2 124; S3 106; S4 70; S5 41; S6 28. 

The service being delivered by Quarriers appears to be achieving positive results.

According to the SBC return on so-called closed cases: "95% reported an improvement in their ‘Resilience’ 24% reported a reduction in ‘Risk Taking Activity’ 91% reported an improvement in their ‘Ability to Cope’ 45% reported an improvement in their ‘Confidence’ 64% reported an improvement in how they manage ‘Worry/Anxiety’ 14% reported an improvement in ‘Support’ from families and supportive adults."

The range of presenting issues has also been tabulated by the council.

"Presenting issues numbers Exam Stress 37; Self-Harm 57; Trauma 19; Depression 105; Bereavement  14;  Anxiety 238; Gender Identity 12; Emotional/Behavioural Difficulties 150; Substance Use 7; Body Image 33; Other Suicidal Ideation 15; Other Disordered Eating 28; Other Sleep Hygiene 32; Other Confidence/Low Self-Esteem 144; Other Relationship Issues 73."

The comments and reflections section of the Borders authority's return includes the following observations: "We have noted a significant rise in young males accessing the service. 170 male pupils accessed support during this reporting period compared to 134 in the previous report. This is an increase of 27%. 

"We continue to provide emotional health and wellbeing support to Primary 6 and Primary 7 pupils in the cluster areas of Galashiels, Selkirk and Hawick. During this reporting period, we have noted a significant increase in the number of young people in Primary 6 accessing the service (22), compared to 0 in the previous reporting period."

Quarriers explain their service accepts referrals from school Pastoral Staff as well as operating a self-referral and a supported self-referral system. To self-refer, young people are able to make direct contact with the service. Alternatively, a supported self-referral enables parents and professionals to support young people to make contact with the service. 

"Using this method of referral enables young people to take ownership and responsibility of their own mental health and emotional wellbeing. Young people often present with more than one presenting issue and thus there will be more themes counted than cases opened. Depression counted as those young people presenting with ‘low mood’ and not necessarily a clinical diagnosis of Depression. Anxiety counted as those young people presenting with ‘feelings of anxiousness’ and not necessarily a clinical diagnosis of Anxiety."

Scottish Borders Council has been asked for comment.

Borders new housing completions down 8%

by DOUG COLLIE

The sluggish market demand for housebuilding in the Scottish Borders has been further illustrated in a new report which shows completions fell by eight per cent to just 298 in 2021 despite a plentiful supply of land for developers.

An updated Housing Land Audit 2021 assembled by Scottish Borders Council has been produced just days ahead of a public hearing before a Government planning reporter which will examine the housing land issues in the authority's draft Local Development Plan (LDP). The LDP will determine which sites should be earmarked for new housing over the next ten years.

As we have reported recently, Ferguson Planning, a consultancy representing several site owners, claim the future housing land requirement should be increased to 8,000 units for the period 2023-2032.

But the council, in a recent submission to the reporters who are examining the LDP, maintain such a figure would result in a completely unrealistic and unjustified housing land requirement. 

According to SBC: "Furthermore, it is not considered that there is sound justifiable evidence and workings for the proposed figure of 8,000 units over the ten year period." The hearing is scheduled for April 26th.

The council explains that house completions over the period 2009-2020 totalled just 4,263 units while the housing land requirement contained within the adopted Local Development Plan was 13,422 units. Planning officers say allowing for 480 completions annually (4,800 over the coming ten years) will be more than enough to satisfy developers' demands.

The purpose of the council's annual Housing Land Audit is to identify and monitor the established and effective housing land supply, to meet the requirement for monitoring housing land, set out within Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).

The 2021 Audit, posted on the national planning appeals website this morning, shows the total number of completions in the past five years peaked at 345 as part of the 2019 audit. 

"Within the 2021 audit, there has been a decrease of 26 completions since the previous audit. The completion rates overall within the Scottish Borders have been much lower than the pre-recession rates, with many of the sites under construction within the Borders at a slow rate or stalled, due to lack of developer/mortgage finance."

The audit points out that in monitoring the effective housing land supply national policy does not specify how planning authorities should assess the availability of the five year supply. 

"The Council approach is to measure likely demand, which is illustrated by the performance of the development industry over the previous five year period as required by SPP, using historical completions data for this purpose. This provides a clear distinction between providing land to meet the theoretical requirement and ensuring the presence of a five year effective land supply to meet prospective market demand."

A section of the audit report headed Current Economic Situation/Covid-19 Pandemic Recovery states: " As stated in previous audits, an estimate of the timescale for delivery of housing projects has been continually difficult due to the downturn in the housing market. The programming of sites within the audit continues to be a reasonable expression of what can be developed within the given time periods and there is a significant degree of uncertainty beyond 2 to 3 years. 

"Furthermore, a large number of sites were subject to delays and stalling as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, since early 2020. As a result, it is acknowledged that this will have impacts upon the programming of sites going forward. This has been taken on board within the programming. SBC are also aware of the ongoing economic position regarding the lack of development finance and the availability of mortgage finance for buyers. 

"It should be noted that in recent years there are very few local house builders developing sites within the Scottish Borders. The above demonstrates the direct impact upon rural areas including the Scottish Borders as a result of the current economic climate and COVID-19 pandemic recovery. As housing completions remain at a low level, this directly impacts upon the identification of the effective housing land supply from the total established land supply and there is a need to place the housing requirement into context."

FOOTNOTE: The 2019 housing audit included details of planned housebuilding on the council-owned Lowood Estate adjacent to Tweedbank village. The proposal is for a phased development of 300 new homes, and at the time 30 units were to be completed in 2023, followed by 50 in 2024, 50 in 2025 and 120 "post seven years".

The new audit indicates the first 30 houses will not now be constructed until 2025 with the subsequent three batches of 50 to follow in 2026, 2027 and 2028. The remaining 120 are again pencilled in for "post seven years".

