Borders planners got this one wrong!

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF

A business development recommended for approval by planning officials but subsequently rejected by Borders councillors has been firmly kicked out by a Scottish Government appeals reporter who described the proposals as materially harmful to neighbouring residents.

As we reported earlier this month, the elected members on Scottish Borders Council's planning committee dismissed proposals (by five votes to two) for the formation of storage space for agricultural machinery and equipment, and for up to 2,500 tonnes of potatoes on a field at Mounthooly Farm, near Jedburgh.

The committee's refusal flew in the face of a recommendation for approval by senior planner Ian Aikman. In his report, Mr Aikman stated: ""The proposed use would not be incompatible with the existing land use pattern or the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

"The choice of site, layout, and scale of proposals will not result in further adverse impacts. The development will accord with the relevant provisions of the statutory Development Plan and there are no material considerations that would justify a departure from these provisions".

Following an appeal to the Scottish Government's Planning and Environmental Appeals Division [DPEA] by Andrew Ramsay, of Kelso-based Ramsay Mounthooly Ltd., the council found itself asking planning reporter Sarah Foster to reject that appeal. And in a decision notice just issued she has done just that.

Commenting on the impact Mr Ramsay's plans might have on the character of the area, Ms Foster says: "The proposed storage yard would be ancillary to an established employment site that has developed incrementally in a former agricultural steading in the countryside. What is now a small industrial estate is currently set back from the road, well hidden from the public realm by portal framed buildings originally constructed for agricultural purposes. 

"Views of the estate are also interrupted by an attractive range of traditional agricultural buildings not in the ownership of the appellants. As a consequence, the industrial use is not immediately obvious when viewed from outside the steading and it does not significantly affect the character of the area."

The reporter adds that she could see at the site visit there was limited external storage space left within the steading as land previously used for storage has been developed with more industrial units.

"I saw external storage largely limited to the north eastern corner of the site where large, wooden crates were being stacked in piles up to approximately six metres high. This suggests that there may very well be a need for the proposed storage yard ancillary to an established employment use as allowed for under LDP [Local Development Plan] Policy ED7." 

The storage yard could not reasonably be established on land within a Development Boundary given that the established use was located within the countryside. 

However, the development of a storage yard within the field, as proposed, would inevitably bring the activity currently confined within the steading further south, beyond its existing limits, into a much more prominent position, clearly visible from the road. 

"The storage yard would thereby completely change the character of the site and, when seen from public vantage points, the field would lose its agricultural appearance regardless of the proposed boundary planting. It would instead take on an industrial character that would detract from both the site itself and from surrounding properties, including the traditional stone barns to the west, which I consider to be significant in terms of the historic environment of the area.

Commenting on the impact on residential amenity, Ms Foster writes: "It is my opinion that the increased activity, including intensified vehicular movements, would inevitably generate noise and disturbance of a level that would be materially harmful to the residential amenity of surrounding dwellings.. 

"The potential for items to be stacked on the yard would have an adverse and overbearing visual impact considering the very short separation distance that exists between the boundary of the proposed yard and the boundary of these properties. I feel that any conditions that could be added to make this potential impact acceptable would be so limiting to the operations as to render the storage yard itself unusable. 

"It is my opinion that the storage yard use would not be compatible with surrounding uses. I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which would still justify granting planning permission. 

No economic 'boom' yet from reinstated rail service, study concluded

 BORDERS RAILWAY IN FOCUS 

Although the Borders Railway exceeded expectations in terms of passenger numbers following its opening in 2015, and is achieving its original investment objectives, the £295 million project does not appear to have had a transformational impact on the regions of Midlothian and the Scottish Borders.

This important conclusion from a Department of Transport (DfT) commissioned analysis completed last year runs counter to recent claims of an economic 'boom' for Galashiels following the rebuilding of the 35-mile northern section of the Waverley route.

The 259-page report shows the findings from an in-depth investigation of 15 major transport investment initiatives ranging in size from the Borders Railway up to the Greater Manchester Metrolink and the Jubilee Line Extension. The analysis was undertaken by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates [CEPA], an advisory firm. The study set out to establish whether each project had delivered a transitional impact for local economies.

But although the extensive document has been publicly available since last June, it has received little or no press and media coverage while many politicians and civic leaders appear to be unaware of its existence. A request for sight of the report was made by at least one Scottish MP at a session of the Commons Transport Committee earlier this month.

Key findings from the Borders Railway investigation are presented as follows:

"Employment • Primary research suggests that the Borders Railway had a modest positive impact on employment, as the stations in ‘urban’ and ‘semi-urban’ areas experienced a significant increase in employment following the scheme’s opening relative to comparator areas. 

"Productivity • No evidence of direct productivity impacts found. 

"Housing • New housing is being built in the corridor but so far, the number completed is less than the 10,000 originally envisaged. • An urban expansion is planned around the new station at Shawfair, but as at Spring 2021, only 1,000 of 4,000 new homes had been built. 

"Regeneration • Regeneration was not an objective of this scheme. 

"Environment • User surveys suggest that the railway led to a significant modal shift from car to rail, saving more than an estimated 36,000 annual single car trips."

CEPA explain that the main aim of the Borders Railway was to promote accessibility to and from the Scottish Borders and Midlothian to Edinburgh and the central belt of Scotland, with a particular focus on enabling residents of the Borders and Midlothian to access the Edinburgh labour market.

