EXCLUSIVE REPORT ON ELECTION EXPENDITURE
by EWAN LAMB
For a generation prior to 2015 the Liberal Democrats dominated the Borders political scene with distinguished MPs David Steel, Archy Kirkwood and Michael Moore representing the area from the 1960s onward.
But in the wake of Nick Clegg's disastrous decision to prop up David Cameron following the 2010 General Election many a Lib Dem MP, including Mr Moore, paid a heavy price for that collaboration.
Thousands of Borders electors who had voted consistently for Moore and his predecessors to keep the Tories out deserted the Lib Dems in droves in 2015 leaving the party's highly respected candidate trailing both SNP and Conservative representatives by 10,000 votes.
Theresa May's completely daft decision to hold a snap election earlier this year at least afforded the Borders Lib Dems the chance to stage a recovery. But far from halting the slide in their share of the vote in Westminster's Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk constituency, the activists must have been near to tears when the June 2017 result was declared.
Mr Moore's reasonably respectable third place of 2015 with 10,294 votes (19%) was replaced by a rock bottom finish - a mere 2,482 votes (4.7%) for candidate Caroline Burgess. And Calum Kerr's briefest of tenures for the SNP was ended by a Tory tidal wave which swept John Lamont into Westminster at the fourth attempt.
Details of the money spent by the candidates at the General Election, and at the Holyrood by-election for the Ettrick Roxburghshire and Berwickshire seat on the same day have been obtained by Not Just Sheep & Rugby.
The figures show how the Lib Dems spent virtually nothing on Ms Burgess's campaign although a more ambitious effort appears to have been made on the spending front in support of by-election candidate Catriona Bhatia, the daughter of David Steel..
The so-called short campaign of 2017 set a spending limit of £15,287 for each of the Westminster contestants. But while Michael Moore's campaign in 2015 required £14,014, Caroline Burgess had a paltry £1,932 to spend, including donations of £1,862. It appears the Lib Dems had given up the ghost long before polling day.
So how much money did others have at their disposal? The big difference in 2017 was the absence of a long campaign which the parties used from December 2014 until candidates were adopted for the 2015 fight.
That long campaign of 2014/15 saw Mr Lamont's supporters throw £35,000 at the seat with a further £13,989 available for the short campaign. The comparable sums for Mr Moore were £33,908 and £14,014 while Mr Kerr's more modest expenditure resulted in just £4,751 being devoted to the long campaign plus £14,836 for the short campaign.
It is worth recording that Independent Jesse Rae did not spend a penny on either the long or the short haul...a record of some sort in the annals of election expenditure.
The Tories were the top spenders in 2017 with Mr Lamont using £14,286 to woo the voters - £8,828 for "unsolicited material to electors" (leaflets) and £3,000 for "accommodation and administration".
Mr Kerr's team spent £14,086 - £10,473 of it for leafleting. The SNP campaign collected £13,925 in donations compared to £14,286 by the Conservatives. Labour's Ian Davidson's total spending came to £2,246 with £1,986 for electoral literature.
Turning to the by-election the figures on spending were as follows:
Successful Tory candidate Rachael Hamilton £9,346, including £5,374 on unsolicited material and £2,397 for accommodation and administration; runner up Gail Hendry £12,097 including £9,547 on leaflets; Sally Prentice (Labour) £1,187 - all of it on leaflets; and Catriona Bhatia (Lib Dem) £6,414 with £5,863 devoted to unsolicited material for electors.
The by-election result - Hamilton 20,658; Hendry 11,320; Prentice 3,406; Bhatia 3,196.
Tuesday, 17 October 2017
Wednesday, 11 October 2017
Round and round and round again!
Guest blogger BILL CHISHOLM M.B.E. on the attitude of the "regulators" towards a multi-million pound loss of public funds
It came as no surprise when I received an email from Audit Scotland last week basically telling me to abandon my two year campaign which had been attempting to get the so called public spending watchdog to do its job.
A very detailed investigation into Scottish Borders Council's disastrous mismanagement of its £65 million contract with New Earth Solutions and the resultant loss of £2.4 million of OUR money for absolutely no return had produced reams of hard, factual evidence in support of the case for an investigation into what appeared to be a clear case of maladministration.
Much of that evidence has been laid before the public thanks to space in the columns of Not Just Sheep & Rugby, and I have had praiseworthy comments along with expressions of concern from a host of individuals, including experts in waste management and public procurement after sending them a copy of my findings.
