EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD
Scottish Borders Council has joined the Duke of Roxburghe, Olympic equestrian Ian Stark, and some of the region's leading retailers in challenging the rateable values placed on their respective properties and land by the regional assessor.
Almost 250 valuation appeals are scheduled for consideration at three separate hearings in May and June although it is expected a number of cases will have been settled before coming to 'court'. Scottish business rates in 2019/20 means owners face having to pay 49 pence for every pound of rateable value levied.
The 30-page citation list for the first Valuation Appeal Committee hearing next week is dominated by cases involving the Borders local authority and its agents D M Hall. SBC is trying to reduce the potential financial burden it could face as a result of the assessor's valuations of public car parks and open spaces. In many instances parking is free on the sites concerned with no revenue generated for the council.
In Hawick, the Common Haugh car park has a rateable value of £37,300 while the town's Mart Street parking area carries a £10,900 figure. Among the other appealed cases involving car parks are St Abbs £3,500; Coldingham Sands £4,450; Gunsgreen (Eyemouth) £6,300; Galashiels - Currie Road £13,900; High Street £13,300; and Nether Road £17,100; Selkirk - Market Place £9,500; Jedburgh - Canongate £20,700; Lothian Park £11,000; Kelso - The Knowes £12,500; Peebles - Edinburgh Road £20,700; Kingsmeadows £6,800.
All of these sites are on the appeals list published on the assessor's website..
A subsequent sitting of the committee in late May is due to hear appeals from proprietors of sporting and leisure facilities across the region.
Scottish Borders Council is the appellent in more than 50 cases, each of them involving individual beach huts at Coldingham Bay. Many of the structures have been given a rateable value of £240. The local authority is also contesting values placed on caravan parks, tennis courts and The Greenyards Rugby Ground, home to Melrose RFC (£41,000).
The list includes Ian Stark, the former Olympic Games medallist whose equestrian centre near Selkirk carries a valuation of £28,700.
An appeal was also lodged by the Duke of Roxburghe, trading as The Roxburghe Hotel & Golf Course and Sunlaws Development Company in relation to the prestigious golf course near Heiton village (£52,200). Meanwhile the Second Roxburghe Discretionary Trust has questioned the £17,300 valuation on Kelso Golf Course.
Representatives of the council have appealed the figures for Hawick's Vertish Hill golf club (£28,800), while the local authority has also laid down a challenge in the case of Peebles Golf Club (£35,400).
Scottish National Party councillor Donald Moffat is among those on the citation list for another hearing on June 19th. He is appealing the £8,600 valuation on the Eildon entertainment centre he runs in Coldstream.
The committee is also due to hear appeals from pubs and clubs, and from retailers in most of the main Borders towns.
The citation list features: Galashiels - Pets at Home £106,500; Matalan £278,000; Carpetright £91,900; Dixon's Carphone Warehouse £128,500; Sports Direct £125,500; T K Maxx £155,000; and B&Q £258,000; Homebase (Hawick) £244,000; and Edinburgh Woollen Mill, Jedburgh £201,000.
Friday, 3 May 2019
Tuesday, 30 April 2019
TORY CONFLICT OF INTEREST OVER TWEED’S FRAGILE ECO-SYSTEM?
SPECIAL FEATURE by DOUG COLLIE
Proposals
to build hundreds of new homes close to the Tweed in a £200 million
development scheme promoted by councillors on Conservative-led Scottish Borders
Council risk polluting the world-famous river and could threaten its dwindling salmon
stocks, say ecology experts.
However, the planned residential development of up to 400
houses at Lowood/Tweedbank with its negative environmental implications appears
to be at odds with efforts to protect fishing habitats by two local Tory
politicians, one of them Scotland’s designated Species Champion for Atlantic
Salmon.
A team of consultants representing the owner of the top
quality salmon angling beat of Upper Pavilion, which sits adjacent to the
planned residential development at Lowood, near Melrose, continue to
warn housebuilding on such a massive scale would almost certainly compromise
the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The salmon is one of the
species rating a special mention in the SAC designation.
But at the same time Atlantic salmon ‘champion’ Michelle
Ballantyne, Tory Member of the Scottish Parliament [MSP] for the South of
Scotland and her Conservative party colleague Rachael Hamilton, the member for
Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire, are pressing the Scottish Government to consider
special measures to reverse the decline
of fish stocks on the Tweed and other rivers.