The Borders Railway has succeeded in improving accessibility between the Scottish Borders, Midlothian and Edinburgh. Commuting has been the most common journey purpose of users of the railway, and Edinburgh the most frequent journey destination, suggesting that the line has supported access to employment opportunities in the capital for residents of the Scottish Borders.

According to the report: "Discussions with stakeholders suggested that the Borders Railway has exceeded expectations in terms of attracting tourism to the Borders region. This may be due to notable publicity efforts when the route opened. 

"However, the evidence suggests that the railway has had limited broader economic impacts. There may have been a positive effect on employment around stations closer to Edinburgh, but there is little evidence that the scheme has had notable effects in terms of productivity, housing or property values. In particular, there has been little construction progress at Shawfair, a new township served by the railway".

CEPA anticipate that one of the key outcomes of the Borders Railway will be to expand Edinburgh’s labour catchment to incorporate the locations on the new line. As with HS1, they expect existing residents in these areas may be able to gain new jobs in Edinburgh where they can be more productive, and these areas may attract new residents. This would increase Edinburgh’s employment density, further improving productivity.

"By becoming part of the Edinburgh labour market catchment, we expect the locations on the new railway line to attract new residents, which may in turn support the development of housing. This would increase the population of the area or prevent what would otherwise have been a reduction in the population."

The analysis suggests that the Borders Railway had a modest positive impact on employment. The areas surrounding the ‘urban’ stations (Brunstane, Newcraighill and Shawfair) and ‘semi-urban’ (Eskbank, Newtongrange and Gorebridge) experienced a significant increase in employment following the opening of the Borders Railway whereas the areas surrounding ‘rural’ stations (Galashiels, Tweedbank and Stow) did not. 

"However, it should be noted that both the impacted and comparator areas for the ‘urban’ and ‘semi-urban’ stations were experiencing an upward trend in employment prior to the opening of the Borders Railway, so it is possible that the gains are due to some other confounding factor that could not be controlled for in the analysis. The Borders Railway “Blueprint for the Future” states that the local authorities identified land to deliver around 24,000 homes in Midlothian and the Scottish Borders by 2024. There is limited evidence to show how many of these have been built – one source suggests that 10,000 new homes had been built as of September 2020."

A section of the report headed Performance Against Investment Objectives comments on each of those objectives and shows the line is achieving on several fronts:

"Promote accessibility to and from the Scottish Borders and Midlothian to Edinburgh and the central belt – Achieving. Large volumes of users were using the service to travel between the Scottish Borders / Midlothian and Edinburgh. While commuting was the most common journey purpose, there were also a significant number of leisure and tourist users and evidence that the line has improved access and encourage people to make additional / new trips which they previously did not make.

"Foster social inclusion by improving services for those without access to a car – Largely achieving. There was strong agreement amongst respondents to the user survey that the railway has enabled them to access opportunities without using the car/only using the car for a portion of the journey. However, while the re-opening of the railway has resulted in improvements in access between the stations, it has also resulted in changes in bus service provision within the study area, most notably the reduction of the X95 service to an hourly service in May 2016.

"Prevent decline in the Borders population by securing ready access to Edinburgh’s labour market – Achieving. Commuting was found to be the most common journey purpose and Edinburgh is the most frequent destination, suggesting that the line has secured access to employment opportunities in the capital for residents of the Scottish Borders and Midlothian. The results also suggest that the improved access opportunities associated with the rail line have influenced people’s residential choices and encouraged in-migration to both Midlothian and the Scottish Borders.

"Create modal shift from the car to public transport – Achieving. The responses to the User Survey suggested that there has been a significant modal shift from car to rail, with the majority of respondents (64 percent) who previously made their trip by another mode stating that they drove all the way to their destination equating to an estimated 36,000 saved annual single car trips from the sample alone."

Rail project down south hoping to copy Borders "boom"

by EWAN LAMB

A decision by bosses of a planned £6 billion rail route linking the university cities of Oxford and Cambridge to reference the "success" of the Borders Railway as illustrating the huge potential of their scheme has evoked criticism in some quarters.

The East West Railway Company [EWR], set up and funded by England's Department for Transport (DfT) issued a news release last week which used the 35-mile Edinburgh to Galashiels route as a case study, comparing the Borders project with the proposed 38-mile of tracks which would reinstate train travel in the Oxford/Cambridge area.

The EWR story included contributions from Councillor Euan Jardine, leader of Scottish Borders Council, who was quoted as saying: "The project has massively exceeded expectations, providing a boom to overcome initial opposition to the railway.”

And Mr Jardine went on to claim the town of Galashiels 'used to be a struggling, run-down high street before the railway’s arrival, but is now a rejuvenated town centre'.

Earlier in March a House of Commons Transport Committee session examining East West Rail heard how Borders Railway has been “extraordinarily popular”, had generated “lots of economic development” and that “tourism has increased massively” as a result of the railway.

And Beth West, Chie Executive of EWR, said: “Borders Railway is an outstanding example of how a railway can be transformational for local economies and communities, helping places flourish and become more dynamic and desirable to visit. Successful case studies like Borders Rail provide an encouraging and inspiring blueprint for East West Rail to deliver a huge, positive legacy for residents, business and economies across the route.”

However, not all of the voices quoted by the Bedford Independent newspaper thought the comparison with the Borders Railway should have been flagged up. According to the paper's article written by local journalist Erica Roffe: "The MP for Bedford and Kempston, Mohammad Yasin (Labour) said he welcomes investment in public transport infrastructure.

