Council planner slates retail park proposals again

by EWAN LAMB

The latest proposals for a multi-million pound retail park on industrial land at Tweedbank in the Central Borders should not be approved by the planning authority, according to a senior official who has strongly criticised the scheme for the second time in three months.

Karen Ruthven, of the Forward Planning Department at Scottish Borders Council attacked the original plans from an Edinburgh developer which included a budget hotel, large retail premises and other amenities between Galashiels and Melrose. Since her withering attack in April the planned shopping facility has been removed from the application.

But in a new written submission expressing her views on the revised scheme, Ms Ruthven maintains her opposition which, she claims, would create an 'undesirable precedent' by permitting a retail project to be built on 'scarce' industrial land.

"The objections raised within the initial response made by the Forward Planning Section remain", declares Ms Ruthven. "These proposals must be assessed primarily against Policy ED1 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan (LDP) 2016 which seeks to protect this strategic business and industrial site for business and industrial use. 

"Furthermore, the Council recently adopted Supplementary Guidance (SG) and a Simplified Planning Zone (SPZ) for the Central Borders Business Park at Tweedbank in view of the Borders Railway Blueprint which states that the area will be developed to respond to, and capitalise on, opportunities brought by the Borders Railway with the provision of new high quality office accommodation, suites and facilities.  Whilst the Blueprint seeks to promote a range of development options, these must be located within appropriate locations taking account of, for example, policies and land use allocations within the Council’s statutory adopted LDP 2016."

Ms Ruthven explains that the SPZ is intended to offer flexibility to help businesses and industries grow and adapt as well as encourage new opportunities to locate within the Central Borders, whilst maintaining high standards of development, care for the built environment and for the sensitive landscape setting.

Her submission adds: "The uses proposed as part of this planning application do not conform with the requirements of Policy ED1 nor the Supplementary Guidance/SPZ. To support this proposal would set an undesirable precedent and would undermine the Council’s strong position on business development at this location.  It would also result in the loss of business land within the Central Borders which is a scarce resource."

Ms Ruthven points out that the most recent ELA (Employment Land Audit) carried out in the Summer of 2018 identified 2.3 hectares of immediately available employment land in the Galashiels / Tweedbank area.  This includes the land subject to this planning application which accounts for 65% of the 2.3 hectares.

It is not considered this is sufficient to meet the anticipated demand and there is already current development interest being shown and implemented in the vicinity of the Central Borders Business Park.It is vital that existing employment land supply is retained and further land is allocated for this purpose.

The Tweedbank proposals include a 70 bedroom Premier Inn which has drawn criticism and opposition from local hoteliers.

Ms Ruthven writes: "The Hotel Assessment suggests that the immediate priority for a budget hotel should be Galashiels over Tweedbank.  Even with the development of the Central Business Park, which would require a critical mass of businesses that generate hotel demand, the Assessment states this location suffers from a paucity of things to do in the evening and places to eat.  The assessment states that a strategy that focuses a budget hotel development on Galashiels will enable hotel development to contribute to the development of the town and its evening economy.  This has been reflected within the Galashiels Masterplan."

And she continues: "At a recent meeting with the Agent (for the Tweedbank retail project), the Agent was very clear that there was no developer interest for a hotel within the Galashiels Town Centre and if the Council did not support this proposal within the Tweedbank strategic industrial site, no hotel development would ever be forthcoming. 

"However, it has since been noted in the local press that the Travel Lodge have been quoted as expressing a very keen interest in locating to Galashiels and this proposal will be discussed and developed further.  Even if a case was put forward for a hotel in the vicinity of the Tweedbank Railway Station, a location within the strategic business park would not be appropriate on policy grounds."

Finally, Ms Ruthven tells the council's planning department that given all the work, finance and policy documents that have gone into promoting and taking measures to protect and develop the Business Park it would be erroneous of the Council if any business or industrial uses were unable to set up in Tweedbank as previously available land had been taken up by non-conforming policy uses such as those identified in this application.

"It should also be noted that although the application proposal will generate jobs, this will be to the detriment of other businesses who would be unable to set up within the Business Park due to these non-conforming uses taking up this allocated business land."

The application is expected to be considered by councillors later this year.

Latest in fast-moving Lowood story

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

An attempt by Borders MSP Christine Grahame to penetrate the thick veil of secrecy which has blocked the disclosure of the 'true' value of Lowood Estate - purchased by Scottish Borders Council for £9.6 million - has failed.

Meanwhile Audit Scotland, the public sector's financial watchdog, and external auditor of SBC has accepted some of the issues raised with it in written objections concerning the council's book-keeping "may be considered valid".

Ms Grahame, the Scottish National Party MSP for Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, asked the Valuation Office Agency (VoA) for the District Valuer's report on Lowood which was handed to the Borders local authority before it finalised a deal for 110 acres and nine properties on the estate last December. The price paid was above the DV's figure.

In her Freedom of Information request to the English-based VoA Ms Grahame wrote: "Many constituents have raised concerns about the purchase price [of Lowood Estate].

"I have read the JLL (consultants) report and the heavily redacted Ryden (council's own consultants) report which raise many questions about the financial robustness of the purchase price.

"It is my understanding that councillors have had sight of the DV's report but under strict conditions that they do not make public its contents. I find this quite frankly unacceptable as there cannot be scrutiny without full disclosure and that in my view it is in the public interest that the contents of that report be published.

"If you are unable to release a copy of that report to me, please consider this as a FOI request and I also request release of all communications - written, electronic, telephone, notes, minutes of meetings and diary entries between you and Scottish Borders Council, its elected representatives, officials and third parties concerning the proposed and subsequent purchase of Lowood Estate".