I also owe a great debt of gratitude to our local newspapers - Border Telegraph and Southern Reporter - for the series of news stories they have published into the fiasco. It is extremely telling that the council has maintained a stony silence when asked for comment by both papers. What is there to hide if there hasn't been a massive cock-up?
However, there's been no interest in the affair from Audit Scotland, the country's Ombudsman or from politicians who have so far failed to offer me a comment (good or bad) on the contents of the 40-odd page 'dossier' which was compiled with a great deal of effort and in the face of consistent opposition from SBC.
Throughout the exercise I kept Audit Scotland copied into the correspondence, and asked them to investigate on several occasions.
Unfortunately, by the time my inquiries were completed SBC had paid accountants KPMG well over £200,000 to examine their books on behalf of Audit Scotland in 2015/16 with another audit fee of the same magnitude handed over - this time to the watchdog itself - to cover the 2016/17 audit. On both occasions SBC received pass marks for its handling of the New Earth Solutions disaster.
In one of their letters Audit Scotland actually admitted the abandoned contract represented "a poor outcome" for SBC. But as I pointed out that was not true. The council merely wrote off the losses and moved on. It was, in fact, a poor outcome for council taxpayers.
Undeterred by their negative response, I provided them with a copy of my final report into the Easter Langlee debacle. I had been advised to do so by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) whose staff made it pretty clear they would not be intervening either.
According to SPSO they are not 'regulators' and it was extremely unlikely that they would look into the Borders case unless Audit Scotland had acted incorrectly. And anyway, the Ombudsman could not become involved until I'd been through the council's own complaints procedure. Yes, dear reader, that is exactly what SPSO told me.
When Audit Scotland's response to the 'dossier' arrived I was told in no uncertain manner that from now on they would not be responding to my messages in future.
Here's how they broke the news: "Due to the detailed correspondence we have had with you on this issue, we feel our assessment of this matter has been concluded. Unless there are significant new areas of concern, we will not respond to any further communication regarding the waste management contract at the council. "
Audit Scotland has maintained throughout that SBC was right to shut down the contract in February 2015. I have never disputed that move. It was the decisions taken by elected members on the advice of leading officials in the five years before that which cost the public purse so much. And my report was stuffed with 'new' information.
Now, despite the intransigence of the totally ineffectual national 'regulators' I have managed to secure an investigation.
Acting on that steer from SPSO I lodged a complaint against SBC with er, SBC in the following terms:
"That Scottish Borders Council was guilty of maladministration and
mismanagement of at least £2.4 million of public money in its decision
making and general conduct while dealing with its £65 million waste
management contract with New Earth Solutions Group between March 2011 and
February 2015, particularly its handling of the proposed £23 million waste
treatment facility planned for Easter Langlee, Galashiels but which was
never even started.
I wish my complaint to be investigated and those responsible for the loss of
millions of pounds of taxpayers' money together with the failure to deliver
the waste treatment plant to be identified and held to account. All
information held by the council to be released for public scrutiny following
Audit Scotland's conclusion that SBC is "open and transparent" in conducting
its business."
The council investigation into my complaint is ongoing.
I conclude that my experience vividly illustrates the shortcomings in Scotland's arrangements for dealing with alleged mismanagement of public funds. Disgruntled members of the public receive no assistance whatsoever and find themselves on a pointless journey of discovery on a merry-go-round powered by perpetual motion.
Audit Scotland is beyond reproach and cannot be challenged. Once the watchdog is satisfied the loss of £2.4 million is acceptable that appears to be that. And apart from ordering public authorities to apologise to dissatisfied service users the SPSO has no sanctions at its disposal.
It came as no surprise when I received an email from Audit Scotland last week basically telling me to abandon my two year campaign which had been attempting to get the so called public spending watchdog to do its job.
A very detailed investigation into Scottish Borders Council's disastrous mismanagement of its £65 million contract with New Earth Solutions and the resultant loss of £2.4 million of OUR money for absolutely no return had produced reams of hard, factual evidence in support of the case for an investigation into what appeared to be a clear case of maladministration.
Much of that evidence has been laid before the public thanks to space in the columns of Not Just Sheep & Rugby, and I have had praiseworthy comments along with expressions of concern from a host of individuals, including experts in waste management and public procurement after sending them a copy of my findings.
I also owe a great debt of gratitude to our local newspapers - Border Telegraph and Southern Reporter - for the series of news stories they have published into the fiasco. It is extremely telling that the council has maintained a stony silence when asked for comment by both papers. What is there to hide if there hasn't been a massive cock-up?