“But it is a false comparison to argue that just because one rail project has been a success, that another one will be,” he said.

“Each project is unique. Plans are one thing, implementation quite another and I think there is a very long way to go before EWR can talk about success.”

Both Mr Yasin and Bedford's Conservative mayor Tom Wootton suggested that EWR should focus on communicating with residents in Bedford, rather than focusing their attention on projects at the other end of the country, according to the Independent.

Some of the statistics contained in two Scottish Borders Council reports produced last year hardly point to a "boom" in the fortunes of the Galashiels retail sector since the trains started running almost nine years ago in 2015 with a marked drop in so-called footfall, and 19 per cent of town centre shop units lying empty.

The council's 2022 retail survey showed the 19% vacancy rate represented an increase of two per cent since the summer 2021 audit. A total of 46 town centre units out of a total of 239 were unoccupied.

According to the survey: "The vacancy rate in the town centre has fluctuated over previous years notably from a high of 19% in winter 2016 to 15% in winter 2017. The opening of the Galashiels Transport Interchange, Border Railway and The Great Tapestry of Scotland should benefit the performance of the town centre over time, once these developments bed in. The performance of the town centre will continue to be monitored closely, particularly the vacant units along Channel Street and the north end of the High Street, and via the Town Centre Core Activity Area Pilot Study."

The picture was equally downbeat when it came to the town's footfall figures, again assembled by the council.

Footfall relates to the number of people entering a surveyed area over a given time, in this case in the course of a week.

The report for 2022 explains: "Galashiels has not recovered from the significant 33% decrease in footfall, as a result of the pandemic restrictions in 2020. There was no change to the footfall figures in 2021 and a further decrease of five per cent in footfall in 2022. Although, the town has the second highest footfall overall, which correlates with having a larger population, Galashiels town centre footfall is less than half its 2007 count."

Back in 2007 the average weekly footfall for Galashiels was 9,650, a figure which had fallen to 7,080 in 2019. The totals for 2021 and 2022 were 4,760 and 4,500 respectively.

Borders council has 480 'non-operational' buildings on its books

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF 

Councillors in the Scottish Borders will be told in no uncertain terms next week that the vast portfolio of 'assets' currently in local authority ownership is much too large, and the estate is now financially and environmentally unsustainable with a £22 million maintenance backlog.

The need to radically rationalise a total of 1,658 items on the asset register, including 484 'non-operational' buildings is outlined in a report written by Ray Cherry who became Scottish Borders Council's new Chief Officer, Estates, last June.

His appointment followed a review in 2022 which came to the conclusion that much of the estate - measuring the equivalent of 55 football pitches - is near end of life, in poor condition or is uneconomic to fix.

That review also claimed: "The estate is oversized; digital tools can improve ways of working; spaces do not reflect what services need to deliver effectively; there is little meaningful progress in partnership working and joined up public services; there is a desire for more creative use of council assets by the community.".

Next week's meeting will be asked to sanction a proposed rationalisation target for the next 5 years. Mr Cherry sets out the benefits that "will be realised as well as the need for all Council services to play their part in supporting the objective, contributing to right sizing the estate, both of which will contribute to targeting how we invest, where we maintain to improve the efficacy of our estate, decarbonising and reducing costs. 

"The target 10% (39,000m2) reduction of the estate over a five year period proposed in the report recognising the role that all Scottish Borders Council services have a collective role in working together to realise this objective."

Mr Cherry believes the "siloed nature" of how the council staff work creates difficulties in managing  assets effectively. There are historical and cultural legacies that have meant that SBC has not always arrived at optimum estates solutions, nor ensured that they are implemented to best effect. Much of the Council estate is seen as a liability rather than an asset.

The report explains that plans to reimagine council headquarters in Newtown St. Boswells as a civic hub, to optimise use of the building, increase occupancy and utilisation is progressing. Physical works are underway on-site to support the proposal. 

NHS Borders have already occupied a portion of the building. Live Borders [Sport & Leisure Trust] have followed, and discussions continue with other public and third sector partners with a view to working more closely, and collaboratively, pooling resources whilst helping share or reduce operational costs and maximise the return on investment that SBC has committed. 

According to Mr Cherry, the rationalisation strategy could produce benefits which might include: "Services are better protected (with a reduction in the estate being prioritised over reducing services);  reduce operational costs; increase capital and revenue income to support the Council’s financial sustainability; more concentrated and targeted investment in improving condition and functional suitability of key assets; fit for purpose estate aligned to meet service needs; more concentrated and targeted actions to reduce energy costs and consumption, and reduce direct carbon emissions."

The report suggests that each estate asset will be evaluated considering objective data and informed criteria to be classified in one of the following three categories: Retain and Maintain; Retain and Invest; Divest or Dispose. 

"A number of Council buildings play a significant role within communities across the Scottish Borders, particularly those that community groups use regularly or those that have a significant civic presence. For assets that fall into this category and are classified ‘Divest or Dispose’, engagement will need to be undertaken with the relevant community. 

"It is proposed that engagement will take place with relevant communities through community councils, Town Teams and other relevant community organisations explaining how a determination has been reached. Following this three-month grace period, from the date of engagement, an expression of interest should be submitted by the relevant community or third-party body."

While the strategy is expected to cut costs and generate income, Mr Cherry also mentions the need for additional resources to deliver the rationalisation programme.

The report concludes: "This is an ambitious programme, essential to the Council’s long term financial and environmental sustainability. There will be resource implications to achieve this, primarily in the Estates Team. 