The developer is 'unknown' while all 300 homes are classed as "mainstream" and none in the  "affordable" bracket.

Not much room for Avocet's "bad buggers" in Wilmington jail?

by OUR CRIME AND PUNISHMENT TEAM

The unfortunate individuals who may be targeted in a forthcoming $500 million Avocet/Genfros lawsuit in Wilmington, Delaware should be forewarned of conditions in the local nick should the US judge find against them and they opt for prison as an alternative to parting with wads of cash.

Martin Frost, joint life president of Genfros who was chairman of the Avocet Group prior to his bankruptcy, has given details of the largest (in monetary terms) court action yet proposed by him in a bid to recover multi-million pound losses from the 'bad buggers' he blames for multiple business failures.

A newsletter from Mr Frost to Genfro Plc shareholders dated April 12th claims the company's mysterious, unidentified 'donors' are seeking to obtain the assignment of "your debt claims" caused by a named family, by two firms of insolvency specialists appointed to investigate the affairs of Avocet Infinite Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and Avocet Farms Ltd. (in administration), and others.

Investors are being invited "to join in the class actions being brought by Avocet, and Genfro shareholders in Wilmington, Delaware, USA."

The email from Mr Frost warns: "In the US the consequences of company wrongdoing by professionals are more expensive and carries punitive damages. Thus, given all the circumstances of theft, legal fraud, failure to renew Avocet patents, bad mouthing by the XXXXX and the ‘bad buggers’: the total award from a US jury trial is not likely to be less than $500 million US to Avocet shareholders with [insolvency practitioners] carrying the brunt. Currently, Genfro’s donors have the process and evidence to commence these US proceedings this April."

This is not the first time naysayers and critics of Avocet have been threatened with the full force of the Delaware legal system by Mr Frost.

In October 2020, as part of Avocet's investigation into email leaks, Mr Frost told shareholders: "Our new investors are appalled at the lack of Avocet truth pedalled on social media, on forums, and on blogs by people who should know better. So, on Thursday I shall advise who receives what and how our new investors will curtail the activities of naysayers. And yes, I do confirm that Delaware Counsel in USA is instructed to bring suit in Wilmington against those of you who breach email privacy."

That prompted one shareholder to comment: "It looks as though I'll be on my way to the United States once the extradition process is completed. I find these threats quite intimidating although I fail to see how an American court has any jurisdiction over events that take place in Great Britain".

As far as we are aware no-one has been extradited to Delaware so far, and that particular threatened lawsuit has fallen by the wayside. Associated warnings from Mr Frost at the time of action being taken against 'leakers' in English or Scottish courts also appear to have died a death.

A newsletter from the Avocet chairman in May 2021 revealed that researchers were to open files on a familiar list of Avocet critics and dissidents with total claims in subsequent writs estimated by Mr Frost to exceed £100 million. Again, nothing transpired.

However, with the stakes so high this time round, Not Just Sheep & Rugby decided to take a close look at the Wilmington penal system in case some of the "bad buggers" don't have the means to pay their share of any $500 million award.

It is more than likely failure to come up with the spondulicks would result in incarceration in Wilmington's Howard R Young Correctional Institution in the Gander Hill area of the city. 

The jail's website tells us: "The original facility, now called the West Wing, was designed to hold 360 detainees, individuals who are awaiting trial/sentencing or unable to make bail. In 1992, a new section, the East Wing, opened. This construction project added 480 beds for sentenced offenders. Additional construction projects have increased the capacity to 1,180. The facility now averages 1,500 offenders."

It is to be hoped conditions have improved since Delaware Online published an article by Cris Barrish, of The News Journal which centred on serious overcrowding in the state's prisons.

According to the feature: "The men at Wilmington’s Howard R. Young Correctional Institution are crammed inside the gym because the prison has 608 more prisoners than it should, continuing a recent trend of the worst overcrowding in more than a decade.

"Throughout the prison’s West Wing, cells designed for one man now hold three, with one sleeping on the floor. Still more live in bunk-style housing in rooms meant for vocational training, or in offices once used by counsellors in the booking and receiving section."

And, Barrish wrote: "The problem highlights another side of Delaware’s dysfunctional criminal justice system, which locks up those awaiting trial in prisons that also house convicted felons.

"Nowhere best illustrates the overflow than the gym, where five rows of 20 blue plastic cots rest on the floor. Prisoners eat meals in shifts at eight wooden picnic tables that barely fit between the side line of the basketball court painted on the floor and the concrete walls. The bathroom has one sink and one toilet, and typically has a line of men waiting their turn."

You have been warned!

Serious blow for flagship Borders innovation park

by LESTER CROSS

A revised Business Case is being drafted for the £29 million Central Borders Innovation Park - expected to produce 380 well-paid jobs and boost the local economy to the tune of £350 million - in the wake of a post-Covid slump in demand for office space.

The initial phase of the project which is being promoted by Scottish Borders Council close to Tweedbank railway station has involved construction of offices for CGI, the local authority's IT providers, and for the so-called Inspire Academy, also a council-funded venture.

According to the original business plan, approved by councillors only four years ago, the various phases of the park scheme were set to deliver 11,469 square metres of office space coupled with 3,350 square metres of industrial units. It meant more than 77 per cent of the new buildings would be occupied by offices.

But a meeting of SBC's Executive will be told next week in a report prepared by economic development officer Stuart Kinross of a new factor threatening to blow the project off course.

Mr Kinross writes: "The Borders Innovation Park at Tweedbank is a £29m capital programme, which includes a contribution of £15m from the City Region Deal, £5m from Scottish Borders Council, and £9m from other partners. 

"A Full Business Case was approved by Council in January 2019 prior to being approved by the City Region Deal Joint Committee in March 2019. This business case envisaged a build-out of office and industrial space over three phases. The first building on the site, which is an office for the Council’s IT provider, CGI, and an Inspire learning hub opened in 2022. 