However, there's been no interest in the affair from Audit Scotland, the country's Ombudsman or from politicians who have so far failed to offer me a comment (good or bad) on the contents of the 40-odd page 'dossier' which was compiled with a great deal of effort and in the face of consistent opposition from SBC.
Throughout the exercise I kept Audit Scotland copied into the correspondence, and asked them to investigate on several occasions.
Unfortunately, by the time my inquiries were completed SBC had paid accountants KPMG well over £200,000 to examine their books on behalf of Audit Scotland in 2015/16 with another audit fee of the same magnitude handed over - this time to the watchdog itself - to cover the 2016/17 audit. On both occasions SBC received pass marks for its handling of the New Earth Solutions disaster.
In one of their letters Audit Scotland actually admitted the abandoned contract represented "a poor outcome" for SBC. But as I pointed out that was not true. The council merely wrote off the losses and moved on. It was, in fact, a poor outcome for council taxpayers.
Undeterred by their negative response, I provided them with a copy of my final report into the Easter Langlee debacle. I had been advised to do so by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) whose staff made it pretty clear they would not be intervening either.
According to SPSO they are not 'regulators' and it was extremely unlikely that they would look into the Borders case unless Audit Scotland had acted incorrectly. And anyway, the Ombudsman could not become involved until I'd been through the council's own complaints procedure. Yes, dear reader, that is exactly what SPSO told me.
When Audit Scotland's response to the 'dossier' arrived I was told in no uncertain manner that from now on they would not be responding to my messages in future.
Here's how they broke the news: "Due to the detailed correspondence we have had with you on this issue, we feel our assessment of this matter has been concluded. Unless there are significant new areas of concern, we will not respond to any further communication regarding the waste management contract at the council. "
Audit Scotland has maintained throughout that SBC was right to shut down the contract in February 2015. I have never disputed that move. It was the decisions taken by elected members on the advice of leading officials in the five years before that which cost the public purse so much. And my report was stuffed with 'new' information.
Now, despite the intransigence of the totally ineffectual national 'regulators' I have managed to secure an investigation.
Acting on that steer from SPSO I lodged a complaint against SBC with er, SBC in the following terms:
"That Scottish Borders Council was guilty of maladministration and
mismanagement of at least £2.4 million of public money in its decision
making and general conduct while dealing with its £65 million waste
management contract with New Earth Solutions Group between March 2011 and
February 2015, particularly its handling of the proposed £23 million waste
treatment facility planned for Easter Langlee, Galashiels but which was
never even started.
I wish my complaint to be investigated and those responsible for the loss of
millions of pounds of taxpayers' money together with the failure to deliver
the waste treatment plant to be identified and held to account. All
information held by the council to be released for public scrutiny following
Audit Scotland's conclusion that SBC is "open and transparent" in conducting
its business."
The council investigation into my complaint is ongoing.
I conclude that my experience vividly illustrates the shortcomings in Scotland's arrangements for dealing with alleged mismanagement of public funds. Disgruntled members of the public receive no assistance whatsoever and find themselves on a pointless journey of discovery on a merry-go-round powered by perpetual motion.
Audit Scotland is beyond reproach and cannot be challenged. Once the watchdog is satisfied the loss of £2.4 million is acceptable that appears to be that. And apart from ordering public authorities to apologise to dissatisfied service users the SPSO has no sanctions at its disposal.
Saturday, 30 September 2017
No expense spared when democracy's at stake
EWAN LAMB brings you the latest allowances paid to local parliamentarians
Readers of the Scottish Daily Mail would no doubt be outraged (aren't they always?) this week to be told in a front page banner headline that South of Scotland Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) Claudia Beamish was charging taxpayers 60 pence for cycling to and from Holyrood.
In its usual fair and balanced coverage of all things political in Scotland, the Mail went to town on Ms Beamish for legitimately claiming 20 pence a mile for biking to work. The money would just about cover the cost of oiling the chain of her bicycle and having the machine regularly checked by a reputable dealership.
So how did the elected members with offices in the Scottish Borders fare in the allowances stakes during 2016/17.
Not Just Sheep & Rugby decided to publish the statistics without 'slamming' or praising anyone. The residents of the South of Scotland can comment if they wish, but we will leave the editorial expressions of outrage and anger to the Mail, which does, after all, pride itself on its standards of journalism.
Here are the claims made by Borders representatives during the last financial year. The data covers a period before John Lamont decided to resign his Holyrood seat and stand (successfully) for a Westminster constituency.
Readers of the Scottish Daily Mail would no doubt be outraged (aren't they always?) this week to be told in a front page banner headline that South of Scotland Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) Claudia Beamish was charging taxpayers 60 pence for cycling to and from Holyrood.