The issues surrounding the plight of Atlantic salmon in
Scottish waters was the subject of a debate in the Holyrood Parliament in early
April after Mrs. Hamilton lodged the following motion:
“That the Parliament notes the reported long-term decline in
salmon stocks across Scotland’s major rivers, including the Tweed, the Spey,
the Dee and the Tay; understands that catches have decreased over the last
decade; notes that, on the Tweed, rod catches have fallen from 23,219 in 2012
to 6,577 in 2017; believes that this is marginally above the previous worst
years, 1977 and 1980; understands that angling in Scotland supports around
2,800 jobs and contributes £100 million to the economy; acknowledges that
fishing generates significant employment opportunities in rural areas;
recognises that there are significant challenges ahead if salmon stocks are to
return to previous levels, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government to
take urgent action to devise effective conservation and management plans in
conjunction with relevant bodies to help address what it sees as the persistent
decline in salmon stocks.”
And in her speech to Parliament Mrs Hamilton said: “On the
ground, we need to look at the whole ecosystem along the entire course of the
river. Healthy salmon populations are possibly one of the best indicators of a
healthy environment, which every one of us will benefit from. If we do not take
action now, it will not be only our fragile rural economy that takes the hit in
the short term; it will be our fragile environment as a whole in the long term.”
Atlantic salmon champion Mrs Ballantyne - a former Tory Group leader at SBC - also contributed to
the debate, declaring: “At the end of last year, I was asked whether I would be
the Scottish Environment LINK species champion for Atlantic salmon and I was
delighted to take that on. It has been a learning curve—I did not know anything
about it when I set out. What I have discovered has led to a number of worries.
“The Atlantic salmon is a keystone species, which means that
any decline in stock has a direct and immediate impact on freshwater
biodiversity, with the presence of salmon being a useful indicator of the
health of our rivers. It is therefore imperative that we work to preserve wild
salmon stocks to secure the future of our aquatic ecosystem.”
Her “Champions” page on the Scottish Environment LINK
website says: “Aquaculture poses the most serious threat through transfer of
disease and interbreeding with fish that have escaped from farms. Barriers to
migration such as dams and weirs, changes to river systems including
development and pollution, unsustainable fishing practices both at sea and in
rivers, and climate change have the potential to affect wild populations.”
And it adds under the heading ‘Action Needed’ : 1 “Support
measures to reduce impact of aquaculture on wild fish 2. Support removal of
obstacles to migration in rivers 3. Support enhanced regulation to reduce
nutrient pollution 4. Support biodiversity and climate actions, including tree
planting along river corridors”
It is not known whether Mrs Ballantyne and Mrs Hamilton have
discussed the potential risk to Tweed salmon stocks from the Lowood development
with the Conservative group at Scottish Borders Council led by Councillor Shona
Haslam. SBC purchased the Lowood estate from the Hamilton family for £11 million, including fees, taxes and interest charges.
As previously reported, the council has chosen to ignore the contents and
findings of a comprehensive report, handed to them in March 2018 by a group of
consultants headed by Jones Lang Lasalle
acting for Upper Pavilion owners Middlemede Properties.
In their environmental appraisal of the Tweedbank Masterplan
(TM) specialists ITPEnergised wrote:
“Given the extensive list of additional
protected species surveys that need to be undertaken, it is clear that the
proposed development of the Lowood element of the Tweedbank allocation has the
potential to cause significant impact to these species, either through loss of
habitat, disturbance, or indeed, mortality.
“The requirement for such extensive additional surveys
supports the view that ecological and
environmental constraints have formed little, if any, of the ‘key principles’
behind the TM exercise. Given that none of this additional ecological survey
work seems to have been completed, it is unclear how SBC has arrived at the
figure presented in the Masterplan Brief of a ‘development of a minimum of
250-400+ dwellings’.
“This appears to be, at best, an aspirational figure and
certainly premature until such time as it is known what the full impact of the
development proposals could have on the important habitats and species present
in this area. The River Tweed SAC and SSSI is a highly sensitive ecological
receptor which requires protection from urban development and the TM does not
appear to provide this protection in its current form.
“The River Tweed, which flows through the TM boundary, is
designated as a SAC and SSSI for salmon and otter. This is a highly important
ecological resource, maintaining a number of habitats and species, which
require protection from future development. The TM includes an aspirational
density of 250-400+ dwellings, however no justification has been provided that
Lowood can accommodate this scale of development and indeed that figure would
seem to have been arrived at before any level of environmental appraisal work
has been undertaken.
