'Neglected' A-listed suspension bridge to be centre of attention

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD 

One of the dedicated volunteers who helped secure the future of the world famous Union Chain Bridge on the River Tweed will address a public meeting next week when the uncertainty hanging over another iconic suspension bridge by the same architect will be the subject for debate.

The Union Chain Bridge was the brainchild of naval captain Sir Samuel Brown who first patented a design for wrought iron chain links to be used in suspension bridges in 1817. His Union bridge connecting Scotland and England was completed in 1820.

A recent restoration scheme costing £10 million allowed the 203-year-old structure to re-open to traffic last year.

In the 1830s Samuel Brown was commissioned by wealthy landowner William Mein, of Ormiston in Roxburghshire to construct a smaller bridge to span the River Teviot at Kalemouth for Mr Mein's private use. It is 180 feet in length compared to the Union bridge which measures 423 feet between its stone towers.

Soon after its completion, Mein allowed public use of the Kalemouth bridge under a system of tolls. According to old documents the charges in 1834 were a halfpenny for pedestrians, threepence for a horse and cart, sixpence for a gig and a shilling for a chaise.

But Kalemouth had to be completely closed to traffic in 2020 after an inspection showed the A-listed bridge was in need of urgent attention. The timbers were said to be in a dangerous state and in need of complete renewal at a likely cost of £1 million. A more extensive refurbishment could increase the bill to £4 million, according to officials of Scottish Borders Council, the authority responsible for the bridge and its condition.

The closure has resulted in lengthy detours for the current residents of Ormiston Mains' 12 properties who would no doubt back the more expensive option to allow cars to cross the bridge once more. A project involving replacement timbers would result in only pedestrians and cyclists being able to travel over the Teviot.

A report prepared for members of the council executive last December stated: "The Union Chain Bridge refurbishment project was circa £10 million and given Kalemouth Suspension Bridge is half the span strengthening and timber replacement costs would likely be in the range of £2M- £4M, most probably at the top end of this scale. This, unfortunately, renders a project of this nature cost prohibitive and means it does not really offer value for money for the public purse".

Members of Crailing, Eckford & Nisbet Community Council in whose territory the Kalemouth Bridge is situated, were given a recent update by SBC.

The council said external consulting engineers had been commissioned and were progressing through the design for the replacement and renewal of all timber elements on the bridge. 

"Expression of Interest Forms for external grant funding to assist with the refurbishment works have been prepared and submitted to Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and Heritage Lottery Grant Fund (HLGF). Initial positive replies have been received from both parties and once more detail of refurbishment works are prepared, further discussions will be required as part of the formal bid process".

Local residents will have a chance to put forward ideas and suggestions for the bridge's future at a public meeting to be held on Wednesday May 8th at 7.30 pm in Eckford Village Hall.

The meeting will hear Edward Cawthorn, secretary and a trustee of the Friends of the Union Chain Bridge speak about the history and restoration of Kalemouth's famous 'big sister'.

Mr Cawthorn's talk will be followed by an open discussion when there may be a move to set up a 'Friends of Kalemouth Bridge' group.

Charlie Robertson, acting chairman of the community council, said: "There are those in the community who favour a full restoration - particularly those who live over the bridge [from the Jedburgh-Kelso road]. Whatever the final decision, we feel there needs to be a group to monitor the bridge and make sure that it is not so badly neglected again."

  

New Borders wind farms could power four Scottish cities!

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

The current batch of eight major wind farm applications being processed by planners in the Scottish Borders are capable of generating enough electricity to supply every household in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee with ample capacity to spare.

While critics maintain the region is already 'saturated' with hundreds of turbines, an even larger project involving a total of 80 towers is expected to become the subject of a so-called Section 36 application to Scottish ministers later this summer.

The EDF Renewables planned Liddesdale Wind Farm on a vast tract of land near the village of Newcastleton could power 249,000 households on its own. It is in the same location as a 2016 proposal which never reached the application stage.

It has been calculated that the eight schemes currently under consideration by planning officers would, if approved, provide energy to more than 850,000 homes. Scotland's four largest cities have around 711,000 households between them while the Scottish Borders local government area has a mere 55,296, according to the latest published figures.

The statistics would tend to suggest that Borders landscapes are being asked to accommodate more than their fair share of turbines. But there seems to be no slowing in demand for new sites by 'green' energy companies.

Those projects with a generating capacity above 50 megawatts (MW) have to be sanctioned by ministers after progressing through the Energy Consents Unit. If a local authority decides to oppose a scheme then a public local inquiry is necessary to hear objections as well as the developer's case.

EDF has been told that in the case of its 400 MW Liddesdale project, Scottish Borders Council has maintained previous advice that any application should in fact be three separate applications.

A report states: "Scottish Ministers would strongly encourage the company to take the advice from these consultees into account prior to submitting any application[s] for consent".

The eight current 'live' wind farm proposals above 50MW capacity are:

Teviot (near Hawick) 62 turbines;  developer - Muirhall Energy; capacity - 409MW.  Mill Moor Rig (near Hawick) 13 turbines; developer - ESB Ltd.; capacity - 78MW. Scawd Law (near Walkerburn)         8 turbines; developer - Fred Olsen; capacity - 60MW. Dunside (Lammermuirs) 15 turbines; developer -  EDF Energy; capacity - 108MW. Ditcher Law (near Oxton) 9 turbines; developer - E Power Ltd.; capacity - 59MW. Longcroft (near Oxton) 19 turbines; developer - RES; capacity - 100MW.              Lees Hill (near Duns) 6 turbines; developer - Fred Olsen; capacity - 60MW. Leithenwater (near Peebles) 13 turbines; developer - Belltown Power; capacity - 95MW.

We asked whether the sizeable number of applications was having an impact on the workload facing planners in the Scottish Borders.

According to the council: "Whilst application numbers across the teams remain high, they continue to manage consultation requests for Section 36 applications with the resources currently available."

Councillors are due to decide whether to oppose or back the large-scale Teviot Wind Farm proposals by August. There have already been numerous objections and some backing for the scheme locally.

Last month, members of the Borders planning committee voted by a majority of 4-2 to reject proposals for a 14-turbine wind farm called Greystone Knowe, near Fountainhall even though officers had recommended the go-ahead with conditions attached.

 

More Sitka Spruce - blessing or a curse?

Special feature on the forestry 'dilemma' facing the South of Scotland.

by LESTER CROSS

The forestry industry's drive for many more coniferous woodlands across the Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway will encourage £150 million of further investment locally by timber processors over the next ten years, it has been claimed.

But the continuous planting of fast growing sitka spruce trees, largely paid for by publicly funded grants, is causing increasing concern in many communities with calls for a much greater emphasis on broadleaved species on newly afforested land.

The sharply contrasting views over the future of the industry in the two regions are clearly seen in a transcript of proceedings at the last meeting of the Convention of the South of Scotland [CoSS]. Representatives from 'both sides of the argument' considered a paper entitled Innovative Forestry and Woodland Creation written by the local authorities, South of Scotland Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland.

There is no denying the importance of forestry so far as the South's economy is concerned.

As the paper pointed out, around a third of new woodlands in Scotland are created in the south, with an economic benefit of around a third of a billion pounds per year and associated employment in wood production, forest management, haulage and processing sectors. 

"South of Scotland (SoS) is the biggest timber marketing zone in the UK at over 3.8 million cubic metres of timber removals each year, predominately (but not exclusively) conifer production. The industry delivers 3-5 thousand jobs with three primary processors, including two major sawmills and the only producer of home grown shiplap [overlapping boards] in the UK. 

"Forestry in Scotland contributes £1-2 billion GVA each year with approximately 35% of that delivered in the SoS. In addition, since the start of the current Forestry Grant Scheme over £90 million of grants have been given for woodland creation and sustainable forest management, with the SoS issuing more small farm woodland options that any other area."

However, the authors concede that the ways local communities are consulted and included in the decision making about the delivery of woodland creation and forestry management have raised challenges over how the process is currently handled. 

"This issue has emerged through the Regional Land Use Partnership (RLUP) process, our Community Wealth Building (CWB) and direct engagement with communities across the region. There is concern that if there is an increase in delivery rates, the scale of land use change in some areas may have unintended negative impacts on the local communities and their associated economies for a long time into the future."

The consultation to date had produced calls for more diversity of species in commercial forestry, more native broadleaf generally (for biodiversity and societal benefit), more robust and effective community consultation and regional and local assessment of cumulative impacts. 

"Both local authorities aspire to increase the size of forestry across its administrative border. However, without clarity and transparency of decision making across the SoS there are issues of agency for delivery.  The outcomes of the RLUF consultation also indicate there is a need for further work in assessing the cumulative impacts of significant planting. This is currently missing in the woodland creation planning process, as it falls outside the traditional Local Authority planning process and is causing significant community issues. This area of tension is being explored through discussions with SOS communities and will be supported by the Borderlands Natural Capital Programme."

The Convention heard Andy Leitch, deputy chief executive of the Confederation of Forest Industries (Confor) describe the South of Scotland as the engine room of wood production and wood processing, not just in Scotland but mainly in the UK too.

He said current production of two million cubic metres of timber annually was set to double over the next twenty years. The wood-processing sector was already using over two-and-a-half million cubic metres, so there was a gap between what's available in South Scotland and what they're using. 

"That's currently being imported from North England, Argyll and Central Scotland. Once we get to 2031, we're in a potentially self-sufficient situation and for the next 10 years, we've got surplus, which might attract additional investment", said Mr Leitch.