"However, with the Covid-19 pandemic, the anticipated demand for office space has been greatly reduced and there is therefore a need to re-configure the proposed programme. This will require the drafting of a revised Full Business Case, which is currently expected to be presented to Council in November 2023 prior to being considered for approval by the Joint Committee in December 2023."

Financial statistics for the venture include the following: Cost to date £7.526 million – funding £4.398m (external) and £3.128m (council). Total cost by 2032/33 £22.068m – external £17.065m and council £5.021m.

Justification for the innovation park was outlined in the original business case presented to Edinburgh and South East of Scotland City Region Deal by SBC. The document sought approval of £15 million of funding under the authority of the city deal approved by the Prime Minister and First Minister of Scotland in July 2018.

It was claimed the project had a positive economic impact with an estimated Benefit-Cost ratio (BCR) of £16:£1.

The strategic case put forward by the Borders council stated: "There is a strong rationale for major investment to be expended on a Central Borders Innovation Park at Tweedbank. It will provide a wide range of benefits to the Scottish Borders within the context of the wider Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region as it: · Complies with all key national, regional, and local strategic plans. · Will boost employment by creating 383 jobs excluding construction. · Is anticipated to increase GVA by £350 million excluding construction. · Will contribute to inclusive growth by creating high-quality employment opportunities. · Will encourage innovation through the development of high quality infrastructure that will enable businesses to grow. · Will encourage new employers and employees into the area, bringing new skills and experience." 

In a section of the Business Case headed The Case for Change, it was claimed the depressed state of the office and industrial property market in the Scottish Borders required the level of public sector investment planned under this programme. 

Such investment would supplement the £350 million spent on the Borders Railway. It would overhaul the current reliance on low value, obsolescent stock with high quality premises that would allow for a more competitive business location. Demand analysis suggested there was potential to fill the space proposed. It seems that demand may no longer be present.

The council's report added: "As with many other rural economies, the Scottish Borders has to overcome the problem of market failure caused by a combination of remote locations and poor infrastructure, a lack of supply of modern business premises and the increasing obsolescence of existing stock. Public sector intervention is needed to address this issue, which is crucial to ensuring that sustainable, inclusive economic growth can take place. 

"The coming of the Borders Railway has presented a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enable the local economy to grow. A Central Borders Innovation Park, situated next to the Borders Railway terminus at Tweedbank, would meet the urgent need for high-quality business space in the central Scottish Borders. It would stimulate business growth and associated job creation, enhancing the area’s inward investment offer, particularly to high-value, innovative sectors, as well as meeting the needs of indigenous businesses thereby improving their competitiveness. 

"It would also help to address inequalities in the area by providing access to better quality, higher paid jobs. This Full Business Case [FBC] seeks approval to invest £27,750,000, including £15,000,000 of City Region Deal funding, to develop five plots in the vicinity of Tweedbank Railway Station across three programme phases. A further £1,270,000 will be spent on creating infrastructure to improve access to these plots.". 

The FBC also claimed Scottish Enterprise was confident its business centre/co-working space would assist in helping to kick-start the wider generation of Tweedbank and also in creating a gateway to the Scottish Borders and an office hub that would compete with the out-of-town/satellite offices on Edinburgh’s periphery.

So far as economic impacts were concerned: "The programme will have a large beneficial impact on local and regional employment and productivity. Meeting the objectives of increasing employment, particularly that which is highly skilled and well-paid, and increasing productivity, would have a direct and an indirect impact on the local economy through increased household income and demand for local services." 

The debt requirement for the innovation park was also revealed in the 2019 FBC. Financial modelling estimated the amount of borrowing required to cover outstanding deficits at the end of each financial year. 

The council's overall borrowing requirement would peak at £12.3 million in Year 6 (2023- 24) with repayment taking place in Year 15 (2032-33). The cumulative operating costs (capital and revenue)  showed the project, as originally conceived, would generate an overall surplus of £11.1 million by Year 30 (2047-48). 

"Scottish Borders Council can currently borrow at a rate of between 2.75 per cent and 3 per cent. For reasons of prudence, a borrowing rate of 3 per cent has been used in the modelling."

However, the cost of borrowing climate has changed dramatically in recent months. Interest rates on loans approved in March 2023 by The Treasury's Public Works Loans Board - the main source of debt funding for public bodies, including local authorities - ranged from 3.9% to 5% with the vast majority of transactions having rates in excess of 4.2%.

 

Poaching on the rise as Tweed salmon sells for over £190 a lb

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

The cost of living crisis may be behind an increase in illegal fishing on the Tweed last year as poachers tried to land the river's wild salmon which have become one of the world's rarest and costliest delicacies, currently being marketed by a top London smokehouse for up to £196 per pound.

But while over 96% of the 6,000 rod-caught salmon were returned to the river during 2022 in a concerted effort to conserve the Tweed's stocks of Atlantic salmon, local fishery managers have criticised "incredibly light" sentences handed down by magistrates in two poaching cases.

The annual report of the River Tweed Commission (RTC) says: "During 2022 the enforcement team [river bailiffs] experienced some increases in certain fishing related incidents which could be related to the current cost of living crisis".

Statistics show a total of 26 such incidents, 15 of them on the main river, including the estuary at Berwick-on-Tweed. The remainder were recorded on four tributaries - Whiteadder, Till, Teviot and Ettrick.

In one case still to come to court when the report was written, the enforcement team, supported by Northumbria Police, charged three Latvian men for the illegal gill netting of salmon and sea trout on the River Till. A trammel gill net measuring 166 feet, three salmon and nine sea trout were seized as evidence.

According to the RTC report by its head fishery officer Karl Ferguson: "The most common offence encountered is fishing without permission, many of the offenders have very little fishing experience and are oblivious to the fact that permission is required".