"Initial data gathering and assessments of SBC assets is time consuming, requiring technical and professional skills. Much of this is available within the teams, but additional resource is expected to be needed to deliver the programme. Some resource can be sought from the private sector; however, it is anticipated that an expansion of in-house staffing may also be required alongside a reprioritisation of workload."

"Payment for patents sold to Avocet 'extremely remote'" - liquidator

by OUR BUSINESS EDITOR

The intellectual property belonging to the forerunner of the insolvent Avocet Group of companies which was valued at £4 million in 2015 has still not been paid for following its 'sale' to an associated business now in compulsory liquidation.

Bankrupt Martin Frost, a director of AFS Ventures Ltd nine years ago when the company was to be wound up, signed a so-called Declaration of Solvency which claimed there would be a £1.1 million surplus after all debts were paid.

Later, the patents held by AFS, which had been involved in research and development for BioFuels, were supposed to have been 'sold' to Avocet Infinite PLC of which Mr Frost was chairman. And the 50,000 £1 shares in AFS were in the ownership of Loch Lomond Heritage, another firm controlled by the Frost family.

Avocet Infinite attracted 650 shareholders who invested many millions of pounds, hoping to benefit from that company's 'revolutionary air-to-fuel' developments. But not a single product was brought to market before Avocet Infinite changed its name to Omega Infinite before being liquidated.

The latest twist in the complicated nine-year liquidation process involving AFS is contained in a 'progress report' from insolvency expert Eric Walls, of KSA Group, who has been joint liquidator from the outset. He has now announced his intention to "bring my administration of this case to a close".

His newly published report covering the period January 2023 to January 2024 shows asset realisation during the 12 months totalled £14.76 (gross bank interest).

The AFS report says: "The only remaining asset detailed on the Statement of Affairs (SoA) was in respect of the company's intellectual property which had been sold to Omega Infinite PLC which is in compulsory liquidation, albeit the final level of consideration in respect of that sale has not been paid.

"It had been unclear as to whether any further funds would be realised in respect of the company's intellectual property due to the complexities of this matter and the compulsory liquidation of Omega. However, having reviewed the latest progress report from that liquidation, I now consider that the likelihood of any realisation in respect of the amounts owed for the intellectual property are extremely remote".

The only distribution of money to be made by Mr Walls will be to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs who filed a claim for £100,650 in respect of unpaid Value Added Tax (VAT).

Mr Walls adds: "For clarity, whilst remuneration of the liquidators remains outstanding in respect of the prior MVL (Members' Voluntary Liquidation), it is not intended to lodge a claim in this respect of this liquidation. We give notice that no dividend will become payable to the unsecured creditors in this liquidation."

One of those unfortunate creditors is law firm Womble Bond Dickson - due £75,000. A solicitor from the practice, Victoria Smith, witnessed the 2015 Declaration of Solvency.

According to Mr Walls: "There are a number of legal actions ongoing in respect of a number of matters, none of which the liquidators of the company, or the company itself, are party to. I am therefore unable to comment any further on these matters as these continuing disputes may result in further legal action".

And he concludes: "Based on the reports of the joint liquidators of Omega, it is now believed that no realisations will be made".

After reading Mr Walls' report, an individual who has followed the entire Frost/Avocet saga from the AFS Ventures days onwards commented: "So that is that and it only took nine years to get……..well, where? 

Borders planning authority both for and against same scheme

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDITOR

An application from a business which was deemed by planning officers to be in line with Scottish Borders Council's approved Local Development Plan only three months ago is now being opposed by  the local authority which claims the proposal "is not in accordance with" the aforementioned development plan. 

The complete volte-face by the Borders planning authority comes after councillors decided by five votes to two to reject a recommendation for approval from their chief planning officer Ian Aikman.

Instead, the elected members dismissed proposals for the formation of storage space for agricultural machinery and equipment, and for up to 2,500 tonnes of potatoes on land at Mounthooly, near Jedburgh.

According to the committee decision: "The proposed development would lead to the loss of prime quality agricultural land" and use of the site for storage would not be compatible with or reflect the character of the surrounding area.

Following an appeal to the Scottish Government's Planning and Environmental Appeals Division [DPEA] by Andrew Ramsay, of Kelso-based Ramsay Mounthooly Ltd., SBC now finds itself asking planning reporter Sarah Foster to reject the appeal. Ms Foster is due to carry out a site visit this week.

Among the 16 objectors to the original proposal was Ross Horrocks, owner of the award winning Borders restaurant The Caddy Mann which is situated close by the development site.

Mr Horrocks told planners: "As an immediate neighbour and a longstanding popular business, the application as it stands would have a serious detrimental effect both on our business and the wellbeing and safety of the other residents of Mounthooly.

"More recently, this reasonably quiet farmyard has turned into a busy industrial estate with a large amount of heavy traffic, numerous businesses operating from different buildings, and further buildings being erected causing both noise and light pollution".

The Caddy Mann has been named the UK's best game restaurant and overall Scottish champion, and has featured in the Visit Scotland awards for 14 consecutive years.

Professor John Darling, and his wife Pamela, who live in Mounthooly House, claimed in their objection letter that local residents had seen a transition from small scale seed potato storage to high intensity continual industrial activity with early morning starts and late evening and weekend working throughout the year.