He added: "The big issue is where that (level of production) line goes from 2038. It goes downwards and therefore investors are a bit concerned about, uh-oh, if I put my money in now, where's that wood going to be in the future?"

Mr Leitch explained that the processing sector had invested £300 million in the area over the last few years. They had plans to invest another £150 million in the next 10 years in added value. But that money could be invested elsewhere if that timber was not going to be available.

Charles Dundas, chief executive of Borders Forest Trust, told delegates the area's semi-natural broadleaved woodlands were reduced to just a scattering of small remnants - fragmented and fragile. The extremely comprehensive Native Woodland Survey of Scotland had shown that native woodland makes up just 2.6 per cent of the total area of Dumfries and Galloway and only 1.4 per cent of the Scottish Borders. While 19 per cent of Scotland has forestry on it, only one out of every four trees was native and the other three out of four were non-native. 

According to Mr Dundas: "We've turned around this historic deforestation pretty quickly, but we've managed it by focusing on fast-growing, non-native productive plantations. It's worth noting that the 25 per cent, 75 per cent split that we see across the rest of the country, that doesn't represent the South of Scotland. 

"Just nine per cent of the forestry in Dumfries and Galloway is native, which means 91 per cent is non-native. In the Borders, it's even more imbalanced. Only seven per cent is native, which means 93 per cent of the forestry in the Scottish Borders is non-native. I think that's why we see in the recent RLUP  consultation, the public's top priority for land use change across the South of Scotland was for far more native woodland to be planted. It's an imbalance there.

"I would actually like it to go on the record now that as an environmentalist I am saying we need more productive plantations, not less. But we also need far more native woodland. That balance, particularly in the South of Scotland, is out of whack. You've heard it from the public. I'm telling it to you now as well. We need a more balanced landscape."

Morag Paterson, representing Communities for Diverse Forestry, based in Galloway illustrated how much forestry there was in the south, and how much of that was predominantly conifer, albeit with the fringes of broadleaves and open land. 

She said: "But the cumulative impact of this level of concentration can't be ignored. It's a real concern for people, whether it's on wildlife, the environment, acidification of rivers or just rural depopulation is also a perceived issue.

"There's a lot of concern about putting all our eggs in one basket with this predominantly one species of tree, albeit I realise it's fast growing and it's very effective and people have bought into it. But that doesn't mean we don't look to the future with our eyes wide open and say, how could we diversify our supplies?"

 The concerns over the mass planting of sitka spruce were raised by the Southern Upland Partnership (SUP) in a report published in 2021.

It warned: "There is a real concern that South Scotland is taking more than its’ share of new tree-cover. In addition, disproportionately more of the planting is coniferous forest and much less of the planting is woodland compared to other parts of Scotland.  

"There are also concerns that the drive to meet planting targets is pushing forestry onto sites which are not suitable eg peatlands (where the climate benefits are questionable) and species-rich habitats (where there is likely to be a net-loss of biodiversity)." 

And SUP claimed: "There is currently, within the region, considerable anti-forestry feeling. Consultation exercises will therefore need to seek to show how land use change can be integrated with other land uses and demonstrate that the proposals can deliver significant local and regional benefits. 

"Loss of farming families, loss of open ground, loss of biodiversity, loss of archaeology and cultural heritage, more monotonous landscapes and increased timber movements along poorly maintained roads and through small towns and villages are all regularly blamed on forestry. We suggest more could be done to increase the benefits to local communities (as is done when wind farms are developed)."

 

 

Berwickshire farmer's concerns over pylons scheme

by EWAN LAMB

Twelve years ago Borders farmer Simon Bennett's attempt to erect a small wind turbine to power his business was blocked by council planners who claimed the structure would detract from the iconic landscape surrounding Hume Castle atop a rocky crag.

But now Mr Bennett is fighting proposals by Scottish Power to put up a row of electricity pylons and overhead lines [OHL] even closer to the roofless fort because, he says the towers and cables will threaten his family's health while at the same time wiping hundreds of thousands of pounds from the value of Caldside Farm, near the village of Greenlaw.

The 30 kilometre-long collection of pylons (up to 38 metres high) and OHLs linking sub-stations in Galashiels and Eccles will be the subject of an application to the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit later this year. The project is designed to replace two aging power lines.

In 2012, Scottish Borders Council Planning Committee members rejected Mr Bennett's application for a single turbine after being told by officers: "It is considered that the proposal would undoubtedly create an adverse impact on the views to and from Hume Castle with an unacceptable cumulative impact in conjunction with the two existing turbines nearby.

"I concur with the Landscape Section that the proposal would contribute another high and prominently located structure to views that are already significantly impacted by existing turbines, and by the high pylons. It has not been demonstrated that the development would not have any unacceptable landscape and visual impacts as a consequence of its proposed siting."

It is clear that the likely impact of Mr Bennett's proposal will be dwarfed by Scottish Power's scheme.

But the Bennetts have been told the power company is unable to route the replacement OHL along the same path as the existing line which sits in a valley.

In a letter of objection to the planning authority, Mr Bennett cited the following reasons for his concerns: "Their proposal is to route the replacement just to the south of our farmhouse along some of the highest geographical points in the area. I ask for a review and reconsideration of the proposed route due to the impact on an area of outstanding beauty.

"A viable alternative route is available a short distance to the south; the health risks associated with proximity to OHLs; significant financial impact on the value of our farm and ongoing businesses".

The proposed new towers carrying the OHL will be seen on the skyline for miles around, said Mr Bennett, adding: "The proposed pylons are all significantly higher, wider and closer to Hume Castle than our proposed small wind turbine which was rejected due to its size, proximity to Hume Castle, and detrimental effect on the skyline".

In his reference to health risks, Mr Bennett explained the proposed routing would place the family's farmhouse in the middle of a corridor of OHLs. The health risks associated with exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) were well documented. The proposed route at its closest would put the general living area at Caldside under 250 metres from the new OHL - the farm would be in the middle of a hazardous EMF corridor.

The letter of objection added: "We bought Caldside farm to grow the business to hand down to our children, and to have a safe and secure environment to raise our children.

"We have invested in our farmhouse, infrastructure and land, and in the local community, including currently developing a small holiday let business. With the replacement pylons in the proposed locations directly in front of our farmhouse it is estimated that the position of the proposed replacement OHL will reduce the overall value by hundreds of thousands of pounds".

Mr Bennett told us: "The community consultation was ineffective, as the majority of homeowners directed impacted by this routing were unaware.  Only those landowners who would have a pylon imposed on their property, or the line went over their property were informed. Those who live within a few hundred feet of this new line will receive no compensation, but their health and property value will be significantly damaged."

He was at a loss as to what more he could do to stop the damage to the health of his family, the huge negative financial impact and the obliteration of one of the best views in the Scottish Borders, all for the sake of Scottish Power not moving the proposed route a short distance to run in a natural valley alongside an existing OHL.

Mr Bennett asked his local MP John Lamont (Con) to intervene on his behalf.

A response to Mr Lamont sent by Laura McGhee, Scottish Power Government Affairs Assistant, set out to answer each of the points raised by Mr Bennett.

She wrote: "Health Risks – EMFs dissipate relatively quickly over a short distance from an overhead line. Please find attached an EMF measurement survey taken from a similar overhead line to that being proposed. Also included is an impartial information document compiled by an independent body on EMFs etc." 

Ms McGhee claimed there was no direct evidence to suggest that property values would be affected with the distances between the towers (pylons) and property involved in these circumstances. In relation to the proposals, the project team were considering all feedback received which included the points raised by Mr Bennett.

And, according to Ms McGhee: "Impact on area of outstanding beauty – planning legislation guides SPEN (Scottish Power Energy Networks) in overhead line routing – this involves a documented environmentally led approach also considering both technical feasibility and the economic cost to the public. All potentially significant environmental impacts are being assessed by the team, which include the concerns raised by Mr Bennett. The assessment outcome will further shape the design and any mitigation measures involved. SPENs Land Officers will share the updated proposals with landowners prior to any submission of the planning application.  

"Viable alternative route – your constituent mentions potentially following the existing overhead line route for the new replacement overhead line which on the surface is an obvious suggestion – however in the case of replacing an existing overhead line which was built decades ago, the planning regulations do not allow the original route to be followed as the starting point – rather the documented, environmentally led approach is a requirement." 

She said SPEN recognised that delivering new national infrastructure projects could be difficult and involved challenges – the company made every effort to consult and work with all stakeholders, including communities and landowners. If the new proposed overhead line received planning permission and was completed, the existing OHL being replaced would be removed, providing a positive visual enhancement at this location. 

Those tourism strategies from days gone by (part two)

Continuing our tongue-in-cheek trawl through 50-odd years of blueprints and master plans

by PHIL ROOMS, our TRAVEL EDITOR

In part one we'd reached 1973, and that madcap suggestion from Edinburgh consultants that Jedburgh's Market Square should be made to look like Dubrovnik, or was it Copenhagen? Now read on...

Another grandiose scheme - this one hatched in 1974 - which never got off the ground involved the development of a £750,000 "cultural centre" alongside the England-Scotland border on the A1 road at Lamberton, near Berwick-on-Tweed.

The complex was supposed to incorporate a motel plus a theatre and conference centre to lure northbound travellers, and teach them all about Scotland. But despite local enthusiasm for the venture, the Scottish Development Department and the Department of the Environment stepped in and blocked it on road safety grounds.

The disgruntled architect declared: "We are planning a high-quality centre at Lamberton, not a shanty town of chalets and caravans".