In its usual fair and balanced coverage of all things political in Scotland, the Mail went to town on Ms Beamish for legitimately claiming 20 pence a mile for biking to work. The money would just about cover the cost of oiling the chain of her bicycle and having the machine regularly checked by a reputable dealership.
So how did the elected members with offices in the Scottish Borders fare in the allowances stakes during 2016/17.
Not Just Sheep & Rugby decided to publish the statistics without 'slamming' or praising anyone. The residents of the South of Scotland can comment if they wish, but we will leave the editorial expressions of outrage and anger to the Mail, which does, after all, pride itself on its standards of journalism.
Here are the claims made by Borders representatives during the last financial year. The data covers a period before John Lamont decided to resign his Holyrood seat and stand (successfully) for a Westminster constituency.
John Lamont (Conservative)– office in Hawick - 2016/17 total £34,217 for 436 separate
claims. Main headings: Edinburgh hotels £4,111 (35 claims); member’s travel
£6,845 (224); office provision £17,775 (108); staff travel £1,627 (37);
telecommunications £1,337 (14); surgery advertising £2,489 (16).
Previous years totals: 2015/16 £33,896; 2014/15 £36,785; 2013/14 £33,561;
2012/13 £30,385. FIVE YEAR TOTAL - £168,844
Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party) – office in Galashiels - 2016/17 total £19,241 for 176 claims.
Edinburgh hotels 0; member’s travel £972.90 (75); office provision £16,458 (75);
staff travel £220.75 (9); telecomms £688.38 (10); surgery advertising £813.25
(3).
Previous years totals: 2015/16 £19,358; 2014/15 £21,361; 2013/14 £19,997;
2012/13 £18,873. FIVE YEAR TOTAL - £98,830.
Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party) – office in Hawick - 2016/17 total £16,169 for 96 claims. Edinburgh
accommodation £5,933 (30); member’s travel £375 (12); office provision £9,246
(40); staff travel 0; telecomms £555.24 (13); surgery advertising 0.
Previous years totals: 2015/16 £13,332; 2014/15 £16,903; 2013/14 £18,368;
2012/13 £21,190. FIVE YEAR TOTAL - £85,962.
One other Borders politician is included in our list. Rachael Hamilton (Conservative) was elected as a list MSP for the South of Scotland in May 2016 which means her allowance claims cover a 10 month period up to March 2017.
Mrs Hamilton subsequently resigned her list seat and replaced Mr Lamont as a constituency MSP in June this year. During the period covered by the 2016/17 figures on allowances she did not have an office in the Scottish Borders.
During 2016/17 Mrs Hamilton received £13,962 for 118 separate claims.
These included Edinburgh
hotels and accommodation £11,034 (17), member’s
travel £1,735 (70). office costs £761 (13) for advertising, hall hire for
surgeries, printing and photocopying and staff travel £78.60 (12).
Tuesday, 26 September 2017
Borders waste strategy needed urgently
by DOUG COLLIE
A new set of environmental data for 2016 shows Scottish Borders Council sent an extra 347 tonnes of household waste to landfill last year, and local recycling achievements lagged far behind most of the rest of Scotland.
The official statistics released by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency [SEPA] places the Borders in the bottom four of 32 Scottish local authorities when it comes to the percentage of waste buried in the ground.
It means there is no sign that the local landfill tax bill, currently running at £2.50 million per year, will be reduced any time soon. And SBC appears to be failing to persuade its citizens to generate less garbage with the overall total for 2016 up by more than 2,000 tonnes.
Borders consumers of local government services were promised a fit for purpose waste management strategy in 2015 after the catastrophic collapse of a £23 million project to develop a treatment facility at Easter Langlee, Galashiels. The latest wheeze is to take the refuse away in fleets of lorries for treatment elsewhere - a seemingly desperate ploy to beat landfill deadlines at a cost of more than £1 million annually in expenditure on road haulage.
Had elected members stuck with proposals to have a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant up and running at Easter Langlee by late 2013 then the drain on landfill tax could well have been cut by £2 million per annum.
But instead they decided to gamble by incorporating a useless form of incineration into the scheme to convert rubbish into electricity. After four years of delays and major technical hitches the entire waste treatment project was abandoned with taxpayers picking up a £2.4 million bill for absolutely no return.
According to SEPA's statistical tables Scottish Borders generated 51,921 tonnes of waste last year compared to 49,848 tonnes in 2015. The volume sent to landfill (30,702) represented 59.13% of the total. The equivalent figures for 2015 were 30,355 tonnes and 60.9%.