In recommending approval for the scheme in a report to the December meeting of SBC's Planning and Building Standards Committee, Mr Aikman wrote: "The proposed use would not be incompatible with the existing land use pattern or the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

"The choice of site, layout, and scale of proposals will not result in further adverse impacts. The development will accord with the relevant provisions of the statutory Development Plan and there are no material considerations that would justify a departure from these provisions".

However, in her communication to the appeal reporter in the wake of the committee decision, the council's managing solicitor Sarah Thompson states: "It is submitted by the Planning Authority that the proposed development is not in accordance with the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the appeal should be dismissed."

Craig Smail, clerk of works at Lothian Estates, and agent for Mr Ramsay has pointed out to Ms Foster that in the 20 years of his client owning the adjacent site they had never known it to yield any agricultural produce. The small area of land (a paddock) made it impractical for modern-day machinery.

A decision on Mr Ramsay's appeal is expected by early April.

Child abuse by Borders foster carers 'minimal', says council

by OUR OWN REPORTER

A detailed examination of local government minutes and reports covering an 84-year period from 1930 to 2014 has concluded that the scale and extent of abuse of children in foster care in the Scottish Borders has been 'limited' and 'minimal'.

The exercise was carried out to gather written evidence sent by Scottish Borders Council [SBC] to the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry in response to a Notice requesting the local authority to provide information about the fostering service delivered by successive councils from 1930 onwards.

In its 91-page submission to the inquiry, the Borders local authority tells how the fostering service for children developed under the control of county councils (1930-1975), then Borders Regional Council (1975-1996) and finally by SBC since the last reform of local government.

All local authorities in Scotland have assembled written evidence on fostering for consideration by the long-running national investigation into child abuse.

According to the SBC report: "From 1930 onwards involvement of local authorities in the Scottish Borders in the provision of various forms of alternative care - boarding-out, residential care and foster care was largely driven by national government legislation, policy and guidance, which was then enacted on a local basis. The historic evidence reviewed also gives a strong sense of the principle of the welfare of children which is apparent throughout."

In response to questions about the funding of fostering, SBC says paying for boarding-out and fostering is recorded in all relevant governance and management meeting minutes from 1930 onwards. It is not clear from many of the historic sources how and to what extent fostering was funded overall and what budget was designated specifically for the care of children. From regionalisation in 1975 there is clarity in terms of the overall social work budgets and provision for childcare and fostering services.

From 1930 onwards there are references in county council minutes to funding other local authorities in meeting the costs for the care of children who originate from the Scottish Borders. These included residential resources and boarding-out and fostering arrangements. Placements of children in establishments such as Barnardo's Homes, the Orphan Homes of Scotland, St. Ninian's House of Falkland, etc. appear to have been paid on a spot purchase basis.

According to the Borders evidence: "Funding of those boarded-out or fostered was more generally subject to standardised, agreed funding and differentiation was made between placement of children with relatives and with 'strangers' - for example: Roxburghshire Public Health and Social Welfare Committee 15/11/1943 - the weekly allowances for boarded out children are recorded - (a) with strangers 12/6d for children up to 12 years of age and 15/- over 12, and (b) with liable relatives 10/- up to 12 years of age, and 12/6d over 12 years of age."

While the reasons for 'boarding out' children in the 1930s and 1940s were similar to decisions on fostering today, there were a number of unorthodox cases recorded in historic council papers.

An extract from Berwickshire Community Council Public Health and Public Assistance minutes for 04/02/1941 - refers to a "Juvenile delinquent,***** who, after appearing in the Sheriff Court in Duns on 27/12/1940 the Director of Education initiated arrangements for the girl to be received into the home of Mrs.*****, Bridgend, by Linlithgow at a charge of 15/- per week recoverable from the girl's father."

In terms of the number of children being fostered at any given time, the submission explains that the Roxburgh Public Health and Public Assistance Committee of 12/01/1931 lists 9 guardians receiving payment for looking after children (classed as Non-Resident Poor). The Borders Regional Council Social Work Committee Report of October 1994 - the Monitoring of Child Care Services - there were 22 Community Carers and 13 Foster Carers. The Scottish Borders Council Fostering Service currently registers foster carers in the following categories: • Short Term Foster Carers - 35 carer households (60 carers); 47 placements (and 13 Continuing Care placements in addition).

SBC also responded to a series of questions from the inquiry team specifically linked to instances of abuse of children.

Were there any changes in culture that were driven by abuse, or alleged abuse, of children in foster care?  If so, when did they occur and how did they manifest themselves? In 2011 A Scottish Borders Council foster carer was convicted of the sexual abuse of two young people in his care. Following the disclosures and review of the case, the practice of statutory visits to children in care placements was reviewed. The Children and Families Practice Standards were changed to ensure children and young people in placements are visited at least monthly. Children should also be seen on their own. 

"In 2014 a foster carer was deregistered following a series of incidents of concerning supervision of children in her care, and subsequent minimisation of the potential consequences of this lack of supervision. Following the case, guidance was issued for managing situations where there are incidents of repeated allegations of poor practice about carers."

Does the local authority accept that between 1930 and 17 December 2014 any children cared for in foster care were abused? There is knowledge of children cared for in foster care who were abused.

 If so, what is the local authority's assessment of the extent and scale of such abuse? The records available only allow identification of the incidents set out at Part D which would indicate limited extent and scale.