“The TM has not taken into consideration the impacts that
the proposed development will have on existing riparian uses and interests,
including effects that increased pollution and flooding risks could have on
recreational fisheries and ongoing conservation efforts. The TM currently shows
that the proposed development would be drained through a SUDS pond which will
be located within an area identified by SEPA as at medium to high risk of
flooding. This is contrary to SEPA guidance and increases the exposure of the
River Tweed to pollution and increased risk of downstream flooding.”
Monday, 29 April 2019
Appraisal of Lowood housing site showed potential risk of pollution
EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB
A screening exercise to ascertain whether 29 Borders housing sites could be developed without threatening protected habitats acknowledged the construction of hundreds of new homes at Lowood, close to the River Tweed "could increase discharge of pollutants from waste water treatment works".
The Habitat Appraisal Record (HAR) was compiled by Scottish Borders Council in 2017, but the findings from the study have only now been made public following a Freedom of Information request. It says: "There is a chance of housing allocations in the Housing Supplementary Guidance (SG) causing LSEs (Likely Significant Effects) to this site."
Despite the apparent potential threat to the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation [SAC] the screening assessment concluded "all 16 of the sites screened into the process either were not found to have effects on the SAC, or had possible minor effects that could be sufficiently avoided or mitigated."
The land at Lowood - recently purchased by the council for £11 million inclusive of fees and tax - is expected to be the largest new greenfield housing site in the region's second Local Development Plan (LDP), due to be finalised in 2020. SBC clearly believes the scale of proposed development will not pose a risk to the delicate habitats associated with the Tweed river system.
But at least one of the riparian owners is convinced the Lowood housing proposals being promoted by the council could inflict unwanted damage on salmon stocks and the environment in general. As previously reported in these columns Middlemede Properties, proprietors of the mile-long Upper Pavilion salmon beat right next to Lowood is calling on the council to remove the estate land from its list of housing sites.
The local authority's 2017 HAR says: "Any housing development taking place on this site (Tweedbank/Lowood) would still require to be acceptable under LDP Policy EP15, which confirms that development that would adversely affect the water environment would be refused.
"Furthermore, the development requirements for this site include a flood risk assessment, mitigation required to ensure that there will be no significant adverse effects on integrity of the River Tweed SAC, possibly an environmental impact assessment, a drainage impact assessment, contact with Scottish Water in respect of water treatment works, and the assessment of ecology impacts and the provision of mitigation. The above is considered sufficient mitigation for any potential minor effects on the SAC."
However, Middlemede's representatives claim the proposed mitigation measures are vague and non-specific. The potential threats to the SAC have been under-played, they maintain.
The entire Tweed river system was designated a SAC - of European importance - in 2005. It is also referred to as a Natura site. A range of conservation objectives are included in the designation to safeguard key species including Atlantic salmon, otter and lamprey.
Those objectives are listed as follows: "To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features; and to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: Population of the species, including range of genetic types for salmon, as a viable component of the site; Distribution of the species within site; Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; No significant disturbance of the species."
A screening exercise to ascertain whether 29 Borders housing sites could be developed without threatening protected habitats acknowledged the construction of hundreds of new homes at Lowood, close to the River Tweed "could increase discharge of pollutants from waste water treatment works".
The Habitat Appraisal Record (HAR) was compiled by Scottish Borders Council in 2017, but the findings from the study have only now been made public following a Freedom of Information request. It says: "There is a chance of housing allocations in the Housing Supplementary Guidance (SG) causing LSEs (Likely Significant Effects) to this site."
Despite the apparent potential threat to the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation [SAC] the screening assessment concluded "all 16 of the sites screened into the process either were not found to have effects on the SAC, or had possible minor effects that could be sufficiently avoided or mitigated."
The land at Lowood - recently purchased by the council for £11 million inclusive of fees and tax - is expected to be the largest new greenfield housing site in the region's second Local Development Plan (LDP), due to be finalised in 2020. SBC clearly believes the scale of proposed development will not pose a risk to the delicate habitats associated with the Tweed river system.