Meanwhile, the fledgling Borders Tourist Association was having to survive on a "hopelessly inadequate" annual budget of £25,000 while promoting a sector estimated to be worth £8 million a year to the Borders economy.

Equestrian tourism always appeared to be a natural fit for the Border counties, and 1975 marked the launch of a campaign to have an "Aviemore-type centre" built with activities for horse riders taking the place of winter sports.. The centre would offer show jumping, riding to hounds, polo, dressage and pony trekking.

A variety of other sporting facilities was recommended to widen the centre's appeal...a fish-farming complex, clay pigeon shooting, an eighteen-hole golf course and an indoor centre catering for at least 14 sports ranging from snooker to judo. Sadly, this one never materialised either.

The fragile united Borders front on tourism suffered a serious setback in 1982 when rebellious Roxburgh councillors pulled out of a proposed joint tourist association for the region with the intention of 'going it alone'. The other three districts - Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale, and Berwickshire were happy to work together. Roxburgh eventually caved in and joined forces with its neighbours.

However, seven years later, Roxburgh broke ranks again when the district's councillors refused to sanction a demand for £20,000 to help pay for a tourism strategist who was meant to transform the local industry's fortunes.

Yet another firm of consultants had recommended the appointment of the expert on a three-to-five-year contract, and an annual budget of £50k. Their report declared: "If there is not a serious willingness for the bodies involved to work jointly in taking such a first step, it may be as well to agree that, given the problematic administrative structure, a strategic approach towards tourism cannot be pursued in the Borders Region".

But the entire strategy was kicked into touch when Roxburgh chairman Gideon Yellowlees - at the time he also happened to be head of the Scottish Borders Tourist Board - quipped: "My council could not afford £20,000 this year to pay for such a proposal. The whole idea is not viable".

There was an element of friction further west too in 1989 when Dumfries & Galloway Tourist Board members voted 7-3 to sack Beltie the Bull - standard bearer for south-west tourism for five long years - and replace the 'boring' Belted Galloway with an image of a barnacle goose. The controversy kept the letters editor of the Galloway Gazette in work for weeks.

The 1990s saw a whole range of strategies...the aristocratic owners of stately homes - descendants of feuding families - banded together to form Scottish Borders Heritage, another (failed) attempt was made to create a Gateway to Scotland on a 27-acre site near the village of Ayton, and golfers were offered the chance to play 15 local courses for a bargain fee under the so-called Freedom of the Fairways marketing scheme.

The decade was nearing its end when, at the first ever seminar on the Border reivers, the bands of outlaws who created their own medieval crime wave, it was suggested wealthy Americans, Canadians, and Australasians might be prepared to visit the region to trace their family roots.

It would seem virtually every trick in the book has been tried to ignite a tourist boom in the South of Scotland since the 1960s. But there have probably been more failures than successes, according to the evidence in our archives.

Borders Heritage Tourism - the next big thing?

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

History buffs from all over the world may soon be able to participate in archaeological digs at Iron Age and Roman sites in the South of Scotland as the region promotes its unrivalled but under investigated heritage assets in a bid to boost visitor numbers.

Some twelve national and local agencies are considering the potential of heritage tourism in the territories covered by Scottish Borders Council and Dumfries & Galloway Council. Between them, the two local authority areas have more than 1,750 scheduled monuments, many of them dating from the Iron Age (1200 BC - 550BC).

A paper prepared for a recent meeting of the Convention of the South of Scotland (CoSS) covered five themes which are at the heart of the area's latest tourism strategy. The list also includes cycling and food and drink.

According to the discussion paper: "The South of Scotland has a developing vision to enable the rich Iron Age and Roman heritage of the area to reach its full cultural and economic potential. The South of Scotland has one of the most vibrant Iron Age landscapes in Europe, with a superabundance of upstanding monuments, most of which are little known, little visited and little explored." 

And delegates to the CoSS session, including two Scottish Government Cabinet ministers - Mairi McAllan, Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero and Energy, and Mairi Gougeon, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs -  were told: "Superimposed on this mix of indigenous sites is the intense conflict landscape of the period of the Roman invasion (AD 40 -AD410), with its attendant rich repository of Roman monuments.

"The area is neatly sandwiched between two World Heritage corridors of Roman remains. To the north, the Antonine Wall - essentially traversing the isthmus of Scotland from Glasgow to Edinburgh - and to the south Hadrian’s Wall which cuts across the isthmus from Carlisle to Newcastle. The South of Scotland is criss-crossed with the remains of conquest: Roman roads and studded with Roman forts and campaign camps."

The paper's authors claimed that in many ways this ancient landscape has parallels in Europe with the Berlin Wall, the Maginot line and the Normandy beaches of more modern conflicts. 

"In economic and cultural terms, the area’s story is seriously under investigated, under told and undersold. Most of the region’s sites are not even sign-posted or interpreted in any way."

Co-ordinated by South of Scotland Enterprise, the partners are developing activity around the Iron Age and Roman heritage potential through existing visitor attractions such as Trimontium Museum, Melrose and the early medieval monastic site at Whithorn. The partnership members are Archaeology Scotland, Dumfries & Galloway Council, Historic Environment Scotland, Museums Galleries Scotland, National Museums Scotland, Scottish Borders Council, South of Scotland Destination Alliance, South of Scotland Enterprise, Trimontium Trust, Whithorn Trust, and VisitScotland.

The members of CoSS were asked to supports and assist the partnership to develop plans for a participatory archaeological dig in the South of Scotland to act as a potential catalyst to open the Iron and Roman Heritage offer up to visitors.

The meeting heard from Mark Rowley, Tourism Strategy Manager at South of Scotland Enterprise that the area had literally thousands of cairns and hillforts, ditches and ramparts, a lot of them never examined before. 

He said: "The Roman stuff, some of it has been examined but not to the level of places like Vindolanda and Hadrian's Wall just a few miles to the south. Of course, we're linked with that, because we have Dere Street running straight through the two. We think there's a huge opportunity to look at these two civilizations, to get involved in some participatory archaeology."

There had already been pilots on that, he explained. Projects like the Twelve Towers of Rule that had literally thousands of children and enthusiasts getting involved. 

"We have a real opportunity to use that culture and heritage and those stories to entertain and interact with people when they're here but also to bring people here. If you can bring four Roman emperors here into the cold and wet to see what's happening, I'm sure we can bring an awful lot more Italians, Americans, French and Germans to come and hear our stories but also to see some of that heritage in its situation."

Jane Morrison-Ross, chief executive of the enterprise agency said they were examining the potential for a Whithorn masterplan to look at the future of the museum there, how that could be expanded and how the unique archive at Whithorn could have a home that encouraged not just tourism - which was really important - but academic tourism as well, because the Whithorn archive, like the Trimontium collection, was unique. 

"They have artefacts that are unrivalled anywhere else in the world, 50,000 of them that are coming back to Whithorn that had been dispersed across a number of universities. More are being found all the time actually that they didn't know they had." 

Council 'ignoring' grassroots in wind farm decision making

Campaigners seek greater 'local' involvement in wind farm deliberations

SPECIAL FEATURE by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDITOR

As the never ending flow of applications seeking to develop major new wind farms in the Scottish Borders continue to flood in, it is claimed elected councillors in the region are not always being made fully aware of the views held by their own constituents.

The projects which have the most profound consequences for communities and their landscapes are those with a generating capacity greater than 50 megawatts given the height of the towers and sheer scale of the blades. 

The fate of these multi-turbine schemes rests with Scottish Government ministers rather than the local  planning authority following the submission of so-called Section 36 applications to the national Energy Consents Unit [ECU]. But whenever Scottish Borders Council [SBC] objects to a particular application that triggers the mechanism which eventually results in a public inquiry.

Although the local authority is a statutory consultee in each case handled by the ECU, there is no obligation on it to invite or publish representations from community councils or members of the general public. Those letters of objection or support can be submitted to staff at the consents unit who will post them on the ECU website.

Now, a group which believes the current system is grossly unfair is campaigning for change by lobbying politicians and by petitioning SBC. The initial reaction from local planning officers has been decidedly cool.

The petition which went before a council committee last month read as follows: "We ask that the Planning & Building Standards Committee of Scottish Borders Council review the procedures currently operated by planning officers in preparing documentation (including that posted on the Council’s website), and their procedural advice given to councillors when the Committee are considering and coming to their decisions on Wind Farm Planning Applications where the final decision will be made by Scottish Ministers guided by the Energy Consents Unit under the terms of Section 36 the Electricity Act 1989.

"We particularly ask that the Committee instructs officers to include in their report to Committee representative comments and responses from Community Councils formally consulted by the ECU, and also local residents clearly affected by the application, in line with the procedures of other local authorities. In effect we are asking: can a Planning Committee member truly, exercising due care and attention as an informed, elected member of a Council, say what a Council’s opinion is on an application under S36 if he, or she, doesn’t know what their Community Council’s and constituents think?

"Direct representation to Council planning officers and a public question to Council on this subject have both effectively been stone walled, arguably in the case of the question denying that there is an issue. Policy is the responsibility of Council or its Committees, it is not the sole responsibility of either officers, or of the relevant convener.  We ask that the currently operated SBC procedure in respect of the handling of S36 Applications is discussed with and agreed by the SBC Planning Committee."

John Williams, chairman of Heriot Community Council - the village has numerous wind farms close by - is one of those seeking greater input when the council is processing and commenting on each Section 36 application.