In years gone by English poaching cases brought by the river bailiffs were heard at Berwick Magistrates Court. But the local court "remains suspended" with its future uncertain, the report explains. It means prosecutions by the RTC officers are taken in Newcastle, some 50 miles from the 'scene of the crime'.

Last August poaching cases were brought against two individuals 'known to RTC' at Newcastle Magistrates Court.

"One pleaded guilty to possession of a gill net and obstructing a water bailiff. He was fined £50 for each offence and ordered to pay costs of £100. The other man admitted possession of a gill net. He was conditionally discharged for twelve months and ordered to pay £100 costs".

And the report adds: "The sentences appear to be incredibly light given the time and effort put in by the enforcement team to apprehend the individuals carrying out these offences".

RTC solicitor Ian O'Rourke sets out the reasons behind the sentencing. He points to the fact that the court no longer has the power to impose a community order with a prohibition or restriction preventing offenders from going within a specific distance of a river. 

He is quoted as saying: "Possession of a gill net is not imprisonable. They can only be fined or receive a discharge regardless of the number of times they commit this offence".

Wild salmon taken from the Tweed by the only remaining netting station - Gardo Fishery at Berwick - is now offered for sale by just one smokery in the world. And the costly delicacy has become so exclusive each consignment is accompanied by a numbered certificate of authenticity. The netting season runs from April 1st to September 15th each year.

The website of Forman & Field, gourmet food producers since 1905 is where to order the genuine article.

The London-based company warns its Tweed salmon customers: "Wild River Tweed salmon is now so fiercely protected - and fishing so restricted - that it is nigh impossible to acquire stocks, with prices reflecting its rarity. We would urge you to order while you can as there is a grave danger you will never experience this wonderful delicacy again".

And Forman & Field claim that with just one fisherman now permitted to fish on the River Tweed, the firm is the only smokehouse in the world to offer the 'exquisite delicacy'.

 The price list includes a 1 lb hand sliced side (serves 6-8) in a smart wooden presentation box for £179.95; a 1.5 lb equivalent (serves 8-10) will set you back £249.95.

Conventional packs of salmon are priced at £49.95 per quarter pound, £99,50 for half a pound, and £196.95 per pound.

'Promoting falsehoods' and 'The Big Lie'

AN EASTER EPIC by OUR BUSINESS UNIT

A series of recent written communications from bankrupt company life president Martin Frost includes details of a guessing game with a £10,000 'reward', no less than 40 new ideas from the elderly members of an Avocet 'think tank', and claims this blog has "widely promoted falsehoods".

Copies of the various letters and updates sent to shareholders in Genfro Ltd., a business whose first set of accounts is now ten months overdue, have reached Not Just Sheep & Rugby despite warnings from Mr Frost that correspondence is tagged and traceable.

Mr Frost, whose discharge from bankruptcy was only recently 'suspended indefinitely', tells of his unsuccessful bid to have a firm of insolvency practitioners removed from their roles as liquidators of one of his worthless businesses. He also claims two of his computers have been hacked, and his data and password have been stolen.

The list of allegations in the various documents is endless. But at the same time investors are told of plans to take Genfro's operations out of the UK to the United States and the Republic of Ireland.

The April 7th missive includes the following: "This is a big weekend. I believe you will be most pleased when on Monday evening you realise who Genfro’s proposed donors are. Meantime you shall receive a number more newsletters along with more Lloyd Reports and revisions thereto. Note: those of you who guess our donors (and report such to Dr. Jennings) shall receive back a reward worth more than £10,000."

The Dr Jennings referred to is Dr 'Bob' Jennings, the other life president of the company. As a bankrupt, Mr Frost is banned from company directorships, and from running businesses.

Then, in a Word document dated April 8th, Mr Frost makes reference to 'The Big Lie' which he says has been promoted over the last few years by a named individual. This, together with Ponzi scheme 'smears' levelled against the Avocet Group has damaged its intellectual property.

Mr Frost writes: "The Scottish Crown Office and SNP used  ****’s Big lie to adjudge the veracity of the **** story. Blogger Chisholm along with ****’s ‘Avocet Forum’ widely promoted the falsehoods as stated in  ****'s Big Lie."

An earlier 'newsletter' carrying the date April 1st revealed that Doctors Jennings and a second doctor had 'continued to quietly work away in the background'.

"Out of their think tank they have produced much more new intellectual property, well over forty new ideas. True these men are in their eighties but between them they have more endorsed & proven intellectual property than any other living Englishmen. 

"Happily, for Genfro, [the second named doctor] is a US resident where Bob and (he) first registered much of Avocet’s intellectual property and where often a kinder view is taken to protect US originated intellectual property from ‘bad buggers’. Currently, [they] are in the midst of an intellectual property review with BASCK LIMITED of Cambridge".

And Genfro's investors were also told that on Friday 31^st March, Mr. Paul Newsham who has been associated with a number of Avocet businesses, had confirmed that HSBC was on behalf of Genfro able to accept a £500,000 deposit from Israel. 

Said Mr Frost: "Discussions are ongoing how this £500,000 is to be absorbed into Genfro. The important matter is that £300,000 from this £500,000 will be outlaid on new & revived Genfro intellectual property: £200,000 will be used by Genfro to bring Genfro’s regularity regime up to date. 

"Basck in conjunction with others shall produce by April’s end an overview of the worth of Genfro’s intellectual property. Similarly, an ongoing assessment of what other rights & assets Genfro has from the old AFS; AFS Ventures; and Avocet businesses. Bob plans that these reports are to be laid before Genfro shareholders prior to April’s end." 

And the message to shareholders adds that there have been discussions on where and how Genfro is run. "The synthesis of opinion is that operational wise the business shall be overseen from Wilmington in Delaware, USA, and from Cork in the Republic of Ireland." 

By sheer coincidence, Not Just Sheep & Rugby this weekend received the text of an interesting document which was apparently published recently on the members-only Avocet Shareholders' Forum.