The only three authorities with a higher percentage of rubbish being buried were Glasgow City, Western Isles and Aberdeen City. To demonstrate what SBC might/should be achieving, Dundee City landfilled a mere 6.82%, Renfrewshire 24.2% and Angus 25.5%. The Scottish average - like the average recycling rate - was 45.2%.
It is worth noting just how far Borders is behind targets for recycling which were set by the Scottish Government at the beginning of the present decade. By 2012 authorities were meant to be recycling 50% of waste with that proportion meant to escalate to 70% by 2025. SBC has just recorded a 39.03% recycling rate for 2016, up from 37.3% in 2015.
A new set of environmental data for 2016 shows Scottish Borders Council sent an extra 347 tonnes of household waste to landfill last year, and local recycling achievements lagged far behind most of the rest of Scotland.
The official statistics released by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency [SEPA] places the Borders in the bottom four of 32 Scottish local authorities when it comes to the percentage of waste buried in the ground.
It means there is no sign that the local landfill tax bill, currently running at £2.50 million per year, will be reduced any time soon. And SBC appears to be failing to persuade its citizens to generate less garbage with the overall total for 2016 up by more than 2,000 tonnes.
Borders consumers of local government services were promised a fit for purpose waste management strategy in 2015 after the catastrophic collapse of a £23 million project to develop a treatment facility at Easter Langlee, Galashiels. The latest wheeze is to take the refuse away in fleets of lorries for treatment elsewhere - a seemingly desperate ploy to beat landfill deadlines at a cost of more than £1 million annually in expenditure on road haulage.
Had elected members stuck with proposals to have a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant up and running at Easter Langlee by late 2013 then the drain on landfill tax could well have been cut by £2 million per annum.
But instead they decided to gamble by incorporating a useless form of incineration into the scheme to convert rubbish into electricity. After four years of delays and major technical hitches the entire waste treatment project was abandoned with taxpayers picking up a £2.4 million bill for absolutely no return.
According to SEPA's statistical tables Scottish Borders generated 51,921 tonnes of waste last year compared to 49,848 tonnes in 2015. The volume sent to landfill (30,702) represented 59.13% of the total. The equivalent figures for 2015 were 30,355 tonnes and 60.9%.
The only three authorities with a higher percentage of rubbish being buried were Glasgow City, Western Isles and Aberdeen City. To demonstrate what SBC might/should be achieving, Dundee City landfilled a mere 6.82%, Renfrewshire 24.2% and Angus 25.5%. The Scottish average - like the average recycling rate - was 45.2%.
It is worth noting just how far Borders is behind targets for recycling which were set by the Scottish Government at the beginning of the present decade. By 2012 authorities were meant to be recycling 50% of waste with that proportion meant to escalate to 70% by 2025. SBC has just recorded a 39.03% recycling rate for 2016, up from 37.3% in 2015.
Monday, 25 September 2017
Will council sanction copycat application?
DOUGLAS SHEPHERD contemplates a planning dilemma
Councillors in the Scottish Borders who rejected proposals for a £4 million waste transfer station in April on the back of six written objections will soon consider a "revised" planning application which opponents claim is virtually identical and which has attracted 19 objections.
The WTS at Easter Langlee at the site of the region's only public landfill facility is urgently needed following Scottish Borders Council's failure to commission and deliver a suitable waste treatment plant. And attempts to assemble a credible waste management strategy have repeatedly ended unsuccessfully over the last 15 years.
It may seem strange to the layman, but SBC has had to submit two separate requests for planning consent to themselves as planning authority for the area. The WTS would be home to thousands of tonnes of household refuse until it was shipped out by road for treatment at an established facility some distance from Galashiels.
According to waste management experts the cost of this distinctly environmentally unfriendly solution to the council's waste management woes was estimated at more than £1 million a year back in 2009. So the likely price for road haulage thanks to the inability to fund and build a conventional MBT [Mechanical Biological Treatment] plant seems certain to be considerably more in 2017/18.
Opponents of the WTS argue the C class road leading to the Easter Langlee site is totally inadequate for the volume of heavy traffic the development would generate. It is difficult to see what has changed since April when elected members threw out a recommendation from their own staff to give the WTS the go-ahead.
Cynics have commented that the councillors were 'grandstanding' just a few short weeks before the local government elections. But others were convinced planning committee members had listened to the serious concerns of local residents.
So it will be interesting to see whether the second attempt to secure the WTS also ends in failure. It is a potential setback the local authority can ill afford with landfill deadline day looming large in its wing mirrors. Had the MBT been delivered on time in 2013 some 80% of Borders rubbish would have been diverted from landfill and there would have been no requirement for a giant garbage store.