Does the local authority accept that its systems failed to protect children in foster care between 1930 and 17 December 2014 from abuse? The local authority do not consider that this would be a suitable inference to draw based on the information available. The Borders Regional Council Child Abuse Registrar 31/12/1976 reference to the Social Work Department's responsibility to compile a list of "children considered to be 'at risk' of non-accidental injury." Reference states the register had been established 18 months prior to the meeting and that there were 15 children on the register. There are brief case studies included in the papers, but none refer to children looked after in foster care.

What is the local authority's assessment of the scale and extent of abuse of children in foster care? Scottish Borders Council believe the scale and extent of abuse of children in foster care to be minimal. This does not detract however from the very serious nature of any incident of abuse, particularly when it has occurred within a foster care setting.

How many complaints have been made in relation to alleged abuse of children in foster care? Eight individuals but in two cases, concerns were around general care, discipline and inappropriate chastisement and are likely to have involved a number of children. Against how many foster carers have the complaints referred to above been made? 10 carer households (14 individual carers). How many foster carers have been convicted of, or admitted to, abuse of children? One foster carer has been convicted of the abuse of children 

How many foster carers have been found by the local authority to have abused children? Seven carer households (nine individual carers). This assessment is based on the small number of incidents of abuse and alleged abuse which have been reported since 1990, set against the numbers of children and young people cared for by the Scottish Borders Council Fostering Service over this period.

£70,000 charity executive claims unfair dismissal

by DOUG COLLIE 

The former chief operating officer of a Borders-based charity which supports people with learning difficulties claims to have been sacked on the spot following disclosures he made about Brothers of Charity Services (Scotland) [BOC] to national watchdog The Care Inspectorate.

Gary McManus, who was receiving a salary of £70,000 at the time of his dismissal last November, voiced concerns about several aspects of the charity's operations at a Teams meeting with the Inspectorate's Lynne Hepburn only days before his employment was terminated.

But an Employment Tribunal (ET) hearing heard that management at BOC denied any link between Mr McManus talking to Ms Hepburn and his sacking. Instead, he had been told to leave his executive post because of "issues in the working relationship" between him and BOC.

Stuart Neilson, an ET judge, has rejected Mr McManus's application for so-called interim relief to preserve his employment status until the tribunal has decided a claim for unfair dismissal.

But the written judgment explains that this decision is purely in the context of the application and has no bearing upon any final decision in the case when the Tribunal and the parties will have had the benefit of hearing oral testimony, with appropriate cross examination, and consideration of all relevant documentary evidence.

Mr McManus was employed by the charity from March 2022 until November 2023 during which time his annual salary increased from an initial £54,000 to £70,000. The claimant alleges that he was unfairly dismissed and that the reason or principal reason was due to the disclosures that he made to the Care Inspectorate.

According to the tribunal report, Mr McManus made the following disclosures to Ms Hepburn: "(a) Concerns regarding governance and compliance issues within the respondent [Brothers of Charity Services (Scotland)]; (b) That he understood there had been a practice within the respondent of falsifying the files that the respondent held for each registered manager. In particular that there was a standard file that met the requirements that the Care Inspectorate might look for with regard to a registered manager and the practice had been simply to use that standard file but change the name of the registered manager on the file – so that in reality the file did not actually relate to that specific registered manager. 

"(C) That there had been a failure to provide incident reports (“Notifications”) to the Care Inspectorate. These Notifications, which were a legal requirement, relate to any adult protection concern – which might include e.g. abuse, significant harm or staffing issues. Some of the failures went as far back as 2008/2009. (d) Issues around the undermining, by the respondent, of the approved management review and restructure that had been approved by the respondent in April 2023. (e) Flip flopping on decision making within the respondent – in terms of inconsistency in dealing with people issues such as performance."

Mr McManus alleged that he made these disclosures as he wanted to reset the relationship between the respondent and the Care Inspectorate and to demonstrate transparency and ownership of issues. This followed a Care Inspectorate report into BOC in the summer of 2023 that had given the respondent a “weak” rating.

As a consequence of making these disclosures the claimant alleged that was called to a Teams meeting on 30 November 2023 with the Chief Executive, Jane Moore and the head of HR, Fiona MacDonald. At that meeting he was notified that his employment was terminated with immediate effect. The dismissal was pre-determined. He was given no opportunity to answer any of the allegations. There was no fair process and no right of appeal.

Daniel Gorry, solicitor representing BOC, told the tribunal the respondent was unaware of the content of the discussions on the call between Mr McManus and Ms Hepburn but had been advised by the manager at the Care Inspectorate that the claimant complained about the managers within the Social Work department of the respondent’s funder, Scottish Borders Council.

The respondent was also able to point to a timeline that showed the real reason for dismissal was not linked to the alleged disclosures. In particular Mr Gorry highlighted that there were issues in the working relationship between the claimant and the respondent.

He drew attention to a breakdown in the relationship between Fiona MacDonald and the claimant from September 2023 and concerns the CEO had about unprofessional e mails from the claimant. Mr Gorry referred to e mail exchanges between Fiona MacDonald and the claimant on 27 and 28 September 2023 that he suggested showed unfair criticism of Fiona MacDonald by the claimant regarding an employee’s registration details.

Mr Gorry submitted that all of this culminated in the CEO speaking to the Chair of the Board, Brother John O’Shea, on 20 November 2023 to discuss the continued employment of the claimant. They agreed to seek legal advice and a decision was made to terminate the claimant’s employment. That was actioned on Thursday 30 November 2023 when the claimant returned from annual leave.

BOC Services (Scotland) with a staffing headcount of around 250 supports over 80 individuals in the Borders ranging in age from 22-85 years, and has also provided care at home services.