The Forum post cites 29 different references to newsletters circulated by Mr Frost between November 2017 and June 2022 "until now" giving details of planned investments and purchases linked to the Avocet concept. Sadly, none of the 'promises' materialised, according to the document.

Without wishing to promote falsehoods, here is the list which Genfro's life president(s) may wish to address in a future 'newsletter':

AVOCET

November 2017 - "Russian investors have made a £200 million offer for the company".

July 2019 - "Master franchises for Avocet Bio Solutions Plc, Avocet Africa Plc, and Avocet Middle East Plc have been sold".

September 2019 - "Avocet is currently in discussion with three potential JV [joint venture] partners".

September 2019 - "There is some £20 million of equity funding available for Avocet Africa".

September 2019 - "Middle Eastern investors will facilitate a two hundred million fodder sale to Oman".

October 2019 - "A prominent Maltese businessman will be taking Avocet's ship bunkering avocet methanol plans forward".

October 2019 - "Kuwaiti investors have promised 100'as of millions of investment into Avocet Middle East Plc and also Avocet Natural Capital Plc."

December 2019 - "Avocet has been approached by Russia's Gazprom (major multinational energy corporation)".

December 2019 - "There is significant interest from Turkish, Libyan and Maltese investors".

December 2019 - "Irish financiers who have access to some 20 billion of EU funding want to invest in Avocet's biogas to methanol, epigenetics, and carbon capture technologies".

December 2019 - "The Bank of China is actively looking at supporting Avocet Bio Solutions Plc".

December 2019 - "Three separate Chinese investment groups are interested in setting up a China master franchise; becoming a golden supplier; investing in or purchasing Avocet Natural Capital Plc and/or Avocet Bio Solutions Plc; investing in Avocet Africa Plc, Avocet Middle East Plc and Avocet South America Plc".

January 2020 - "Mr Amar Sharif will purchase one million shares".

January 2020 - "Sizeable investment suitors from the Middle East are interested in buying out existing ANC Plc shareholders".

February 2020 - "The issued share capital of ANC Plc will be increased to 350 million one pound fully paid shares with the bulk of this new investment coming from the Middle East and China".

February 2020 - "The Chinese have expressed interest in buying out the Avocet intellectual property related to the containment of swine fever and coronavirus".

August 2020 - "Five Japanese conglomerates have a very real interest in investing in Avocet's green methanol production and derivatives".

August 2020 - "The 'mystery investors' will buy £42M worth of ANC shares at £3/share and will inject £750M of capital into Avocet NC Ltd".

GENNFROS/GENFRO

October 2020 - "The 'mystery investors' have abandoned Avocet. Instead they will invest £42 million pounds for 25% of Gennfros, a new company with only four patent applications".

January 2021 - "The 'mystery investors' will build an £8M R&D Centre".

January 2021 - "Chevron, Total, and Rosneft will enter into joint venture agreements with Gennfros, followed, in early March, by many other oil companies".

January 2021 - "A 'major' oil company is offering £50M for Avocet IP Ltd., and £200M for all of Gennfros Limited".

February 2021 - "An offer of US $100M has been received for the air-to-fuel patents".

April 2021 - "An offer of $50M has been made for the residual IP in Avocet IP (after the sale of the air-to-fuel IP)".

May 2021 - "The 'mystery investors' will buy Omega Infinite, Orrdone Farms, ANC Plc and Avocet Bio Solutions".

May 2021 - "Parachute Holdings, a company with annual revenues that exceed the GNP of Scotland, will invest £400M into Gennfros".

October 2021 - "ANC Plc has sold the air-to-fuel IP for US $40M, $20M of which has already been received by ANC, and a further US $20M is due in January 2022".

March 2022 - "A deal has been concluded with a foreign government that has agreed to pay £400M for all of Gennfros' intellectual property".

June 2022 until now - "The Israeli Intelligence Service will give extravagant gifts to Avocet and Gennfros shareholders".

High cost of NERR fund failure

by OUR BUSINESS STAFF

The Manx financial services regulator has declined to tell us how much a seven-year investigation by liquidators into the worthless New Earth Recycling & Renewables [NERR] investment company cost even though the cash came from the Isle of Man's tax-funded Treasury.

And critics have claimed the failure of the island authorities to hold to account those responsible for the loss of £220 million of investors' money demonstrates serious shortcomings in the supervision of offshore funds like NERR. A number of legal actions have been raised by angry shareholders seeking millions of pounds in compensation.

NERR and its UK business partner New Earth Solutions Group (NESG) were selected by Scottish Borders Council in 2011 to deal with the region's domestic rubbish. But the arrangement collapsed five years later with both NESG and NERR insolvent and the council left with egg on its face and its waste management policy in tatters. The fiasco cost local taxpayers well over £2 million.

As we exclusively revealed this week the NERR liquidators have told the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority (IOMFSA) there is no realistic chance of recovering any of the money ploughed into the fund by 3,250 investors. In 2019 the investigation failed in a bid to have directors of NERR examined on oath when the individuals concerned simply refused to be questioned. Over its lifetime the fund paid millions of pounds in management and promotion fees to those in charge.

In a lengthy if relatively meaningless statement posted on its website, IOMFSA stated: "The joint liquidators of New Earth Renewables and Recycling (Infrastructure) PLC (‘NERR’) have stated their intention to apply for the liquidation process to be terminated and the company dissolved. 

"NERR, part of a group of funds managed by The Premier Group, was wound up in 2016 by the High Court in the Isle of Man. Joint liquidators were appointed to investigate the reasons for the company’s failure in order to determine whether liability could be attributed to any party and if viable claims could be brought. Funding of the liquidation costs is provided by the Isle of Man Government via the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority, which acts as a conduit for the Treasury and the administrators of the liquidation process. 