He told us: "The local authority has the casting vote as to whether an application goes to a public inquiry and a Reporter for a decision. I know of NO application that has been referred by ECU to a public inquiry on the objection of a local community council or local residents."

Mr Williams explained that  neighbouring community councils were statutory consultees, and the ECU ensured these grass roots councils were consulted. 

"But our responses to ECU just get posted on their portal, and that is that. ECU is staffed by civil servants on rotation — they are not planners and have no training in planning", he added. 

Said Mr Williams: "So we have regularly forwarded our responses to SBC planners to inform them. But SBC has over the years gradually developed an ever more rigid policy of ignoring all such responses — they are not posted on the SBC planning website; the officer's report does not discuss them. All the planning officers do is point the Planning Committee to the ECU web site if they wish to see what local community councils and people have said."

Lead petitioner John Campbell KC, a specialist planning lawyer, has been involved in countless wind farm cases in every corner of Scotland. He addressed Borders councillors when the petition was submitted.

Mr Campbell said: "Section 36 projects represent the largest forms of development in Scotland today with the biggest impact on communities. Yet the council can make up its mind without any input from the public. How can councillors properly represent unless they listen to their constituents? 

"There is a widely held feeling that the public's views are not being taken into account. But when it comes to wind farms virtually everyone does have an opinion".

In a briefing note prepared for elected members, John Hayward, Planning & Development Standards Manager at SBC, wrote: "Crucially, it is the Scottish Government, and not the Council, that is the determining authority. It is not a planning application. 

"[The Electricity Act] makes no further statement as to how the planning authority should prescribe that duty internally, including on to whom that responsibility falls within the organisation. It is silent on all other aspects of the process and the expected role of the planning authority. The legislation therefore squarely places the duty of considering third party representations upon the Government in its capacity as determining authority. Furthermore, regulations direct that those third party representations are made directly to Government."

Mr Hayward also pointed out that should Councillors wish to view any community or individual comments about an application, they are able to do so by checking the ECU website, something they are actively encouraged to do within the report on the proposal that goes to the Planning & Building Standards Committee. 

"They are thus able to gauge the level of opposition (or support) and the reasons for it. In the context of the limited statutory role of the Council, that is considered to be a reasonable and proportionate response", he added.

And he warned that if the approach being advocated by the petitioners were to be accepted, there would be further implications to be considered. 

"Firstly, the Council will need to dedicate additional resources to administer the process being suggested. There are additional costs in neighbour notifying residents and administering the process, which it has no statutory obligation to do. Additionally, if the Council does adopt these non-statutory processes, it then places itself at risk of legal challenge if it fails to follow those procedures, even though there is no legal requirement for them to be adopted. This would seem to be creating an unnecessary additional legal risk."

Oh! Please, Not Another Tourism Strategy

Our Travel Editor takes a tongue-in-cheek look at previous masterplans and blueprints aimed at luring visitors to the Borders

by PHIL ROOMS

Had you noticed? The South of Scotland's new Tourism Strategy is doing the rounds. Not just any old strategy this one...it's a RESPONSIBLE tourism strategy no less which tends to suggest its dozens of predecessors were probably IRRESPONSIBLE.

The current version certainly doesn't lack chutzpah. The authors claim it will "increase our visitor economy by £1 billion to £1.76 billion by 2034". And it will support a further 6,000 plus jobs, boosting the total number employed in the sector to 20,000 full time equivalent posts ten years from now.

Ever since the 1960s there have been different strategies spouting formulae calculated by expensive teams of consultants. Many of them were swallowed by wide-eyed members of the local tourist board before it became clear the targets which had been set would never be reached. So, time to ditch the bulging road map and commission a replacement. A veritable gravy train for 'specialist tourism advisers'.

Thankfully (or perhaps regrettably) remnants of many of these overblown grand designs can still be found in the archives here at Not Just Sheep & Rugby. Some of these gems may or may not be worth a second look.

The earliest example we could find is dated October 1967 when a working party of officials from six Border counties was to be set up to consider the formation of a Borders Tourist Council to "co-ordinate efforts to attract tourists". If such a body emerged from the talks it must have been short-lived and cannot have achieved much.

Next came initiatives linked to the bi-centenary of the birth of Sir Walter Scott in 1971. In the months leading up to the big day package tours were being offered to wealthy Americans. A Scottish Tourist Board spokesman stuck his neck out to declare: "I think it is fair to say that Scott is more popular in America than Burns".

The modern-day ten-year strategy for the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway with its 'Scotland Starts Here' slogan is merely a variation on a theme. As far back as 1970 Peeblesshire County Council produced its own ten-year programme aimed at improving tourist facilities in the locality.

Plans included a picnic area capable of accommodating 250 cars and a touring caravan park for 100 trailers. It was estimated that more than 500,000 cars (and their drivers) would be within an hour's drive of Peebles by 1985.

The accompanying report trumpeted: "Peeblesshire is going to experience a massive inflow of visitors as a result of circumstances largely outwith the county's control. It is hoped the proposals will provide the structure from which the influx can be controlled and exploited to the benefit of the population and without detracting from the charm of the county as a whole".

County councillors never had the chance to see the fruits of their labour...the authority was abolished in 1975 to make way for local government reform.

The early attempts by the Scottish Tourist Board [STB] - now called VisitScotland - to set up regional boards was fraught with difficulty when it turned its attention to the Borders, also in 1970. Melrose and Peebles, the two burghs with the best hotel accommodation in the area, decided not to join the party.

Provost Curtis Hutcheson, of Melrose, said bluntly: "We merely decided not to give encouragement to the regional body because we felt it would be of no value to us".

And Peebles provost Alexander Melrose was equally dismissive: "There is a perfectly efficient tourist authority operating in the town and covering our entire county".

Colonel Howard Paterson, the colourful champion of regionalisation for the STB warned: "Towns who do not take part cannot be branded as untouchable but they are isolating themselves from the benefits which a regional authority can bring".

The completion of the M74 motorway linking Glasgow and Carlisle in the early 1970s prompted councils on the east coast to come up with a strategy in a bid to reverse the falling volumes of tourist traffic on the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh.

This blueprint was far from slick...it simply involved handing out copies of a 'special' leaflet through the AA and the RAC, and at filling stations cataloguing the undoubted attractions along the east coast trunk road.

Civic leaders in the Borders must have been well pleased when, in 1971, the STB selected the area for a pilot strategy to provide "wet weather" entertainment for visitors. Naturally, the proposals had come from a working party.

As a first step it was planned to make films and equipment available to hoteliers and local groups at short notice. And the inaugural meeting of the Borders Tourist Association heard that Jedburgh would be getting one of three national tourist information centres at a cost of £35,000..

Recently appointed Borders Tourist Development Officer Alfred Scott said the first subjects to be considered included the production of a regional tourist guide, an accommodation register, an inventory of existing facilities, and a diary of events. Sounds like a tourism strategy, does it not?

AND FINALLY in part one of our trip down strategy lane...perhaps the most ill-conceived and ludicrous master plan ever dreamed up in the history of Borders tourism.

Jedburgh Town Council was daft enough and profligate enough back in 1973 to bring in Edinburgh consultants to look at the burgh's decidedly bland appearance with a view to transforming it into something more attractive.

The advisers certainly didn't hold back. I kid you not, their proposals to make Jedburgh 'the main tourist centre in the Borders' included the development of Market Square "along the lines of Dubrovnik, Venice or Copenhagen." So, how did that one work out?

According to the report which must have been quickly binned by the council: "Jedburgh should assume the role of principal gateway to an area of outstanding recreational and tourist potential.

"Outside seating and gay awnings in front of cafes and restaurants would add stimulation to the scene. The tasteful use of international flags and, at appropriate times, the tasteful use of either live or recorded music would add yet another dimension to heighten the total tourist appeal of the town.

"Something must certainly be done to brighten the burgh's facade. Presently speaking, too great an impression of dreariness and even dilapidation is conveyed to the visitor".

COMING NEXT - Strategies touting a "Horseman's Aviemore" in the Borders and plans to cash in on the region's bloodthirsty past.

Tweed salmon rod catches lowest since 2018

by DOUG COLLIE 

The number of rod caught salmon on the River Tweed's 50 angling beats during the 2023 season was the lowest for five years, according to figures released by fishery managers.

A total catch of 5,720 represented a 14.4 per cent decrease from the 2022 figure of 6,690. And numbers were down by 30 per cent on 2020 when anglers hooked 8,215 salmon.

A statement issued by the River Tweed Commission (RTC)  said the 2023 salmon catch had been accompanied by an encouraging increase in the sea-trout catch to 2,285, the best since 2015. 

"Tweed continues to maintain its position as the UK's premier river for rod catches", declared the RTC..

The statement explained that Atlantic salmon populations faced alarming declines across various river systems, highlighting the urgent need for proactive measures. Climate change posed a particularly grave threat, with rising temperatures endangering freshwater habitats during hot, dry summers.

In December last year the Atlantic salmon was reassessed on the red list of threatened species from 'least concern' to 'endangered' in the UK by international environmental agencies. 

The RTC said: "Recognising these challenges, the Commission initiated a comprehensive study in 2023 to bolster Tweed's resilience against climate change, with the preliminary analysis identifying key gaps and outlining strategies for long-term preservation. This work continues to be a key focus."