But at least one of the riparian owners is convinced the Lowood housing proposals being promoted by the council could inflict unwanted damage on salmon stocks and the environment in general. As previously reported in these columns Middlemede Properties, proprietors of the mile-long Upper Pavilion salmon beat right next to Lowood is calling on the council to remove the estate land from its list of housing sites.
The local authority's 2017 HAR says: "Any housing development taking place on this site (Tweedbank/Lowood) would still require to be acceptable under LDP Policy EP15, which confirms that development that would adversely affect the water environment would be refused.
"Furthermore, the development requirements for this site include a flood risk assessment, mitigation required to ensure that there will be no significant adverse effects on integrity of the River Tweed SAC, possibly an environmental impact assessment, a drainage impact assessment, contact with Scottish Water in respect of water treatment works, and the assessment of ecology impacts and the provision of mitigation. The above is considered sufficient mitigation for any potential minor effects on the SAC."
However, Middlemede's representatives claim the proposed mitigation measures are vague and non-specific. The potential threats to the SAC have been under-played, they maintain.
The entire Tweed river system was designated a SAC - of European importance - in 2005. It is also referred to as a Natura site. A range of conservation objectives are included in the designation to safeguard key species including Atlantic salmon, otter and lamprey.
Those objectives are listed as follows: "To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features; and to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: Population of the species, including range of genetic types for salmon, as a viable component of the site; Distribution of the species within site; Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; No significant disturbance of the species."
The threats, pressure and activities with
impacts on the River Tweed SAC according to the record of the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee are: Pollution to groundwater; Human induced changes in hydraulic conditions; Invasive non-native
species; Modification of cultivation practices; Grazing; Annual and
perennial non-timber crops.
JNCC's record also states: "Substantial housing
development within close proximity of the River Tweed SAC may increase
recreational disturbance and could increase discharge of pollutants from waste
water treatment works."
It is a formidable and robust designation, underlining the importance of keeping the river system safe from risky development projects and other activities which might upset the delicate balance.of the SAC's habitats.
It is a formidable and robust designation, underlining the importance of keeping the river system safe from risky development projects and other activities which might upset the delicate balance.of the SAC's habitats.
However, the council's HAR overall conclusion appears to dismiss any potential threats from any or all of the proposed housing development sites.
The document states: "Ultimately,
all 16 of the sites screened into the process either were not found to have
effects on the SAC, or had possible minor effects that could be sufficiently
avoided or mitigated.
"These findings were confirmed following the relevant
steps which were: screening out allocations for which a link to a Natura site
cannot be established; screening out allocations where a previous HRA or
appropriate assessment have concluded that there is no LSE on the conservation
objectives of a Natura site or that there is LSE that can be avoided; screening
out sites where Local Development Plan policy and site specific requirement means LSE on the
conservation objectives of a relevant Natura site can be avoided; and confirming
that any potential effects on the SAC are so minor there would be no cumulative
effects."
Wednesday, 24 April 2019
Council plans could threaten special area of conservation - report
EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD
An assessment completed by Scottish Borders Council in 2017 confirmed that housing developments on the Lowood Estate near Melrose could have a significant impact on the designated River Tweed Special Area of Conservation [SAC] which lies close to where hundreds of new homes are planned.
It has been revealed in a response to SBC's Main Issues Report [MIR] which forms part of the preparation of the Borders' second Local Development Plan, that the potential effects on the SAC were pinpointed in a so-called Habitats Appraisal Record or HAR produced by the local authority.
The HAR was assembled long before The £11 million deal (including fees) between SBC and Lowood's previous owners was concluded late last year. The council now owns 109 acres, much of it attractive parkland, together with a large country house and a collection of other properties.
The Tweedbank Masterplan for the area includes provision for residential developments on Lowood by private builders. But, as we have already reported, it is claimed the local housing market does not warrant house-building on such a grand scale.
A detailed report by consultants Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) attempts to unpick the council's arguments for allocating the prime site as a future housing area. JLL represents Middlemede Properties whose Upper Pavilion salmon fishery adjoins Lowood. The consultants say in their submission that they acquired a copy of the HAR via Freedom of Information.
According to JLL: "It (the habitats appraisal) confirmed that housing development at Lowood would be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC's conservation objectives (thereby triggering the need for an appropriate assessment [AA] of the proposed plan to allocate the site for housing to be carried out) but then concluded that there would be no significant impact because unspecified mitigation measures would be put in place to offset the risk of what is then described as "potential minor effects".