This time round Galashiels Community Council has added its voice to the dissenters. Like other opponents it sees merit in finding a "more suitable" location close to a main route and away from the
hazardous network of country lanes close to Easter Langlee.
In their written submission, the community council state: "The Community Council after hearing all points made wishes to object to this planning application as we do not feel that the conclusions made in the Transport Report are valid.
"Photographs were produced by residents of accidents on the C77 which refute the points made in the report that it can be made safer with lighting; widening at specific areas; implementing a speed limit and erecting various signage.
Councillors in the Scottish Borders who rejected proposals for a £4 million waste transfer station in April on the back of six written objections will soon consider a "revised" planning application which opponents claim is virtually identical and which has attracted 19 objections.
The WTS at Easter Langlee at the site of the region's only public landfill facility is urgently needed following Scottish Borders Council's failure to commission and deliver a suitable waste treatment plant. And attempts to assemble a credible waste management strategy have repeatedly ended unsuccessfully over the last 15 years.
It may seem strange to the layman, but SBC has had to submit two separate requests for planning consent to themselves as planning authority for the area. The WTS would be home to thousands of tonnes of household refuse until it was shipped out by road for treatment at an established facility some distance from Galashiels.
According to waste management experts the cost of this distinctly environmentally unfriendly solution to the council's waste management woes was estimated at more than £1 million a year back in 2009. So the likely price for road haulage thanks to the inability to fund and build a conventional MBT [Mechanical Biological Treatment] plant seems certain to be considerably more in 2017/18.
Opponents of the WTS argue the C class road leading to the Easter Langlee site is totally inadequate for the volume of heavy traffic the development would generate. It is difficult to see what has changed since April when elected members threw out a recommendation from their own staff to give the WTS the go-ahead.
Cynics have commented that the councillors were 'grandstanding' just a few short weeks before the local government elections. But others were convinced planning committee members had listened to the serious concerns of local residents.
So it will be interesting to see whether the second attempt to secure the WTS also ends in failure. It is a potential setback the local authority can ill afford with landfill deadline day looming large in its wing mirrors. Had the MBT been delivered on time in 2013 some 80% of Borders rubbish would have been diverted from landfill and there would have been no requirement for a giant garbage store.
This time round Galashiels Community Council has added its voice to the dissenters. Like other opponents it sees merit in finding a "more suitable" location close to a main route and away from the
hazardous network of country lanes close to Easter Langlee.
In their written submission, the community council state: "The Community Council after hearing all points made wishes to object to this planning application as we do not feel that the conclusions made in the Transport Report are valid.
"Photographs were produced by residents of accidents on the C77 which refute the points made in the report that it can be made safer with lighting; widening at specific areas; implementing a speed limit and erecting various signage.
The size
and regularity of large vehicles on this road are a danger to people and
children; cyclists and horses. The number of houses adjacent to the C77 has
increased over the years, especially the Melrose Gait development (not yet
complete, with another phase still to be built."
Comments were raised about the unsuitability of the
Lowood Bridge for heavy vehicles but the SBC representatives advised that the
bridge repairs and upgrading would accommodate this.
In conclusion the community council claims: "In essence, the view
is that the waste transfer station application is flawed, particularly the
Transport Report and we object to this and also suggest that the Council should
be looking for another location."
Thursday, 21 September 2017
Incredible accolade from Audit Scotland
by EWAN LAMB
The Scottish local authority which repeatedly refused to release information about its failed waste management contract and had to be ordered to make top secret documents public on several occasions by the information commissioner has just been described as "open and transparent" by spending watchdog Audit Scotland.
This unlikely and frankly incredible conclusion is reached in Audit Scotland's annual audit report on Scottish Borders Council's accounts for 2016/17 which will be presented to a council committee next week. The finding is about as plausible as the outcome of the audit into the waste contract itself which provided SBC with a clean bill of health despite losing millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.
According to the audit report, beneath a heading Governance and transparency it states:"The Council has appropriate governance arrangements in place that support the scrutiny of decisions made by the Council. The Council is open and transparent in the way it conducts it business and the public can attend meetings of the Council and its standing committees."
But the fact is SBC's own Scrutiny Committee was not allowed to examine the four year fiasco which resulted from the decision to hook up with insolvent contractors New Earth Solutions. And members of the public have been able to attend ALL council committee meetings in Scotland since the 1975 reform of local government. At the same time councillors can decide to hold sections of meetings in private whenever they wish.