Building on the knowledge gained by the Tweed Foundation and  Tweed Forum, RTC aims to deliver a baseline audit of the Gala Water where existing tools, including fish counters, electrofishing, and smolt trap monitoring, will provide valuable insights into the tributary's condition and, wherever possible, prioritise the improvement of in-river, riparian, or wider catchment management issues relating to healthy fish stocks The findings will inform a detailed condition report and identify future work programs, serving as a blueprint for subsequent catchment-wide audits.

Jonathan Reddin, the RTC's Chief Commissioner, commented: "Our aim is to foster more meaningful involvement from all stakeholders in the Tweed community. However, there are no simple solutions or instant remedies. Our only recourse is to exert maximum effort and efficiency in addressing the underlying factors contributing to these challenges.

"In light of shared challenges faced by Scottish Fishery Boards and Tweed alike, collaboration emerges as a cornerstone of effective conservation practices. While there is no quick fix for enhancing adult salmon abundance, the RTC remains steadfast in its dedication to fostering partnerships and driving collaborative initiatives for the betterment of Tweed's aquatic environment."

The Tweed's reputation as one of the world's leading salmon fishing rivers is estimated to be worth around £24 million each year to the Borders economy, and supports over 500 full time equivalent jobs. Anglers caught a "staggering" 23,200 on the main river and its tributaries in 2010.

Last year's decline in the Tweed catch was much less than on the River Spey where the 2022 total of 5,439 salmon caught by rod slumped by 32 per cent last year to 3,691.

The Missing Salmon Alliance has pointed out that provisional Scottish Government statistics for 2023 revealed the lowest catches reported for wild Atlantic salmon since records began in 1952, and signal that Scotland’s salmon and sea trout populations remain in a critical state. 

Last year, 33,023 wild Atlantic salmon and 21,907 sea trout were caught. For salmon, this is a decrease of 25% on the 2022 catch. 

The Alliance said: "These figures are announced at a time when we are experiencing the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, and concerted, urgent action is required now to prioritise the protection and recovery of Scotland’s wild Atlantic salmon populations."

Second major pylon scheme for Scottish Borders

by EWAN LAMB

A crucial infrastructure project involving the development of a 30 kilometre overhead power line linking electricity sub-stations in Galashiels and the village of Eccles in Berwickshire is scheduled for 2026, and will allow two 'vintage' sets of pylons and cables to be decommissioned and removed from the landscape.

Scottish Power Energy Networks [SPEN] is currently designing the scheme before submitting a so-called Section 37 application to the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit [ECU] towards the end of this year.

The proposed new overhead line will be supported on lattice steel towers, which have six cross-arms and a standard design height of 27 metres. The tower heights will range from approximately 23 metres to 38 metres in height, depending on ground profiles. By comparison, the steel towers of the existing ‘U’ route measure between 18 and 30 metres, and the existing ‘AT’ route wood pole and steel towers are between 10 and 29 metres high.

As we reported last month, the Borders is also set to get 90 miles of so-called super pylons and transmission lines each measuring 36 metres in height as part of the National Grid's investment programme Beyond 2030. That transmission upgrade is costed at £1.5 billion.

 SPEN says that as the electricity transmission and distribution license holder for central and southern Scotland, it has a legal duty to develop and maintain a technically feasible and economically viable transmission and distribution system. 

"To ensure sufficient capacity for electricity that needs to be transmitted throughout the area, SPEN’s proposal is to remove the existing overhead lines between Galashiels and Eccles and replace them with one new route between the two substations. This upgrade is expected to ensure a more reliable and economical transmission network. Furthermore, as the existing lines get older, the need for maintenance work becomes more critical and difficult, and the exposure to unplanned outages (faults) increases. Asset replacement is therefore essential to provide secure supplies to existing and future customers."

The power company considers their scheme has the potential to have significant environmental effects, and so an EIA [Environmental Impact Assessment] is being undertaken to support the Section 37 application. "The EIA process will seek to avoid, reduce and where possible, offset likely significant impacts on the environment through an iterative design process for the proposed new overhead line".

When asked how much investment their scheme would require, SPEN told us that project costs were 'sensitive'.

We also asked whether there would be public consultation prior to work starting. 

"Public consultation was undertaken as part of the routeing stage for this project in late 2021", explained a spokesperson. "The feedback to consultation informed the selection of the proposed route to then be taken forward for further assessment and application for consent.  The consultation included engagement with the range of statutory consultees (Scottish Borders Council, NatureScot, Historic Environment Scotland, SEPA, local Community Councils) amongst others, as well as the wider public.

 "A final public event stage will be scheduled ahead of submission of the Section 37 application and will provide feedback on those comments provided previously regarding the proposed development.  The date for this has not been confirmed but it will be publicised locally ahead of that time. Following the submission of the application, the ECU will also carry out consultation on the proposed development."

During the early stages of the planning process officers at Scottish Borders Council expressed concerns over one aspect of the project - the proposed installation of an underground cable in close proximity to the now closed landfill site at Easter Langlee on the outskirts of Galashiels.

When asked for observations, the authority's Contaminated Land Officer wrote: “I had understood it was for replacement of overhead lines however it’s been highlighted to me that it includes for the laying of underground cable within the body of the former landfill to its western extent.

"The presence of the waste mass should specifically be considered as part of the development, and it’s unclear if this is considered to date. This might include potential risks to the waste mass i.e. through ignition, or to any structure e.g. cabinets (if present) through the migration and accumulation of bulk gases. There may also be wider waste management considerations”.

And those concerns were echoed by SBC's Waste Strategy Officer who warned: “Having reviewed the proposal we have concerns regarding the impact the installation of underground cabling could have on our site.

"The location plan suggests the cabling would come on to the site in an area that has landfill gas infrastructure installed over and within it, and is in very close proximity to two areas of landfill. Relocation of this infrastructure may not be easily achieved, and the integrity of the landfill sites must not be compromised. This could be challenging given the layout of the land, location of the landfills and infrastructure, and the scale of the trench."

The statement added that landfill gases would be present for which all relevant safety measures must be considered.

"Consideration of all of these issues and whether it is possible for them to be mitigated to our reasonable satisfaction need to be carefully considered prior to any underground cabling proposal being implemented."

When asked about this particular issue, the SPEN spokesperson commented: "“Following consultation, we have received a range of feedback, including that from Scottish Borders Council regarding the potential routeing across the Easter Langlee site. 

"The project team are actively looking at design detail options to address concerns regarding potential impacts in this area and to provide the best proposed solution while balancing all considerations. The proposed solution will be reflected in a final public event stage to be scheduled ahead of submission of the Section 37 application.”

Hawick's best kept secret? Pringle's sold for £10 million!

by OUR BUSINESS EDITOR

There was dismay and consternation in the Borders town of Hawick not to mention worldwide  headlines back in the year 2000 when failing textile giant Dawson Holdings sold one of the biggest brand names in the fashion industry to a Hong Kong billionaire for what appeared to be a knockdown £6 million.

But a subsequent deal with a price tag of £10 million in which S C Fang & Sons divested themselves of the iconic Pringle of Scotland label after sinking tens of millions of pounds into the loss-making knitwear firm has passed virtually unnoticed.

Despite the best efforts of Not Just Sheep & Rugby to establish the background leading up to the transfer to new owners, Broadgate 1960 Company Ltd, and the prospects for Pringle's future, both buyer and seller remain tight-lipped.

Even Wikipedia, that internet fount of all knowledge, has yet to catch up with developments. The website gives the impression the Fang family retain ownership of Pringle's which was originally founded in Hawick as a hosiery business by James Pringle in 1815. 

In the decades immediately after World War Two the company's massive mills provided work and wages for around 4,000 employees. The spectacular decline under Dawson management saw that number shrink to a few hundred despite Pringle's global reputation as the finest manufacturer of cashmere garments.

And the last published accounts while still under Fang ownership show the average number of employees in 2023 was just 15, down from 18 in 2022. The change of ownership shifted significant control of the brand from Douglas Fang to Dominican national Menoshi Shina who is now a Pringle's director alongside Sheila Marie Geraghty, an American. The pair sit on the boards of a number of textile businesses.

Broadgate's other subsidiaries include suit makers Moss Bros, BSI Apparel, Crew Clothing, and Saltrock Surfwear. Broadgate recorded group turnover of £121.8 million in 2022 with a profit after tax of £8.6 million. The group has 1,200 on its payroll while the ultimate parent company is New Wishes 2020 Ltd, a company incorporated in Gibraltar.

The only details concerning the Pringle's deal are tucked away in the respective annual accounts of the Fang and Broadgate businesses.

According to the Broadgate accounts: "The company purchased Pringle of Scotland apparel and retail operations. As part of the negotiations the company agreed to pay Pringle International Ltd [a parent business registered in the British Virgin Islands] £10 million for both the assignment of debt owed by the target company Pringle Enterprises Ltd.(PEL) and 100 per cent of the outstanding shares of PEL".

In 1999, the year before Dawson parted with the Pringle brand, the knitting business chalked up a loss of £11.1 million on sales of £33 million.

The loss-making continued under the tutelage of magnate Kenneth Fang who earned the nickname 'King of Textiles'. Mr Fang died in 2022.

A report in the business press in 2011 had this to say: "Kenneth Fang has pumped a further £10.9 million into the iconic Pringle of Scotland brand despite continuing losses. The investment, which takes the total pumped into the company by Fang over the last three years to almost £30m, came as it reported pre-tax losses of £7.25m in the year compared to £6.7m in the prior 44-week period.

"During the year, Fang invested £5m with a further £5.9m following the financial year end. Total losses since 2006 are now more than £36m and the company has said it expects to continue to remain in the red while it invests in the long-term development of the business."