An assessment completed by Scottish Borders Council in 2017 confirmed that housing developments on the Lowood Estate near Melrose could have a significant impact on the designated River Tweed Special Area of Conservation [SAC] which lies close to where hundreds of new homes are planned.
It has been revealed in a response to SBC's Main Issues Report [MIR] which forms part of the preparation of the Borders' second Local Development Plan, that the potential effects on the SAC were pinpointed in a so-called Habitats Appraisal Record or HAR produced by the local authority.
The HAR was assembled long before The £11 million deal (including fees) between SBC and Lowood's previous owners was concluded late last year. The council now owns 109 acres, much of it attractive parkland, together with a large country house and a collection of other properties.
The Tweedbank Masterplan for the area includes provision for residential developments on Lowood by private builders. But, as we have already reported, it is claimed the local housing market does not warrant house-building on such a grand scale.
A detailed report by consultants Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) attempts to unpick the council's arguments for allocating the prime site as a future housing area. JLL represents Middlemede Properties whose Upper Pavilion salmon fishery adjoins Lowood. The consultants say in their submission that they acquired a copy of the HAR via Freedom of Information.
According to JLL: "It (the habitats appraisal) confirmed that housing development at Lowood would be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC's conservation objectives (thereby triggering the need for an appropriate assessment [AA] of the proposed plan to allocate the site for housing to be carried out) but then concluded that there would be no significant impact because unspecified mitigation measures would be put in place to offset the risk of what is then described as "potential minor effects".
"It is
self-evident from the foregoing, that the Council has failed to carry out an AA
and as part of that process set out the mitigation measures that would be
needed to ensure that an adverse effect on the River Tweed SAC did not occur.
The Council consequently also failed to consider whether the implementation of
mitigation measures would impact on our client's riparian interest.
"Critically,
in terms of its assessment of the effectiveness of the site (both in terms of
site capacity and additional infrastructure cost), it has no information before
it which would allow it to conclude that there would be no HRA (Habitats Regulatory Assessment) obstacle to
planning permission for housing development on the site being granted.
"Without
information on whether the anticipated adverse impact can be properly
mitigated, it follows in turn that the Council is currently unable to assess
the cost involved in providing the appropriate level of mitigation and the
impact which that additional cost may have on the overall viability of the
site. This may include the payment of compensation."
JLL also claim
And the report concludes: "The Council
now has an opportunity to address this serious matter with regard to Lowood, by
acknowledging at this stage that the site’s proximity to sensitive national and
European environmental designations, combined with the commercial viability and
deliverability issues, all set against a very weak housing market dynamic,
provide justification for not allocating the site an effective allocation in
LDP2, in favour of more sustainable and deliverable alternatives."
Tuesday, 23 April 2019
Scrap Lowood Estate housing plans, council told
EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE
Scottish Borders Council has been strongly advised not to allocate Lowood Estate land, near Melrose, for hundreds of new homes even though the local authority has splashed out £11 million of taxpayers' money to buy the prime site by the banks of the River Tweed.
In a hard hitting submission to the council - lodged after the multi-million pound deal was concluded last December - representatives of an adjacent property owner claim the proposals to use Lowood for residential development are flawed on multiple fronts.
Consultants Jones Lang Lasalle [JLL] acting for Middlemede Properties (MPL), owners of the Upper Pavilion salmon fishing beat next to Lowood, had presented a comprehensive response to the so-called Tweedbank Masterplan in March last year. But its assessment of the Lowood housing aspect of the plan was completely ignored by SBC. According to the local authority the 64-page document was not received in time and so was not shown to elected councillors.
It has now been revealed that JLL sent the council a second report in January 2019 in response to the Main Issues Report (MIR) of the Borders Local Development Plan Two (LDP2). The seven-page submission reinforces Middlemede's case for the housing developments at Lowood to be abandoned.
David Bell, director and head of planning at JLL, says in the report: "It should be noted that within the formal MIR/LDP process, MPL has made a number of representations to SBC with regard to what they consider is an inappropriate development approach to the Tweedbank housing allocation. As yet, disappointingly, there has been no response whatsoever from SBC to the important issues raised in that report."
The JLL document adds that MPL takes the view that the scale of development proposed at Tweedbank does not represent “the right development in the right place” and it cuts across the key objective of SBC – namely, to strike a balance between supporting sustainable growth and protecting the landscape and environment.