"The funding arrangement is subject to continuous review on the understanding that it can be withdrawn at short notice. A point has been reached in the liquidation process where the provision of additional taxpayer funding is not in the public interest, other than as required to bring the liquidation to a conclusion. Detailed legal advice provided to the joint liquidators has concluded that further action would most likely be unsuccessful."

The statement included additional notes which explained: " Specialist, Qualifying and Qualifying Type Experienced Investor Funds – the Authority’s remit for such schemes is to register them, receive notifications of changes and supervise their appointed Isle of Man functionaries. Access to such funds is only available where investors confirm that they meet the fund type’s minimum entry criteria. This includes a statutory certification that they have read the scheme’s offering document and understand and accept the specific risks associated with this type of fund, including the loss of a significant proportion or all of the sum invested."

When we asked how much the marathon liquidation of NERR had cost, IOMFSA's spokesman told us: "The Authority cannot confirm the costs associated with the liquidation. In response to an FOI request submitted in 2019 it was determined that the information is exempt from disclosure under paragraph one of schedule 5 of the Financial Services Act 2008."

That Freedom of Information request had been lodged by media outlet Isle of Man Today which has covered the NERR collapse over several years. IOM Today asked:

"1) Please can you supply details of the costs borne by the IoM taxpayer to date in connection with the following companies linked to the Premier Group Isle of Man: New Earth Recycling and Renewables (Infrastructure) and its two feeder funds Premier Investment Opportunities Fund and Eclipse Investment Fund; and, Eco Resources Fund and its subsidiaries ERF Ltd and EcoPlanet Bamboo IoM.

2) Is the taxpayer funding the liquidation costs of any other company linked to, or promoted by, the Premier Group (IoM)? If so, which ones and how much has been expended to date?"

In response, IOMFSA claimed the information requested was exempt from disclosure. The Authority quoted from the Financial Services Act, which “restricts the disclosure of certain information including information which relates to the business or other affairs of any person’ and breach of this restriction is a criminal offence”.

So, how much might the NERR liquidation have cost with insolvency experts able to claim hundreds of pounds per hour for their services?

Not Just Sheep & Rugby investigated the sums claimed by the NESG insolvency team, NERR's brothers in bankruptcy. According to documents filed at Companies House, New Earth Solutions Group and its associate New Earth Solutions Facilities Management's terminators racked up costs of £401,560 from their appointment in June 2016 to completion of the process in July 2017...just over a year.

If the same annual rate is applied to the seven-year liquidation of NERR (2016-2023) without any allowance for inflation, then a figure of £2,810,920 emerges. But no-one will ever know whether that 'rough' estimate is accurate.  

Hearing on Borders housing land issues

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

An evidence session has been arranged so that arguments centred on the amount of land to be earmarked for housebuilding in the Scottish Borders during the next ten years can be aired before Government planning specialists.

The hearing, scheduled for April 26th, will form a key element of the continuing examination of Scottish Borders Council's draft Local Development Plan (LDP) which has attracted hundreds of submissions from vested interests and from members of the public.

A team of Scottish Government reporters will hear views on Planning for Housing and Meeting the Housing Land Requirement. Witnesses are likely to include national housing agency Homes For Scotland and consultants Ferguson Planning who represent developers along with SBC officers.

The examination already has before it more than 830 documents and written statements linked to the Borders LDP. The council wants to set the land requirement at 4,800 units.

Ferguson Planning argue that the unsatisfied element of the previous housing land requirement (HLR)  should be met in the HLR informing the new development plan They say the HLR should be amended to 8,000 units for the period 2023-2032.

But the council, in a recent submission to the reporters claims: " It is considered that by including the undelivered backlog, this would result in a completely unrealistic and unjustified housing land requirement. Furthermore, it is not considered that there is sound justifiable evidence and workings for the proposed figure of 8,000 units over the ten year period."

SBC has revealed that house completions over the period 2009-2020 totalled just 4,263 units while the housing land requirement contained within the adopted Local Development Plan was 13,422 units.

Local authority planning officers maintain allowing for 480 completions annually (4,800 over the coming ten years) will be more than enough to satisfy developers' demands.

In rebutting the case advanced by Ferguson Planning, SBC states: "It is acknowledged that at the recent Convention of South of Scotland, it was highlighted that there is a lack of both local and national house builders developing in certain locations, where there is indeed a healthy housing land supply, within the Scottish Borders. 

"Given the recent completion rate trends for the Region, it is considered unrealistic that there is a need and demand for the level of housing proposed by including the undelivered backlog from the previous Plan. It is not considered that the figures proposed by the contributors would reflect the current need and demand evidenced within the most up to date HNDA3 [Housing Needs and Demands Assessment]. Furthermore, it is not considered that it is the intention of NPF4 (National Planning Framework Four) of LDP’s to roll forward undelivered backlog from previous Plans."

As we reported last month, Homes for Scotland [HfS], the body which represents housebuilders and social landlords, has attacked SBC's housing policies, claiming the region is missing out on positive development opportunities, while the construction industry can have "zero faith" in the local authority's latest land audit.

In its written submission, HfS asserts: "If the Council is to see a better match between household need and demand for homes, and the supply of new homes in the future, it will need to review the cumulative impact of its policies on build costs, initiate a shift in its approach to land release to realign its suite of allocations with the market interest that does exist and introduce a more flexible land release policy that can respond not just to a technical shortfall in the land supply but to any issues arising in association with the delivery of allocated sites and other sites already in the established supply." 

The Times catches up with Not Just Sheep & Rugby!

by EWAN LAMB

One of the country's leading conservation groups has expressed dismay at Scottish Borders Council's proposed demolition of Lowood House, the country mansion near Melrose which stands on the middle of a site earmarked for up to 400 new houses.

Meanwhile today's Scottish edition of The Times newspaper reports on the 'outcry' surrounding the controversial idea of bulldozing the Nineteenth Century property some 14 days after we broke the story.