Annual losses would continue with the most recent deficits £3.078 million in 2020 and £2.247 million the following year. However, a modest £15,000 profit was logged for 2022, and a much more impressive surplus of £733,000 just prior to the sale of the company.

We contacted S C Fang to ask why it had been decided to sell Pringle's after 23 years of ownership. At the time of publication there had been no response.

At the same time a series of questions together with a request for information was sent to Pringle's for their consideration.

We asked for the reasons behind Broadgate 1960's decision to proceed with the acquisition despite a long history of financial losses under the Fang regime, and was there confidence that Pringle of Scotland’s fortunes could be turned around

 Other questions included: "Was the change in registered address from Edinburgh to the company’s native town of Hawick after Broadgate 1960’s acquisition of significance? Are there plans for investment in Pringle? Where is the manufacture of the top-of-the-range knitwear being carried out? The last accounts for Pringle of Scotland (2023) indicated a workforce of just 15 (down from 18 in 2022, and once around 4,000 in the 1960s). Are there any plans to expand that number of employees?"

We were told on April 9th our request had been passed to Pringle's holding company which now manages public relations and marketing. Further attempts were made to elicit a response but we have heard nothing further.

Genfro strike-off application may be null and void

by LESTER CROSS

The surprise move  by company life president Dr 'Bob' Jennings to sign the death warrant of the avocet fuel additive 'empire' is already mired in controversy amid claims his application to strike Genfro Ltd. from the companies register is "illegal and invalid".

It is believed some of those who claim to have lost significant sums after being persuaded to invest by the Avocet Group's wild claims of huge future profits may attempt to block the strike-off application by submitting objections with Companies House.

The rules governing the dissolution of businesses by strike-off demand the application form should be signed by "a majority of the company's directors". In this case, Jennings - appointed to the board in August 2021 - has been the sole director of Genfros since last October.

However, the firm's Articles of Association dating from January 2021 clearly state: "Martin Frank Frost and Dr James Robert 'Bob' Jennings shall each hold the office of life president of the company. Life presidents will not be directors nor will they take part in the management of the company".

According to one holder of worthless Avocet shares: "Those Articles could not be clearer. They specifically prohibit Jennings from acting as a director, so any actions or decisions he has taken in that post are illegal and invalid. Companies House needs to be aware of this".

Genfro was the conduit through which Avocet management repeatedly attempted to reassure doubting investors by dreaming up bogus unnamed international venture capitalists or business barons, said to be willing to pay hundreds of millions of pounds (or dollars) for 'incredibly valuable' avocet patents.

As previously reported, the most elaborate of the fake scenarios featured Parachute Holdings Inc. [PCH], a non-existent 'global player' led by a magnate whom Frost christened Tim Carter. PCH was said to have a net worth running into tens of billions of pounds.

"The ‘mystery investors’ are known to some of Genfro’s prominent shareholders, its lawyers, but most importantly the Secretary of State for Industry Mr Kwasi Kwarteng who was approached to secure anonymity", Frost wrote in a missive circulated in August 2021. 

It was yet another imaginary tale which included the use of a UK Cabinet minister's name and his government department in an attempt to impress Genfro and Avocet stakeholders. The cock-and-bull story was to be exposed as a result of our inquiries.

The next chapter in the saga saw a collection of documents distributed by Frost including the text of a letter purporting to have been sent by 'Tim Carter' to Sarah Munby, Permanent Secretary in Mr Kwarteng's office with the anonymity request for PCH.

The letter to Ms Munby - many who read it commented on the "virtually identical" writing styles of Frost and Carter - stated: "Over the last three years, PCH has acted as a guardian angel to controversial Anglo-Irish businessman Martin Frost who promoted Avocet Natural Capital Plc.

"To keep ANC Plc alive and protect its valuable intellectual property PCH is responsible for: over £2 million pounds of gift life support funding; liaison with colleagues who control the ownership of the Israeli Leviathan and Tamar gas fields which prompted a $100,000 offer to ANC’s subsidiary Avocet IP Limited for its old AFS jet fuel from air patents. 

'Carter' asserted that because of "SNP inspired badness" PCH decided it was wasting resources attempting to support a company focused out of Scotland. PCH had therefore encouraged Frost and  Jennings to set up a completely new entity, Genfro Limited. 

The fallacious claims went on to maintain that PCH had funded four provisional patents of which one for a non-explosive methanol additive to allow green methanol to become a clean replacement diesel was the most valuable. 

The mystery investors were about to fund a further 30 fuel and agricultural patents which should result in Genfro Limited becoming a £200 million IP company.

And according to the concocted paperwork: "Down to ongoing perceived dishonesty infusing Scottish politics along with unjustified and apparently racially motivated SNP hate campaigns, PCH wishes to keep out of the limelight.

"Our understanding is that under UK company law PCH and colleagues can retain anonymity providing we keep our respective overseas shareholdings below the 25% threshold. Please confirm promptly if our understanding is correct: if not I regret PCH will not invest in the UK."

So, we decided to ask government officials whether Mr Kwarteng had made an order to secure PCH's requested anonymity.

Following a comprehensive search of the department's records, we were told: "We can confirm that no approach in such terms has been received by the Secretary of State."

However, although Carter & Company left the scene or were consigned to the dustbin, Genfro soon came up with a different fairy tale from its bulging playbook of myths and legends.

In May 2022 shareholders were told by Frost that back in 2015 a retired scientist had formulated a  plan to base the Avocet business ventures in Delaware, USA.  

"I regret that I was induced to centre the Avocet business in Scotland. That said Israeli friends have now conditionally offered 1.2 billion shekels (approximately £255 million) on a tapered purchase for extant and to be intellectual property, such to be directly controlled from the US and Israel. 

"This means that all UK based companies shall be terminated. A committee under Dr Bob Jennings shall ensure a fair distribution of monies coming into the US to existing and past shareholders and creditors of Genfro Limited, Avocet Natural Capital Plc, and Omega Infinite Plc. Going forward the Avocet related concepts will be developed in Israel, the EU, and North America."

In light of its repeated efforts to dupe and deceive, many of Genfro's critics remain nonplussed as to why not a single regulator or watchdog overseeing business and trade intervened during the company's three years in existence.

Now, the strike-off application lodged by Jennings means any patent applications still registered to Genfro Ltd. will become the property of the Crown if or when Genfro is dissolved. No doubt Mr Kwarteng's successor as Business Secretary [ Kemi Badenoch] will be over the moon.

Jennings moves to kill off 'Son of Avocet'

HAS THE LAST CHANCE SALOON FINALLY CLOSED FOR GOOD?

WORLD EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD 

It was a business which its joint life presidents Martin Frost and Dr Bob Jennings used to spread a myriad of false claims that their "disruptive technology" company was being courted by the Israeli Intelligence Service, and told over 280 shareholders that enigmatic investors from the USA were ready to splash out $400 million to acquire its valuable fuel additive patents.

But now, after none of the outlandish and fictional promises or the threatened multi-million pound law suits against a host of 'naysayers' ever materialised, Dr Jennings has sensationally lodged an application to have Genfro Ltd. struck off the Register of Companies and dissolved.

It means that Genfro, dubbed "Son of Avocet" by long-suffering shareholders in the two men's various companies, will cease to exist unless there are objections to the application. The outfit, which started life in September 2020 as Gennfros Ltd., has never filed accounts.

A number of other firms of which Frost and Jennings are or were directors now find themselves in liquidation or administration with combined debts running into many millions of pounds. In one case, administrators have been seeking to recoup £1.25 million from Jennings.

The scheme which had the development of the Avocet 'wonder fuel' at its heart was hatched in 2014. A company bearing the name Avocet Infinite PLC and headed by Frost and Jennings persuaded some 650 investors to take shares with repeated promises of astronomical returns. But production of the fuel never even started as the pledges from Avocet's directors grew ever more fanciful.

At one point Frost circulated extracts from court documents he had filed as evidence for his bankruptcy hearing which claimed Avocet IP patents had been independently valued by patent attorneys Coller IP in December 2019 with an estimated worth of up to £400 million.

The paperwork also showed there was a pending transaction for the purchase of Avocet/Gennfros 'jet fuel from air' intellectual property for 100 million US dollars to be concluded in mid-April 2021. Despite assurances given in court at Leeds that IP sales would allow Frost to pay one major creditor £3.2 million, the judge was far from convinced and declared the self-dubbed 'controversial Anglo-Irish businessman' and his wife to be bankrupt in October 2021

Earlier, Avocet Infinite had changed its name to Omega Infinite before becoming the subject of a compulsory liquidation court order.

However, even that major setback failed to dampen the enthusiasm of Frost and Jennings as they continued to peddle their non-existent promises of jam tomorrow. They became self-appointed joint life presidents of Gennfros at its formation in September 2020, and handed themselves index-linked honoraria of £24,000 a year.

One of countless shareholders' letters, distributed by Frost in January 2021, outlined proposals for a  Gennfros research and development facility and the creation of joint fuel and energy ventures with major world oil and gas suppliers. 

The circular declared: "Dr. Bob Jennings and his team continue to establish new families of IP [intellectual property] in energy and agriculture. From £8 million of funds provided by the new investors measures are in hand to establish a Gennfros Limited research and development centre upon a site identified in Northern England. Land purchase negotiations are well in hand. 

"Gennfros Limited’s new intellectual property shall be subject to an independent valuation in April 2021. Given the huge interest in the non-explosive methanol additive, it is hoped that such valuation shall exceed £200 million". But like every previous claim these ones were described by disgruntled shareholders as 'complete hogwash' or 'utter bunkum'.