Later on, five whole paragraphs are devoted to the council's superb transparency arrangements. In the interests of accuracy and fairness we have decided to quote paragraphs 78-82 of the report verbatim:
78. Transparency means that the public, in particular local residents, have access to understandable, relevant and timely information about how the Council is taking decisions and how it is using resources such as money, people and assets.
On reading this glowing testament to openness, a former councillor told us: "What a lot of claptrap, This stuff is just padding and alluding to what every council is obliged to do. What's great about public attending meetings or having access to accounts? Who are Audit Scotland trying to fool?"
The very next section of the document deals with SBC's Freedom of Information handling. And here again, despite recent events which saw the council lambasted (twice) for wrongly withholding information it did not want the public to see, Audit Scotland claims everything in SBC's information garden is rosy!
This is what the report says:
The Scottish local authority which repeatedly refused to release information about its failed waste management contract and had to be ordered to make top secret documents public on several occasions by the information commissioner has just been described as "open and transparent" by spending watchdog Audit Scotland.
This unlikely and frankly incredible conclusion is reached in Audit Scotland's annual audit report on Scottish Borders Council's accounts for 2016/17 which will be presented to a council committee next week. The finding is about as plausible as the outcome of the audit into the waste contract itself which provided SBC with a clean bill of health despite losing millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.
According to the audit report, beneath a heading Governance and transparency it states:"The Council has appropriate governance arrangements in place that support the scrutiny of decisions made by the Council. The Council is open and transparent in the way it conducts it business and the public can attend meetings of the Council and its standing committees."
But the fact is SBC's own Scrutiny Committee was not allowed to examine the four year fiasco which resulted from the decision to hook up with insolvent contractors New Earth Solutions. And members of the public have been able to attend ALL council committee meetings in Scotland since the 1975 reform of local government. At the same time councillors can decide to hold sections of meetings in private whenever they wish.
Later on, five whole paragraphs are devoted to the council's superb transparency arrangements. In the interests of accuracy and fairness we have decided to quote paragraphs 78-82 of the report verbatim:
78. Transparency means that the public, in particular local residents, have access to understandable, relevant and timely information about how the Council is taking decisions and how it is using resources such as money, people and assets.
79. There is evidence from a number of
sources which demonstrate the Council's commitment to transparency. Members of
the public can attend meetings of the full Council, executive and other
committees. Minutes of these committee meetings and supporting papers are
readily available on the Council’s website.
80. The Council’s website allows the
public to access a wide range of information including the register of members’
interests, current consultations and surveys and how to make a complaint.
81. The Council makes its annual
accounts available on its website. These include a management commentary which
provides details of performance against budget, information on the use of
reserves and risks and uncertainties facing the Council.
82. Overall, we concluded that the
Council conducts its business in an open and transparent
manner.
On reading this glowing testament to openness, a former councillor told us: "What a lot of claptrap, This stuff is just padding and alluding to what every council is obliged to do. What's great about public attending meetings or having access to accounts? Who are Audit Scotland trying to fool?"
The very next section of the document deals with SBC's Freedom of Information handling. And here again, despite recent events which saw the council lambasted (twice) for wrongly withholding information it did not want the public to see, Audit Scotland claims everything in SBC's information garden is rosy!
This is what the report says:
83. During 2017 the Scottish Information
Commissioner has issued two rulings against the Council regarding its handling
of a Freedom of Information (FoI) request from a member of the public. These
decisions found that the Council had not complied with the requirements of the
FoI legislation and had incorrectly withheld information.
84. As part of our audit work we held meetings
with Council officers to discuss how the Council had responded to the FoI
requests, and to determine whether the Council had identified any lessons to be
learned from the handling of the request or any improvements to its process for
dealing with requests. Based on the work carried out, we are satisfied that the
Council has an appropriate system in place for responding to FoI requests and
that improvements have been adopted.
So that's all right then!
Audit Scotland came up with a similar 'lessons learned' conclusion following the failed £23 million project to provide the Borders with a suitable waste treatment facility. It described the massive loss of public funds as "a poor outcome" but maintained SBC followed correct procedures in ditching their useless contractors in 2015.
Unfortunately that audit did not come up with an explanation for the huge gamble taken by elected members in sanctioning a form of rubbish incineration which had never been tested and could not be made to function. An investigation into that aspect of the debacle, and perhaps the role of Audit Scotland in the affair, is still required.
Wednesday, 13 September 2017
Chuffin' heck: where's the boom?
by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD
A decision by Scottish Borders Council to borrow £7.7 million and settle their share of the Waverley Railway (north section) reinstatement, then use house builders' development contributions to pay off the loan over ten years may turn out to have been a bit risky.