"The MIR sets out that LDP2 must incorporate a generous supply of housing land, but it acknowledges that there has been a limited annual completion rate for mainstream housing and limited take up of allocated housing sites", Mr Bell writes.
"This illustrates some of the endemic housing market failure issues within the Scottish Borders and further underlines why sites such as Tweedbank, which clearly will have high abnormal costs to enable development, are likely to remain undeveloped and will not drive the sales values to deliver commercially viable development, high quality public realm and necessary environmental mitigation."
JLL also believe the reference to the Tweedbank site with regard to “excellent development opportunities” and being in an area “with a proven housing market demand” is misleading.
Scottish Borders Council has been strongly advised not to allocate Lowood Estate land, near Melrose, for hundreds of new homes even though the local authority has splashed out £11 million of taxpayers' money to buy the prime site by the banks of the River Tweed.
In a hard hitting submission to the council - lodged after the multi-million pound deal was concluded last December - representatives of an adjacent property owner claim the proposals to use Lowood for residential development are flawed on multiple fronts.
Consultants Jones Lang Lasalle [JLL] acting for Middlemede Properties (MPL), owners of the Upper Pavilion salmon fishing beat next to Lowood, had presented a comprehensive response to the so-called Tweedbank Masterplan in March last year. But its assessment of the Lowood housing aspect of the plan was completely ignored by SBC. According to the local authority the 64-page document was not received in time and so was not shown to elected councillors.
It has now been revealed that JLL sent the council a second report in January 2019 in response to the Main Issues Report (MIR) of the Borders Local Development Plan Two (LDP2). The seven-page submission reinforces Middlemede's case for the housing developments at Lowood to be abandoned.
David Bell, director and head of planning at JLL, says in the report: "It should be noted that within the formal MIR/LDP process, MPL has made a number of representations to SBC with regard to what they consider is an inappropriate development approach to the Tweedbank housing allocation. As yet, disappointingly, there has been no response whatsoever from SBC to the important issues raised in that report."
The JLL document adds that MPL takes the view that the scale of development proposed at Tweedbank does not represent “the right development in the right place” and it cuts across the key objective of SBC – namely, to strike a balance between supporting sustainable growth and protecting the landscape and environment.
"The MIR sets out that LDP2 must incorporate a generous supply of housing land, but it acknowledges that there has been a limited annual completion rate for mainstream housing and limited take up of allocated housing sites", Mr Bell writes.
"This illustrates some of the endemic housing market failure issues within the Scottish Borders and further underlines why sites such as Tweedbank, which clearly will have high abnormal costs to enable development, are likely to remain undeveloped and will not drive the sales values to deliver commercially viable development, high quality public realm and necessary environmental mitigation."
JLL also believe the reference to the Tweedbank site with regard to “excellent development opportunities” and being in an area “with a proven housing market demand” is misleading.
"The housing
market at this location faces extremely challenging issues which are likely to
be a serious barrier to future development especially when considered against
the expected development costs and relatively low values driven by housing
development at this location."
The report declares: "Notwithstanding
the fact that the Council seems to have purchased the Lowood Estate on an
unconditional basis, there is, it is considered, strong justification for removing
the allocation and pursuing more deliverable and effective housing land
opportunities that can represent the right development in the right place in
line with the Council’s overarching aims and objectives."
NEXT: MORE FROM THE MIDDLEMEDE SUBMISSION
Sunday, 21 April 2019
More on that Audit Scotland 'wish list'
by EWAN LAMB
Risks associated with arms length companies, the potential threats posed by participation in so-called city region and growth deals and a concerning reduction in the number of finance staff working in local government all feature in the latest Audit Scotland report on safeguarding public money.
"Scrutiny works best when officers provide councillors with timely, good quality information . A council should be transparent about its decisions and the quality of the services it provides, so that the public and the council’s partners can be confident it is making informed decisions; and safeguarding public money. This involves the council’s leadership being open to scrutiny and accountable for their plans and performance. Every councillor – not just those who sit on the council’s audit committee, scrutiny committee, or equivalent committees – has a valuable scrutiny role to play at corporate, local area and electoral ward levels."
In its reference to ALEOs (Arms Length External Organisations) which have been developed by many councils, the report warns: "ALEOs can bring financial and operational benefits, with more potential for innovation but also considerable risks. Once an ALEO is operating, councilors need to oversee its financial and service performance; financial sustainability; associated risks; and seek assurance from council officers that suitable controls are in place for managing these risks. Risks include a potential conflict of interest where a councillor sits on an ALEO’s board, especially should it encounter financial difficulties.