The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (AHSS) has written to all 34 members of the Borders local authority urging them to abandon the demolition option in favour of retaining the house which has a value of £1 million, according to a recent report by council officers.

AHSS says it is responding to a news item on the BBC website ‘Lowood House near Melrose set for demolition’. 

"This was brought to our attention by a member who lives in Melrose. We are writing in relation to ‘Tweedbank Expansion – A Community for the Future’ [a document presented to councillors at their March meeting].

The Society's James Seabridge-Cooper, Convener of the Forth & Borders Cases Panel, points out: "The entry for Lowood House on page 508 of ‘The Buildings of Scotland : Borders’, by Kitty Cruft, John Dunbar and Richard Fawcett, 2006, is as follows: ‘A beautifully situated house on the S bank of the River Tweed, developed from a small early C19 villa purchased c. 1829 for his country seat by Robert Reid, Master of Works and Architect to the King. 

"The original villa, two storeys, three bays, with a slightly advanced centre bay, faced S. Reid seems to have added a simple two-storey kitchen office range to the W, and a Regency-style veranda across the ground floor which incorporated a projecting porch. The villa mostly disappeared when the house was extended by Henry Kidd in the late C19, when the W end was remodelled and added to. 

"An L-shaped addition was built across the S front, and a billiard room with a bedroom above, at the E end. Mutule blocks were added to the roof line. The interior was completely recast in the late C19 mostly in a classical style.’ "

The letter urges councillors to continue the item regarding the proposal to demolish Lowood House, a non-designated historic environment asset and postpone making any decision on the future of the mansion pending the preparation of a conservation plan and exploration of other options, for example, retaining the house for letting to groups. 

According to Mr Seabridge-Cooper: "Lowood House is presently a local asset, presumably worth at least £1m even without its wider estate, and to spend £450,000 destroying a £1m asset seems a significant waste of taxpayer's resources. This is exactly the kind of place large groups of tourists seek to rent by the week, so if the report does not mention using it as single occupancy accommodation, it is a serious omission from the research."

The council is reminded that Lowood House contains embodied carbon and Policy 7 of the recently approved National Planning Framework 4 ( NPF4) has the ‘Policy Intent: To protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places.’ 

The second policy outcome is ‘Redundant or neglected historic buildings are brought back into sustainable and productive uses. We ask you to recognise that Lowood House contains embodied carbon, and your carbon calculations should include those expended in demolition, which are not recognised in the ‘Tweedbank Expansion – A Community for the Future’ report.

The letter concludes: "We urge you to support the principles of sustainability and to make every effort to retain, repair and adapt Lowood House, modifying as necessary the layout of Tweedbank expansion". to permit its re-use.

'Far too many turbines for Teviotdale' - landscape expert

by EWAN LAMB

Proposals for a 62-turbine wind farm in rural Teviotdale, close to Hawick, should be radically scaled back by removing more than half of the huge structures if the scheme is to be approved, according to a landscape expert's assessment.

The appraisal warns of the visual impact the Teviot Wind Farm would have on Hawick Common Riding routes and the 'unacceptable' affect the massive project would have on numerous local viewpoints.

Muirhall Energy is promoting the highly controversial wind farm which, it is claimed, would bring millions of pounds in community benefits as well as turbines of up to 240 metres in height. 

The developers say the facility would produce sufficient 'green' energy to power 440,000 homes with community investment of £2.8 million each year or around £114 million for Teviotdale over the wind farm's lifetime.

But Siobhan McDermott, landscape architect at Scottish Borders Council, in her detailed critique of the plans, says while there are no landscape designations associated with the site or wider area within Scottish Borders, the juxtaposition of hills with steep sided valleys and scattered settlement makes the area have a strong sense of remoteness and tranquillity alongside a wild character and grandeur of scale tempered to a degree by commercial forestry. 

Despite the lack of core paths and promoted paths the area is popular with walkers, with panoramic views from the summits. The lesser scale of some of these hills, coupled with their distinctive topography contributes to their popularity as walking destinations.

The key issue for Ms McDermott was whether the proposed windfarm could be accommodated without unacceptable significant adverse landscape and visual effects.

"It is my professional opinion that the identified sensitivities [in the Southern Uplands] restrict both the potential for successfully accommodating larger groups of turbines of the proposed size. I don’t think the development takes cognisance of the findings of the capacity study with the proposal for 62 turbines with turbine heights of 180 metres to 240 metres".

She warns there is limited visual containment of the proposal, with much of the areas within 30 kilometres of the wind farm, especially to the south east, and areas north-east to north-west.

"It is of concern the number of viewpoints from which the whole windfarm array is visible and how much of the skyline is occupied by the turbines. Fourteen of the viewpoints have in excess of 50% of the turbines visible, the greater proportion of these with more than 50 turbines visible."

Ms McDermott's report adds: "Although there are no designated landscapes within the site, I suggest that the landscape of this area has a high local value arising from its perception of remoteness and relatively wild character, and an increased sensitivity due to the important routes in close proximity.

"The number and spread of turbines is threatening to turn this area into a wind farm landscape, with a consequence change of the landscape character from Uplands with Wind Turbines/No wind turbines to a Wind Turbine landscape. This increase in windfarms to the extent that it would become a windfarm landscape is, in my professional opinion a significant cumulative landscape effect.   The visualisations from many of the viewpoints (VPs) demonstrates how prominent and character changing a wind farm of this scale would be."

In her assessment of visual effects on specific locations, the council officer says while acknowledging
only blade tips of turbines 28,30,35,36 and 42, would be visible above the backdrop hills to Hermitage Castle, "the regular appearance of these blade tips in this view to the Castle, considered an important cultural and historical visitor destination in this part of the Borders, would be unfortunate. Any amended scheme to remove their visibility would be welcomed."

And in a reference to St. Leonard's Park (south of Hawick) Ms McDermott notes: "A viewpoint with panoramic views to hills in the SSW, where the windfarm is seen on the skyline above the racecourse, with stacking in several places towards the south east end of the array and at least some of the north westernmost turbines appearing to be stepping down off the upland hills.