Undeterred by his critics, Frost told investors in May 2021 that Parachute Holdings (PCH), "a company with annual revenues that exceed the GNP of Scotland", would invest £400M into Gennfros. It may be worth noting that at that time Scotland's GNP totalled a mildly impressive £170.9 billion.

Following the name change to Genfro Ltd in June 2021, the contents of Frost's newsletters became even more incredible and ridiculous. The imaginary organisation he called (PCH) headed by an individual by the name of Tim Carter, M.B.A. PhD arrived on the scene. Unfortunately no-one had ever heard of PCH - a company with no office address or contact numbers - or Carter, apart from Genfro management.

There followed a missive alleged to have been written by 'Carter' himself in which it was stated: "PCH will develop Gennfros for mankind's benefit. PCH hopes that many of you will take up its generous offers. Those that remain will be well impressed by PCH's forward drive and blunt approach. But those of you who have reservations please just take our offers and GO".

Then, in a 'Dear Friend' email Carter told shareholders his name was Tim, and his instructions were to establish a London office from which his top brass would develop a "merchant adventures emporium".

Here are a few more incredible extracts from Frost 'newsletters' 

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)".

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

Whenever challenges were encountered or criticisms levelled there were threats that Genfro would move lock, stock and barrel To Wilmington, Delaware from where even more law suits would be initiated. Not a single action was ever raised in the courts seeking damages.

Now comes what could be the final act in this long-running fairy tale.

The Companies House website carries details of Jennings' application to have Genfro committed to the flames.

Headed IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, and dated April 5th, 2024, the paperwork explains: "This company has applied to be struck off and dissolved. The registrar will proceed unless there is reasonable cause not to and on dissolution any assets remaining in the company will be passed to the Crown. Guidance is available on grounds for objection. If in doubt seek professional advice".

In a so-called DECLARATION OF DIRECTOR signed by Jennings, it states: "I apply for this company to be struck off the register and declare that none of the circumstances described in sections 1004 and 1005 of the Companies Act 2006 (being circumstances in which the directors would be otherwise prohibited under those sections from making an application) exists in relation to the company".

And a FIRST GAZETTE NOTICE scheduled for publication on April 16th according to the website informs readers: "The Registrar of Companies gives notice that unless cause is shown to the contrary, the company will be struck off the register and dissolved not less than two months from this date."

Government guidance on strike off and dissolution of companies includes an instruction that directors who make the application must, within seven days of transmitting the application to Companies House,  send copies to members [usually the shareholders], creditors, His Majesty's Revenue & Customs [HMRC] and the Department of Work & Pensions [DWP]

It remains to be seen whether any of Genfro's listed shareholders will even bother to try and keep the worthless business afloat. It may only be remembered for the untruths spouted during its distinctly underwhelming

 existence.

Meanwhile, it is understood a long-running investigation by Police Scotland into complaints of alleged fraud linked to the Avocet Group's activities is continuing.

'Rationalisation and disposal' policies for Borders Museums

by DOUG COLLIE

Poor quality and broken objects in a vast collection of 50,000 items currently shown or stored in eleven Scottish Borders museums may be disposed of or destroyed as part of a rationalisation which will also influence future policy on acquisitions and development.

The region's rich heritage is reflected in the exhibits on display in the diverse range of museums spanning thousands of years of history and embracing 'celebrities' as diverse as Mary Queen of Scots and world champion racing driver Jim Clark.

Scottish Borders Council - owners of the collections - and Live Borders, the arms length trust which manages the museums have produced their Collections Development Policy (2024-2029).

Shortage of storage space at some locations and a limited amount of money for future additions to collections are both acknowledged in the policy document.

According to the report which will be considered by members of SBC: "Measures include: Update reference to priorities for rationalisation or disposal necessary for legal, safety, care or conservation reasons including material in heavily damaged or very poor condition; and disposals for curatorial reasons."

And the authors of the report - Avril Marriott, Programme Manager and Fiona Colton, Live Borders Head of Museums, Galleries & Archives warn: "If the amendments to the existing Collections Development Policy are not approved it is unlikely that Live Borders Museums and Galleries will achieve an award of Full or Provisional Accreditation. In turn this could affect eligibility for grant aid, partnership opportunities and the allocation of Treasure Trove archaeological material from the Finds Disposal Panel.  The Policy reduces the risk of uncoordinated or unplanned collecting."

As the document points out the Council holds the permanent collections of museum objects and works of art in stewardship on behalf of Scottish Borders communities. The Council also has responsibility for a section of the permanent collections designated as Common Good historic and cultural assets which are managed by Live Borders as part of the museum, library and archive collections. 

"At this time, the collection (which is held in stewardship by Scottish Borders Council and managed by Live Borders Museums & Galleries) comprises approximately 50,000 items. It is anticipated that through an active Collections Development Policy this will continue to grow. The core collections include objects, works of art, Common Good heritage and cultural assets and information relevant to the Scottish Borders region. Supporting collections include photographs, personalia, high quality replica objects, handling collections and reconstructions, topographical and pictorial representations including archaeological records, reports, books, maps and printed ephemera associated with named collectors, excavations and relevant sites."

Rationalisation and disposal of unwanted items will be through a formal review process that identifies which collections are included and excluded from the review. 

It is claimed the outcome of review and any subsequent rationalisation will not reduce the quality or significance of the collection and will result in a more useable, well managed collection.

"The process will be documented, open and transparent. There will be clear communication with key stakeholders about the outcomes and the process.

"Priorities for rationalisation and disposal include:  Rationalisation or disposal necessary for legal, safety, care or conservation reasons including material in heavily damaged or very poor condition (broken and beyond economic repair, badly damaged by woodworm, water damage, fire damage, mould or insect infestation, provide a significant risk or danger to either people or property), especially where high costs of conservation outweigh the importance of the object".

In a section headed 'DESTRUCTION' the report says if it is not possible to dispose of an object through transfer or sale, the governing body may decide to destroy it. 

"It is acceptable to destroy material of low intrinsic significance (duplicate mass-produced articles or common specimens which lack significant provenance) where no alternative method of disposal can be found. Destruction is also an acceptable method of disposal in cases where an object is in extremely poor condition, has high associated health and safety risks or is part of an approved destructive testing request identified in an organisation’s research policy." 

Wind farm threatens Borders Iron Age forts

by LESTER CROSS

Historic Environment Scotland has warned it is unlikely to provide the necessary consents for development of a 19-turbine wind farm which, it is claimed, would have a devastating impact on a chain of Iron Age hill forts and a prehistoric homestead in the Lammermuirs near the Borders town of Lauder.

The sites which could be seriously blighted by the wind farm are protected Scheduled Monuments of national importance, and HES has told the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit (ECU) that any direct impacts on the forts without Scheduled Monument Consent, administered by HES, would be likely to trigger so-called Compliance Procedures. These could include enforcement and stop notices.

Renewable Energy Systems Group has applied to the ECU for permission to construct Longcroft Wind Farm with turbines of approximately 6.6 megawatts each and associated ancillary infrastructure. The towers would have a maximum blade tip height of up to 220 metres, and a Battery Energy Storage System  with a capacity up to 50 megawatts.

In a 24-page report on the proposals, HES insists there are no mitigation measures outlined in the company's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to lessen the overall detrimental affect on the monuments in their care.

The report states: "The proposed development raises significant concerns for our interest, such that we object to the proposal for its significant adverse impacts on the integrity of the setting of the following scheduled monuments: Addinston, fort, Longcroft, fort, Glenburnie, fort and Longcroft Hill homestead".

Following review of the EIA report and visualisations provided by the applicant, and HES's own site visit in February, the heritage agency considers there is no mitigation which is likely to reduce the impacts to a level that is acceptable. Furthermore, HES considers that the conclusions reached within the cultural heritage chapter of the EIA report have underestimated the severity of impacts on several heritage assets and their setting.

"We identified our concerns with the proposed development and the direct impacts to the prehistoric monuments within and in near proximity to the development site, potential impacts on their setting, and disruption of the key relationships between the monuments in the area within and surrounding the proposals. 

"We highlighted that the proposed development would be located in a rich archaeological landscape which overlooks Leader Water and that this landscape included a chain of prehistoric forts located in strategic positions above the valley from which the proposed development would be highly visible."

"The conclusions reached in the Cultural Heritage chapter of the EIA report have underestimated the severity of impacts upon several scheduled monuments and their setting. The HES assessment of these impacts is that they are significant and sufficient to raise issues of national interest."

Each of the monuments is considered in some detail.

Addinston Fort - The monument is a hillfort which dates to the later prehistoric period. The fort is oval  and has twin ramparts with external ditches, measuring approximately 82 metres northwest to south-east to 50 metres transversely. The inner rampart and ditch have been constructed on a massive scale. A causeway across the inner ditch marks the position of an entrance at the south-east.

"The monument is a well-preserved example of a hillfort, which can make a significant addition to understanding the construction, function and symbolism of later prehistoric hillforts. Its form and position, together with a number of sites of similar date but of varied type in the immediate vicinity and along the Leader Water, have the potential to greatly increase our understanding of the settlement, economy and development of the landscape in the Iron Age in this area."

The RES assessment suggests the turbines would represent a minor effect on its [Addinston Fort] setting, resulting in a moderate adverse impact. 

But that view is strongly challenged by HES. They say: "No mitigation is proposed in the EIA report to lessen adverse impacts; therefore, we consider that the proposed development raises issues of national interest for our remit in relation to Addinston, Fort such that we would object to the proposals.