Risks associated with arms length companies, the potential threats posed by participation in so-called city region and growth deals and a concerning reduction in the number of finance staff working in local government all feature in the latest Audit Scotland report on safeguarding public money.
The document sets out to reinforce the importance of councils having effective internal
controls.
It says: "Although these may have a low profile, they are fundamental to
maintaining a council’s finances; securing its core values; safeguarding public
money; and minimising the reputational impact on a council if things go wrong. Checklists are featured to
help councillors and officers assess their council’s situation and, where
necessary, to identify and plan improvements."
According to Audit Scotland, through
their audit reports and plans, councils’ external auditors flag concerns about internal controls as a result, for example, of the trend in reduction
of finance staff.
"Recurring weaknesses are becoming apparent with certain types
of controls, particularly those relating to information processing controls,
such as for key financial systems and performance reviews, such as making effective
use of computer-generated reports that usefully highlight patterns and
exceptions."
And the report goes on to highlight other issues linked to internal financial controls including segregation of duties, including ensuring that a council officer cannot perform
both Human Resources
(HR) and payroll functions, and so create fictitious employees; and ensuring an
officer cannot both make a purchase from a supplier and arrange the payment for
it.
To illustrate what can happen if internal control systems are not working efficiently, the report describes one case study in which an unnamed local authority continued to pay former members of its workforce over a three year period.
Audit Scotland say: "Between April 2015 and February 2018, the
council made over 800 salary over payments totalling approximately £812,000 to a
combination of actual and former employees. An eighth of former employees were
still paid after leaving the council, usually due to a delay in a department notifying
Payroll Services staff that someone had left. Six over payments exceeded £10,000
and the highest was £15,500. At the time of the external audit, there were no
documented procedures for preventing or recovering payroll over payments."
The public spending watchdog goes on to urge Scotland's 32 councils to ensure: full council, cabinet, committee and board meetings are held
regularly; there is trust between councillors and senior officers; and councillors and officers recognise and respect their distinct roles;
"A culture
of openness to challenge helps councillors and officers to recognise the
importance of scrutiny; be open to candid discussions about risks and related
controls; and promote this culture across the council and the partnerships it
is involved in.
"Scrutiny works best when officers provide councillors with timely, good quality information . A council should be transparent about its decisions and the quality of the services it provides, so that the public and the council’s partners can be confident it is making informed decisions; and safeguarding public money. This involves the council’s leadership being open to scrutiny and accountable for their plans and performance. Every councillor – not just those who sit on the council’s audit committee, scrutiny committee, or equivalent committees – has a valuable scrutiny role to play at corporate, local area and electoral ward levels."
In its reference to ALEOs (Arms Length External Organisations) which have been developed by many councils, the report warns: "ALEOs can bring financial and operational benefits, with more potential for innovation but also considerable risks. Once an ALEO is operating, councilors need to oversee its financial and service performance; financial sustainability; associated risks; and seek assurance from council officers that suitable controls are in place for managing these risks. Risks include a potential conflict of interest where a councillor sits on an ALEO’s board, especially should it encounter financial difficulties.
And councils participating in city region or growth deals - for example Scottish Borders Council is involved in two such deals - may risk gaps between
their income and spending in future years, which could threaten their financial
sustainability if risks are not managed carefully.
Saturday, 20 April 2019
Another collection of platitudes from Audit Scotland?
by EWAN LAMB
Scotland's public spending watchdog has warned of weaknesses within the country's local authorities which could lead to "the loss of significant amounts of public money, impacts on services and reputational damage."
In its latest report entitled Safeguarding Public Money - Are You Getting It Right, Audit Scotland urges the nation's councillors to intensify their scrutiny of expenditure and advocates transparency in decision making.
Apparently the elected members sitting on Scotland's 32 councils are responsible for £12.4 billion of taxpayers' cash. A frightening statistic And if that sum could be trimmed by just one per cent through improved financial and risk management then £124 million would be freed up to be devoted to public services. The squandering of scarce resources should be avoided at all times.
Yet when allegations are made to Audit Scotland that cash may be being wasted through stupidity or wrongdoing, and when hard evidence of large sums being lost through reckless decision making is presented to it the watchdog either sits on its paws or refuses to investigate and bring the culprits to book.