"If stacking could be avoided and the spread of the array reduced by removing 11 turbines (T52-T62) in the north-western part of the site, the significant visual effects would be mitigated to an extent. The effects are mitigated to some extent already by virtue of the structures and racecourse in the foreground."

And she continues: "In summary, the visualisations demonstrate to me just how visible the windfarm will be in the area, both local and widespread and just how the spread of the turbines along the hill skyline contributes to those significant impacts, detracting from both the more intimate nature of the valley landscapes from which it is visible and from panoramic views from elevated and valued places around the site. 

"Despite the rural nature and perception of remoteness, the site is close to Hawick, one of the largest towns in Scottish Borders, and a town culturally rooted to its surrounding countryside, as demonstrated by its Common Riding routes which are an ever-popular part of the town’s premier summer festival."

Even the Eildon Hills National Scenic Area - in excess of 28 kilometres from the development - would be impacted. "It demonstrates very clearly the cumulative effect of a large windfarm introduced into this part of Scottish Borders, a portion of a dramatic panoramic view that is currently free of wind turbines, but with this proposed wind farm we would see the proposed turbines as a prominent feature on the skyline, despite the distance."

. From a landscape and visual perspective, Ms McDermott says her concerns centre around the visual impacts on the smaller scale and more enclosed valley landscapes and on the effects which arise for  viewpoints that are well visited including iconic viewpoints in this southern part of the Borders, such as Drinkstone Hill, Rubers Law and Larriston Fell. 

"To that end I’ve suggested that the turbines in northwest (T47 – T62) and northeast (T1 – T17) parts of the site be removed with the result we should get a much more compact windfarm, and should eliminate many of the instances of turbine stacking while still achieving a viable windfarm scheme."

She was also concerned at the number of individual properties and groups of properties that will experience a high magnitude of change to their views- 19 in total, with another 14 properties or groups experiencing a medium magnitude of change to views. 

"It denotes the level of significant effects, not just to the public enjoying the area, but to the locals who spend much of their time in and around their dwelling place. If a reduced scheme were to be developed, it is expected that many of the properties currently with potential to experience a high or medium change to their view, would end up with no potential visibility of the scheme."

The report also points out that with the increase in turbines greater than 150 metres in height, there will be more windfarms with aviation lighting and with an additional potential visual effect for receptors in the surrounding areas during hours of darkness.

"It is a consequence of increased pressure to achieve and utilise more sustainable sources of energy", comments Ms McDermott. "The number and layout of proposed turbines in this scheme requires lighting of 34 turbines – over half the total number and there will be significant effects although these effects will be mitigated by fewer receptors being out and about in areas where the turbine lighting might be visible, such as elevated hills." 

To mitigate the significant visual impacts of the current scheme layout, she says she is looking for a reduction of a significant number of turbines in order to make this a more compact and less visually intrusive scheme. Ms McDermott recommends that the council should object to the scheme in its current form.

Scottish Borders Council planning committee is expected to consider Muirhall Energy's application at their July meeting.

A story not covered by the Scottish Daily Mail

PAUL FAKER reports on a very unusual tax "scandal".

Millions of ordinary, hard working families in England and Wales have paid hundreds of pounds more in tax than their Scottish counterparts over the last five years, according to new figures which have not attracted the interest of the Right Wing media.

Readers of the Scottish Daily Mail and other Conservative-supporting newspapers are used to reading about the wealthier classes in Scotland suffering perceived fiscal hardship at the hands of the country's 'progressive' SNP Government whenever its ministers gently use a few of the meagre tax-raising powers handed down by Westminster to improve the lot of the working poor.

But there has been no mention of the latest council tax tables produced within days of each other by the UK and Scottish administrations. For they show the average household in England and Wales will have paid £1,125 more to their local authority between 2019/20 and 2023/24 than Mr & Mrs MacAverage.. That works out at an average 'saving' of £227 per year for those families fortunate enough to reside north of the border.

However, the lack of coverage by the Mail and others means this significant difference in council tax levels has failed to spark fury in leafy Englandshire. Yet it is a safe bet that had the boot been on the other foot Associated Newspapers would have made sure the well-heeled citizens of rural Perthshire were given sufficient ammunition to write letters to the editor lambasting Scottish local government.

Here are the average council tax bill per dwelling for the two countries:

Financial year                 England                       Scotland              

2019/2020                        £1,327                             £1,147                             

2020/2021                        £1,385                             £1,201

2021/2022                        £1,428                             £1,198

2022/2023                        £1,493                             £1,238

2023/2024                        £1,578                             £1,302

Five year total                  £7,211                             £6,086

The statistics do not include water and sewerage charges. According to the most recent figures Scottish households pay an average of £369 per year for these services. The equivalent annual charge for the average dwelling in England where the water industry is in private hands is £448. 

Our research then turned to the respective council tax payment figures for Northumberland and Scottish Borders, the two local authority areas which cover territories on either side of the England-Scotland boundary.

Here the difference in the amount paid by the occupants of an "average" dwelling was even larger than the national split. The five-year total in Northumberland came to £7,241, no less than £1,237 above the equivalent for Scottish Borders of £6,004. So, the mean council tax demand on residents in communities only a few miles apart but on either side of the border differed by a significant £247.40. Surely this must have sparked fury in Northumberland by now!

These are the respective figures for the neighbouring council areas:

Financial year                  Northumberland           Scottish Borders 

2019/2020                         £1,330                           £1,131

2020/2021                         £1,391                           £1,184

2021/2022                         £1,430                           £1,183

2022/2023                         £1,502                           £1,223

2023/2024                         £1,588                           £1,284

Five year total                   £7,241                           £6,004  

All of these statistics are freely available on Government websites should the Mail or Express care to take a look.