Despite upbeat predictions a decade ago by politicians and estate agents that the second coming of trains in 2015 would spark a house construction boom in Midlothian and the Central Borders, thereby generating large sums of dosh for the two local authorities, there is no sign of a building bonanza in and around Galashiels.
On the other hand new figures published this week by the Scottish Government show house start-ups and completions by the private sector in Midlothian are at record levels. At the same time building industry activity in the Borders has slumped to an all time low.
The housing demand near the northern stretches of the railway line may or may not be directly attributable to the return of the Iron Horse after a gap of 46 years. But the sharp contrast in house building rates in neighbouring council areas is distinctly puzzling.
Here are the statistics which should give local economists, councillors and other stakeholders considerable food for thought. In the Borders case the completions and starts are for the whole region rather than for the narrow corridor where developer contributions are levied. The Scottish Government tables show:
Private Sector housing starts for Midlothian & Scottish Borders:
A decision by Scottish Borders Council to borrow £7.7 million and settle their share of the Waverley Railway (north section) reinstatement, then use house builders' development contributions to pay off the loan over ten years may turn out to have been a bit risky.
Despite upbeat predictions a decade ago by politicians and estate agents that the second coming of trains in 2015 would spark a house construction boom in Midlothian and the Central Borders, thereby generating large sums of dosh for the two local authorities, there is no sign of a building bonanza in and around Galashiels.
On the other hand new figures published this week by the Scottish Government show house start-ups and completions by the private sector in Midlothian are at record levels. At the same time building industry activity in the Borders has slumped to an all time low.
The housing demand near the northern stretches of the railway line may or may not be directly attributable to the return of the Iron Horse after a gap of 46 years. But the sharp contrast in house building rates in neighbouring council areas is distinctly puzzling.
Here are the statistics which should give local economists, councillors and other stakeholders considerable food for thought. In the Borders case the completions and starts are for the whole region rather than for the narrow corridor where developer contributions are levied. The Scottish Government tables show:
Private Sector housing starts for Midlothian & Scottish Borders:
BORDERS – 2016: 211; 2015: 272; 2010: 215; 2006: 692; 1996: 254. Note: The
2016 figure of 211 is the lowest since 1998 (197).
MIDLOTHIAN – 2016: 847; 2015: 593; 2010: 205; 2006: 309; 1996: 306. Note:
2016 figure of 847 is highest since records began (1996)
Private Sector housing completions for Midlothian & Scottish
Borders:
BORDERS – 2016: 235; 2015: 347; 2010: 429; 2006: 618; 1996: 523.
MIDLOTHIAN – 2016: 642; 2015: 583; 2010: 266; 2006: 169; 1996: 209. Note:
2016 figure of 642 highest since records began (1996).
Figures for house completions in the Waverley Developer Contribution area
(includes Lauder, Galashiels, Melrose and Selkirk) in the five financial years
to 2015/16 can be found in the Scottish Borders Council Housing Land Audit 2016.
The numbers are - 2011/12 89; 2012/13 101; 2013/14 110; 2014/15 91; 2015/16
118.
According to the audit, approximately 32% of all Borders completions fell within the Waverley
Developer Contribution area. The report does not specify whether these statistics are for
all completions or just the private sector.
But what is clear from both sets of data is that so far the Borders Railway has not kick-started a housing boom in communities bordering the southern sections of track.
It is to be hoped the council attracts enough contributions from house builders to meet the cost of the £8 million loan they took from the Public Works Loan Board [PWLB] in February with an interest rate of 2.05%. This advance is repayable over 10 years.
In April, SBC borrowed a further £10 million from PWLB in April at 1.90%, also over 10 years. Information posted on the PWLB website does not specify what each loan would be used for.
Borders councillors were told at the beginning of this year that by repaying their 'bill' for the railway upfront after borrowing the cash rather than meeting their commitments in instalments through to 2038 by handing over developer contributions they could expect to save around £4 million of public money.
A Freedom of Information request submitted to SBC in June 2014 asked for the total number of development contributions obtained for the railway project so far (2004 to 2014). The council reply showed there had been 241 developer contributions valued in total at £743,127 - far less than the number required to keep up the council's payments.
A Freedom of Information request submitted to SBC in June 2014 asked for the total number of development contributions obtained for the railway project so far (2004 to 2014). The council reply showed there had been 241 developer contributions valued in total at £743,127 - far less than the number required to keep up the council's payments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)