This national agency with a multi-million pound budget of its own repeatedly produces lengthy reports telling councillors to pull up their socks and get a grip on events at their respective local authorities.
However, the regulatory system covering all aspects of council work is flawed and toothless. None of the 'watchdogs' in the sector can impose sanctions which renders much of their work meaningless and pointless.
So when Audit Scotland publishes one of its tub-thumping documents nothing much happens, and in many cases the so-called representatives of the council taxpayers are content to go on picking up their salaries and allowances, leaving paid officials to run the show.
A fair sample of elected members admit they simply don't understand the workings of local government. Others appear too timid or feel intimidated when it comes to asking searching questions. As a result many flawed projects come to be rubber-stamped without being properly scrutinised.
The willingness to wave through officers' recommendations may make it difficult for a good many councillors to comply with Audit Scotland's latest declaration that: "Councillors should seek assurances from officers that a rigorous system of internal controls is in place. Scrutiny and audit committees have leading roles, but every committee and councillor has a scrutiny role too."
The following passage also caught our eye: "Scotland’s 1,227 councillors have multi-faceted responsibilities and constantly make difficult decisions when prioritising and allocating their council’s finite resources.
"With so much at stake, it is more important than ever that the impact of their decisions on communities and individuals is transparent and clearly understood. This requires an organisational culture that is open to candid discussions about risks and recognises the importance of scrutinising decisions."
Before that instruction can be implemented we will require a complete volte-face from the secretive regimes operating within many councils in Scotland. The volume of private business at meetings has long been unacceptable, and when mistakes are made resulting in losses for taxpayers the tendency is to adopt the cover-up position!
NEXT: MORE ON THAT AUDIT SCOTLAND REPORT
Scotland's public spending watchdog has warned of weaknesses within the country's local authorities which could lead to "the loss of significant amounts of public money, impacts on services and reputational damage."
In its latest report entitled Safeguarding Public Money - Are You Getting It Right, Audit Scotland urges the nation's councillors to intensify their scrutiny of expenditure and advocates transparency in decision making.
Apparently the elected members sitting on Scotland's 32 councils are responsible for £12.4 billion of taxpayers' cash. A frightening statistic And if that sum could be trimmed by just one per cent through improved financial and risk management then £124 million would be freed up to be devoted to public services. The squandering of scarce resources should be avoided at all times.
Yet when allegations are made to Audit Scotland that cash may be being wasted through stupidity or wrongdoing, and when hard evidence of large sums being lost through reckless decision making is presented to it the watchdog either sits on its paws or refuses to investigate and bring the culprits to book.
This national agency with a multi-million pound budget of its own repeatedly produces lengthy reports telling councillors to pull up their socks and get a grip on events at their respective local authorities.
However, the regulatory system covering all aspects of council work is flawed and toothless. None of the 'watchdogs' in the sector can impose sanctions which renders much of their work meaningless and pointless.
So when Audit Scotland publishes one of its tub-thumping documents nothing much happens, and in many cases the so-called representatives of the council taxpayers are content to go on picking up their salaries and allowances, leaving paid officials to run the show.
A fair sample of elected members admit they simply don't understand the workings of local government. Others appear too timid or feel intimidated when it comes to asking searching questions. As a result many flawed projects come to be rubber-stamped without being properly scrutinised.
The willingness to wave through officers' recommendations may make it difficult for a good many councillors to comply with Audit Scotland's latest declaration that: "Councillors should seek assurances from officers that a rigorous system of internal controls is in place. Scrutiny and audit committees have leading roles, but every committee and councillor has a scrutiny role too."
The following passage also caught our eye: "Scotland’s 1,227 councillors have multi-faceted responsibilities and constantly make difficult decisions when prioritising and allocating their council’s finite resources.
"With so much at stake, it is more important than ever that the impact of their decisions on communities and individuals is transparent and clearly understood. This requires an organisational culture that is open to candid discussions about risks and recognises the importance of scrutinising decisions."
Before that instruction can be implemented we will require a complete volte-face from the secretive regimes operating within many councils in Scotland. The volume of private business at meetings has long been unacceptable, and when mistakes are made resulting in losses for taxpayers the tendency is to adopt the cover-up position!
NEXT: MORE ON THAT AUDIT SCOTLAND REPORT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)