The purpose of the charity "is to provide care and support to individuals that makes a real and meaningful difference to their lives".

An annual report published in 2022 noted: "Our staff turnover rate this year hit a record high of 30% and the main contributing factors are in line with the sector-wide profile - exhaustion, anxiety, stress, frustration at the lack of recognition in the wider community of social care staff".

In that year BOC received total income of £6.7 million while the cost of delivering its services totalled £6.9 million

Spiralling debt revealed for failed 'cutting edge' business

by OUR BUSINESS UNIT

The money owed to a secured creditor by a failed 'disruptive technology' agri-business based in Berwickshire has skyrocketed by more than 80 per cent since administrators were sent in four years ago, according to a newly released report.

Orrdone Farms Ltd (previously called Avocet Farms) was controlled by businessmen Martin Frost and Dr Robert Jennings prior to its crash in 2020. Instead of revolutionising farm production and green fuel manufacture, as promised, the firm now has creditors claiming more than £11 million, and there are insufficient funds even to pay administrator Emma Porter.

A progress report on the administration by Ms Porter shows the sum due to secured creditor United Kingdom Agricultural Lending Ltd [UKALL] totalled £3.25 million at the date of her appointment in January 2020. With interest and charges, the figure at December 1st, 2023 stood at £5.89 million, an increase of 81.2% with interest continuing to run until the debt has been settled.

The courts recently granted an extension to the administration until January 2026. The latest report to creditors covers the period July 2023 to January 2024.

Ms Porter writes: "There has been no change in the period in relation to the non-cooperation of the directors (the board included Mr Frost and Dr Jennings). Extensive correspondence continues to be circulated to a wide variety of parties directly commenting on the administration procedure and the administrator personally. It remains my view that this correspondence is both inaccurate and inappropriate".

The report says that despite the unfortunate obstruction and deflection tactics employed by the directors, progress has been made with the sale of the company's assets.

"Numerous allegations have been made by the directors about assets and liabilities of the company, none of which have been able to be substantiated due to the lack of evidence provided".

Ms Porter considers that a significant sum is due to the company by Dr Jennings, and solicitors have been instructed to pursue this matter.

In a section of the report covering the bankruptcies of Mr Frost and his wife Janet Orr Frost, the administrator explains that she has submitted claims in both cases. "But the complexities of the case make it uncertain that a dividend will be available".

During the course of the administration process considerable time has been spent in an attempt to reconstruct certain financial records of the company. But this has been attempted using limited, incomplete and often outdated information delivered from a variety of sources.

The report also points out: "Potential creditors include 29 companies associated with the Avocet Group. It remains the view of the administrator that these companies are not genuine creditors".

Ms Porter states there are insufficient funds to meet the costs of the administration which has so far involved expenditure of £614,000.

She adds: "There are several areas where time costs have been incurred that have not been charged, such as dealing with police matters and inflammatory correspondence from the director [presumably Mr Frost]. The administrator has agreed to write off these costs. The total deduction in time costs is £98,343."

Borders councillor cleared by Standards Commission

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDITOR

An unnamed member of Scottish Borders Council did not breach the councillors' code of conduct, a 16-month investigation by the Standards Commission for Scotland has concluded. A complaint lodged against the councillor in question has been dismissed.

Details of the case are contained in a written decision issued by the Commission's executive director Lorna Johnston. 

The report shows that following his investigation into a complaint received in October 2022 concerning an alleged contravention of the versions of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by an elected member of Scottish Borders Council (the respondent), the Ethical Standards Commissioner [ESC] referred the matter to the Standards Commission on February 22nd 2024. 

The complaint concerned an allegation that the respondent had failed to declare an interest at two meetings of the Council’s Common Good Fund Sub Committee, held on November 17th 2021 and  November 23rd 2022. The complaint also claimed that the respondent may have accepted a free or reduced-price pitch at a local event held by a local company on common good land, in contravention of the code’s provisions regarding gifts and hospitality.

In his report, Ian Bruce, the ESC advised that he had found: "The respondent had been able to demonstrate that payments were made by his business to the local company for pitches at events in 2018, 2019 and 2022. As such, there was no evidence that any gifts or hospitality had been received. There was also no evidence to suggest that the respondent had sought any preferential treatment for his company."

 The ESC added that while the local company had benefited from the council’s policy not to charge certain organisations for the use of common good land, there was no evidence of a connection between the respondent (and his business) and the local company that went beyond what might be expected of local businesses. 

"In any event, the respondent had paid for his pitch and, therefore, any benefit enjoyed by the local company as a result of the council’s decision was not passed on to him."

The investigation also concluded: "While the respondent knew some of the directors of the local company and that his business had paid for pitches at an event run by it, there was no evidence of any other connection. 

"As such, the ESC was unable to conclude that a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard the respondent’s connection as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice his discussion or decision-making at either meeting. The ESC indicated, therefore, that he did not consider that the Respondent had been required to declare an interest at either meeting.

"Having considered the various factors of the complaint and the evidence gathered, the ESC concluded that the respondent’s conduct did not amount to a breach of the code."

After considering the terms of his referral, the Standards Commission did not consider that it was necessary or appropriate to direct the ESC to undertake any further investigation into the matter.

Ms Johnston explains that in making a decision about whether to hold a hearing, the Standards Commission took into account both public interest and proportionality considerations

In assessing the public interest, the Standards Commission noted that a breach of the provisions in the code that required councillors to declare certain interests and to refrain from accepting certain gifts and hospitality could bring the role of a councillor and the council itself into disrepute. 