And HES has adopted a similar position so far as the other three monuments are concerned.

Longcroft fort - The monument comprises a hillfort which dates to the later prehistoric period. The fort is also oval in shape, with a series of four large ramparts and intermediate ditches. Where best preserved in the north-east of the site, the earthworks measure 26 metres across, with the ramparts surviving to over 1.5 metres in height.

"The eastern entrance appears to cut through the rampart in an oblique fashion, making access to the fort’s interior less straightforward, and possibly designed to put the visitor at a deliberate disadvantage. The monument is of national importance as a well-preserved example of a hillfort, which can make a significant addition to understanding the construction, function and symbolism of later prehistoric hillforts."

Glenburnie fort -  The monument comprises a fort which dates to the prehistoric period. The ramparts are on the south-east side of the fort and cross the neck of the spur to enclose the site of the fort. Again, HES assert the monument is of national importance as a well-preserved example of a promontory hillfort, which can make a significant addition to understanding the construction, function and symbolism of later prehistoric hillforts.

"Its form and position, together with a number of sites of similar date but of varied type in the immediate vicinity and along Lauderdale, have the potential to greatly increase understanding of the settlement, economy and development of the landscape in the Iron Age in this area."

Longcroft Hill homestead - The monument comprises a scooped homestead of the Iron Age (some 2000 to 3000 years old). The homestead consists of a roughly oval scoop with a broad, high bank on the downhill side. The monument is of national importance because it is a well-preserved example of an Iron Age scooped settlement with associated field boundary which has the potential to enhance  understanding of monuments of this type. 

In conclusion HES asserts: "Turbines, along with ancillary infrastructure of the proposed development, would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the monuments’ setting. They would significantly undermine the ability to understand, appreciate and experience important aspects of the monuments’ setting, including key views and approaches, the intentional exploitation of the topographical landscape, and the deliberate construction of the hillforts to be visible and have visibility and control over this landscape. Consequently, this would significantly reduce the ability to understand, appreciate, and experience the monuments’ cultural significance."

James Cameron, Senior Development Project Manager for Longcroft Wind Farm, told us:.

"RES takes time to carefully design our projects to maximise local economic, social and environmental benefits. At Longcroft Wind Farm we started talking to the local community and other stakeholders, including Historic Environment Scotland (HES), about our initial proposals in spring 2023. 

"The valuable feedback we received during our pre-application consultation led to us to refine the design of the project by dropping a total of five turbines. 

"We’ll take time to carefully review the response by HES but believe that the design of the project appropriately balances the protection of the local cultural heritage assets with the need for low cost, renewable electricity and action to tackle the climate emergency. 

"Additionally, the wind farm could generate approximately £65 million in business rates to Scottish Borders Council over its operational lifetime, supporting vital local services and provide a tailored community benefit package worth £627,000 each year."

 

 

Eight Borders council executives on "Town Hall Rich List"

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDITOR

An extensive 'Town Hall Rich List' of local authority officials receiving salaries and pension contributions above £100,000 per annum published yesterday by the Taxpayers' Alliance [TA] includes the names of eight senior staff at Scottish Borders Council.

Key findings from the Alliance's research, covering every local council in the UK showed that at least 3,106 people employed in local authorities in 2022-23 received total remuneration in excess of six figures.

According to today's report: "This is an increase of 347 on 2021-22. Of these 829 received at least £150,000, 108 more than the previous year. This is the largest number of people in receipt of at least £150,000 since the Town Hall Rich List began in 2007. In 2022-23, at least 175 council employees received more than £200,00 in total remuneration.

The TA states on its website: "You know how to spend your money better than the government. Your money shouldn’t be wasted by those in charge. And you deserve a simple tax system and the best public services available. Our vision is a prosperous United Kingdom with lower, simpler taxes funding better, more efficient public services."

In its last set of annual accounts up to March 2023 the Borders local authority revealed that the number of employees whose remuneration was more than £50,000 had increased from 287 in 2022 to 361, up by more than 25 per cent. But the data did not include employers' pension and National Insurance contributions in the calculations. The TA statistics take those add-ons into account

So far as neighbouring councils are concerned, East Lothian Council had 14 people in the over £100,000 bracket, Dumfries and Galloway Council, eight; Midlothian, four; and Northumberland, 22. The Alliance notes that Daljit Lally, former chief executive and head of paid service at Northumberland Council received £359,000 compensation during 2022/23 for loss of office.

In Scotland there are a total of 311 individuals on the TA list.

The following details of the eight SBC top administrators on the 2023 'Rich List' as published by the Alliance are:

David Robertson, Director Finance and Corporate Governance until July 2022, acting Chief Executive from July 2022 to January 2023, Chief Executive from January 2023 - salary £123,117; expenses £47; pension contribution £22,133; Total remuneration £145,297.

Jen Holland, Director Strategic Commissions & Partnerships - salary £103,523; expenses £36; pension contribution £18,634; Total remuneration £122,193.

Stuart Easingwood, Director Social Work & Practice - salary £99,125; pension contribution £17,182; Total remuneration £116,307.

Clair Hepburn, Director People, Performance & Change - salary £97,840; pension contribution £17,182; Total remuneration £115,022.

Lesley Munro, Director Education & Lifelong Learning - salary £97,359; pension contribution £16,930; Total remuneration £114,289.

Jenni Craig, Director Resilient Communities - salary £96,267; pension contribution £17,182; Total remuneration £113,449.

John Curry, Director Infrastructure & Environment - salary £93,413; expenses £29; pension contribution £16,814; Total remuneration £110,256.

Ewan Jackson, Chief Executive Officer, Live Borders - salary £87,917; pension contribution £16,814; Total remuneration £103,742.

Councils borrow hundreds of millions in the space of a single month

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDITOR

The amount of money owed by Scottish Borders Council to the UK Debt Management Office has soared by more than a fifth over the last twelve months after the local authority borrowed £40 million in the eight weeks leading up to the end of the 2023/2024 financial year.

SBC has 46 separate tranches of debt from the Public Works Loan Board [PWLB] which the Debt Management Office [DMO] operates on behalf of HM Treasury. While the number of loans at March 31st this year is the same as at March 2023, the recent borrowing has increased the amount outstanding from £174.308 million to £213,736 million, a rise of 22.6 per cent.

Data published by the DMO showed that the Borders council borrowed £30 million on January 30th with an interest rate of 5.35% and a maturity date of January 30th 2025. Then, on March 27th a further advance of £10 million was taken at 5.39% and with a maturity date of March 27th 2025.

In response to an enquiry by Not Just Sheep & Rugby, a spokesperson for Scottish Borders Council revealed that the authority would pay interest of £1.605 million on the £30 million loan, and a further £539,000 on the money borrowed in March.

We were told: "All debt is used to support the capital programme of SBC once other funding sources have been utilised."

Prior to the approval of the 2024/25 council budget it was decided that a one-off £10 million contribution from financial reserves would be used "to sustain local services and support key projects".

According to a council statement: "This will give time to engage with communities over the next twelve months to shape future service plans which will deliver essential permanent savings".

As well as meeting the interest payments on the 46 PWLB loans, SBC also pays costs associated with so-called LOBO (Lender Option Borrower Option) loans. These were valued at £35.6 million as of March 2023, having been taken out a number of years ago when PWLB rates were relatively high.

There is also the small matter of servicing £84.4 million of liabilities associated with costly Public Private Partnership (PPP) school building schemes.

Total annual costs of loan charges linked to PWLB loans, LOBO loans and PPP financing stood at £16.1 million, equivalent to 7.6% of the overall revenue budget.

Total SBC debt stood at £294.3 million at the end of the 2022/23 financial year, well within authorised and operational boundaries, according to finance officers.

The authority's annual Treasury Management report included the following: "During 2022/23, the Council maintained an under-borrowed position. This meant that the capital borrowing need, (the Capital Financing Requirement), was not fully funded with loan debt as cash supporting the Council’s reserves, balances and cash flow was used as an interim measure. 

"This strategy was prudent as investment returns were initially low and minimising counterparty risk on placing investments also needed to be considered. The policy of avoiding new borrowing by running down spare cash balances has served well over the last few years. However, this has been kept under review to avoid incurring higher borrowing costs in the future when this Authority may not be able to avoid new borrowing to finance capital expenditure and/or the refinancing of maturing debt."

The £10 million loan transaction last month between SBC and the PWLB was chickenfeed when compared to many of the sums dished out to councils elsewhere.

During March 2024 no fewer than 270 separate loans were taken, among them several loans totalling in excess of £80 million by Barnet Borough Council, in London. Insolvent Birmingham City Council was handed £200 million and will be paying off this latest debt until 2043.

Scottish authorities borrowing for their local capital programmes included Aberdeen City Council £40 million; City of Glasgow £25 million; Falkirk Council £40 million in two separate loans; North Lanarkshire Council £20 million; Midlothian Council £10 million and East Lothian Council £5 million.

But the award for the largest new debt mountain must go to Cornwall Council which signed up for £100 million on March 19th, then for £200 million and £50 million on March 28th, a grand total of £350 million. In each case the maturity date is twelve months hence.

Cornwall councillors agreed earlier this year to increase local council tax by the maximum 4.99% as well as imposing cuts to services. Some members warned the authority was "on the road to bankruptcy".

The council's last published accounts state: "At the end of 2022/23, the Council had net debt of £741.839m, an increase of £67.962m."