"In this case, however, the Standards Commission was of the view that, on the face of it, there was no evidence of any such breach of the code. The Standards Commission noted that holding a hearing (with the associated publicity) could promote the provisions of the code and, therefore, there could be some limited public interest in holding a hearing." 

The Commission noted, however, that the option to take no action had been included in legislation to ensure that neither the ethical standards framework, nor the Standards Commission, was brought into disrepute by spending public funds on administrative or legal processes in cases that did not, on balance, warrant such action. 

"In considering proportionality, the Standards Commission noted that the ESC, in his referral, had reached the conclusion that the respondent’s conduct did not amount, on the face of it, to a breach of the code. Having reviewed the evidence before it, the Standards Commission found no reason to depart from that conclusion. 

"Having taken into account the above factors, and in particular the fact that it is not satisfied, on the face of it, that the conduct as established could amount to a breach of the code, the Standards Commission concluded that it was neither proportionate, nor in the public interest, for it to hold a hearing."

 

Frost the serial litigant handed two court orders

by OUR CRIME REPORTER

He has threatened legal action against business 'enemies', lawyers, ex-employees, and even senior law enforcement officers on countless occasions following the spectacular financial collapse of a string of companies he once controlled.

But now, bankrupt vexatious litigant Martin Frost, who has also warned he would sue the proprietor of this blogging site during our coverage of his activities over the past five years, has himself felt the full weight of the law after a Scottish sheriff found him guilty of stalking two women and causing them fear and alarm.

In a case which has its origins as far back as 2018, Frost - once head of the Avocet 'air-or-dung-to-fuel' empire - was the subject of a five-day trial which ended in Jedburgh Sheriff Court on Thursday with him being fined a total of £2,000, and served with two non-harassment orders. There was also a conviction for  threatening behaviour aimed at a male Frost had targeted.

Attempts by court staff to bring the case to trial were repeatedly frustrated when Frost, who lives in Scarborough, failed to turn up for hearings before the sheriff, citing ill health and rare medical conditions. In December of last year he was warned that any further delaying tactics would result in his arrest.

As regular readers of these columns will know, Frost repeatedly used letters and statements sent to Avocet's 650 shareholders to attack his two female victims. He alleged they had stolen millions of pounds from various businesses which are now either being liquidated or are in administration.

Not Just Sheep & Rugby contacted both women to ask how they felt now that their lengthy ordeal at the hands of Frost had ended. We have decided not to name them to spare them further anxiety and hurt.

The first victim - a Scottish Borders resident - told us: "Its been a long time coming after a really tough time for us. There is some relief it's all over so far as this case is done, though it was really unpleasant because the two of us took the decision to forgo the right to use video link and endure Frost cross examining us.  

 "He is such an unpleasant character, a real Jekyll and Hyde.  A family member was in court: she was just astonished at his lies.  He did lie all the way through the trial."

And she added "However, this doesn’t make me feel much safer, because he is obviously so obsessed with us which is the real problem. The non-harassment orders are really welcome, it will give us some comfort, but he won’t be able to maintain the silence for long.

 "It's time now not to reflect but to move on. I think we had a measured procurator fiscal who kept us informed, and a judge who gave Frost 'enough rope to hang himself'.

Frost's second victim, who left the Borders as a direct result of her experiences commented: "The last few weeks have brought back some awful memories from a period in my life which I hoped would, in all honesty, disappear.

"Being cross examined directly by the accused was sickening. However, the outcome was what we had hoped for and justice prevailed.

"Although what happened will never go away from my memory, I hope that both of us can draw the proverbial line in the sand, and move forward with our lives."

All of Frost's public threats to take hordes of individuals to court both here and in Delaware, USA, have proven to be nothing more than bluster. And as a vexatious litigant he cannot raise actions in the Scottish courts without the approval of a senior judge.

This example from June 2020 is typical of the forthcoming (but non-existent) criminal and civil litigation Frost was peddling.

He told Avocet's long-suffering investors who seem likely to have lost all of their money in worthless shares: "On Thursday, 18th June 2020, Police Scotland advised me that their report  to the Procurator Fiscal was pending and it was now OK for Avocet to proceed with further criminal complaints (involving some £1.5 million of theft & fraud against Avocet) and bring civil actions (amounting to over £5 million in loss and damages).

"Most regrettably such actions will again fall upon my wife’s family and some other Avocet shareholders. A resume of these complaints including the current conspiracy and badmouthing charges against their acolytes and publicists will be forwarded to you, Avocet’s owners, for this Monday 22nd June 2020.

"For the avoidance of doubt: on Monday 22nd June, 2020, prior to service of further criminal complaints and civil actions, Avocet owners shall be advised against whom and for what such actions shall be taken – regrettably the naming of names does include some Avocet shareholders who have sought to rob and defraud their fellow shareholders along with publicists".

October 2020 saw the first threat by Frost to raise court action in the US state of Delaware against individuals who had been forwarding his shareholders' letters to non-investors including this blogging website.

Then, in May 2021, the ex-Avocet chairman announced a £5 million 'war chest' to fund at least nine separate law suits, including one aimed at Scotland's Crown Office and another at Police Scotland. The money was to come from the sale of intellectual property to mystery buyers.

There is no evidence that any of these threatened lawsuits were ever filed in court or that 'valuable' Avocet patents were sold.