But the VoA, which is supposed to be a FOI compliant public body under English FOI law, refused to even confirm it held the information requested by Ms Grahame. The agency issued a similar refusal to a private individual who asked for the DV's report earlier this year.

VoA's FOI team told Ms Grahame: "Section 44 (2) of FOIA says we cannot confirm whether or not we hold the information you have requested as doing so is not allowed by another Act. Requested information, if it were held, cannot be provided where the following statements are true:

"The information where held is for a function of HM REvenues & Customs (HMRC). The VoA is an executive agency of HMRC, the information you have requested is held for our function of providing property valuations.

"The information, where held, relates to a person who is identified, Identification can be direct or by deduction, and the term 'person' includes legal entities such as companies, trusts and charities, as well as individuals".

In an email to the MSP the FOI team state: "You mentioned that this topic is of interest to the public.  However, I cannot take this into account when considering whether or not we can provide the information under the FOIA, as the exemption in section 44 applies.  This exemption is absolute, which means there is no requirement for the public interest to be considered.

"Section 44 of the FOIA says when we are considering a request, we must take into account any other prohibitions on disclosure.  In this case, the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act (CRCA) applies. CRCA says that we must not disclose information when a person can either be identified, or their identity could be deduced, from the disclosure. Unlawful disclosure by a VOA member of staff would constitute a punishable offence under section 19 of CRCA. In this case, even confirming whether or not information is held is considered disclosive."

At least two of the four written objections to the council's accounts which have been lodged with Audit Scotland refer directly to the Lowood purchase which totals £11 million when fees, taxes and other charges are included.

In its response to one objector Audit Scotland says: "The external auditors of the council have now considered the points you raise. It is their view that that the accounting treatment of the purchase of Lowood Estate (i.e. valuation and disclosure) may be considered as a valid subject of objection under the terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (the Act)." 

Lowood site has "little obvious merit or value"

by DOUG COLLIE

A new claim by Scottish Borders Council that the Tweedside country estate they bought for £9.6 million is 'worth what was paid for it' has been quickly challenged by a planning expert who believes the land at Lowood has little obvious merit or development value.

The council has come under fire after paying over the odds for the 110 acres they wanted for the construction of 300-400 new houses plus commercial premises.

As we reported, local MSP Christine Grahame (SNP) has reported SBC to the Accounts Commission after voicing fears over the development potential of the estate, previously owned by the Hamilton family.

When The National newspaper followed up that disclosure and approached the local authority for comment at the weekend SBC was forthright in its defence of the purchase which is set to cost Borders taxpayers £11 million when fees and charges are added.

A statement in similar vein was given to The Hawick Paper when that weekly reported on criticisms levelled at Borders councillors by former senior police officer and one-time SBC elected member Andrew Farquhar. He urged his successors to step up their scrutiny of the Lowood deal.

Here is the combined response the council issued to the two newspapers:

“The Council expects to recover the whole of its investment in Lowood through the future development of the asset which comprises a 44-hectare site and buildings. The asset is now fully owned by the public sector.

"The council remains strongly of the view that the decision to acquire Lowood is justified in terms of best value, and that the economic viability of the site will best be secured through a joint public and private sector approach which was agreed by Council last December, and which is now being pursued.

"The Council purchased the land following an appropriate investment appraisal process and the development of a detailed financial model, which followed The Treasury’s ‘Green Book’ best practice. Councillors considered the business case in full and three specific reports in December 2017, January 2018 and May 2018 prior to the purchase.

"These confidential reports were prepared by council officers to ensure councillors had access to all the information required to take an informed decision. They included the necessary information on site valuations which confirm the site is worth what was paid for it”

According to The National a total of four written submissions have been lodged with Audit Scotland, SBC's external auditors, objecting to the local authority's 2018/19 annual accounts. One of the issues raised in the objections is the complete lack of any mention of the Lowood transaction in the accounts which extend to more than a hundred pages.

Meanwhile Not Just Sheep & Rugby has been supplied with the views of a highly experienced planner who has made a personal study of the potential of Lowood estate for development.

This is the main section of the assessment in full:

"What is odd is that the site is clearly very, very difficult to develop, if not impossible. There are many constraints. Council reports say it [Lowood] has an indicative capacity of 300 units. If the railway goes ahead to Hawick and Carlisle the site will become very costly to access. It is likely two accesses across the railway would be needed ( and above the line rather than below given the river location). 

"The text says there may be a need for replacement of a bridge. It refers to flooding and says there may be contamination. So it is very hard to access, costly to service, and is not well related to settlement because of the railway.

"The site has little obvious merit or value. Why this site was selected for development is unclear. I assume it's because they had committed to buying it. The bigger question is why did they buy such a difficult site and the next question is why pay lots of money for a site which will be hugely costly to develop? 

"Given that a prime commitment/desire/aim of the Council is to promote the extension to the railway and there is as a result a need to safeguard that capacity and alignment, I cannot as a planner see this site as sensible. I would have identified sites in Melrose, sites with less constraints and similar access to the station."

This is the latest negative critique on Lowood's prospects as a development site. The council was warned last year in a report by planning consultants - months before the estate was bought - that the proposals in its so-called Tweedbank Masterplan were undeliverable and not economically sound.

No Borders property boom to drive Lowood housebuilding

by EWAN LAMB

Recent claims that Scottish Borders Council's intention to develop hundreds of new homes on the Lowood country estate they acquired for £9.6 million may be 'undeliverable' seem bolstered by a range of statistics covering housing starts, completions and property prices.

It has been argued the level of demand for privately built residences in the Borders region is too low to attract nationally known volume building companies in sufficient numbers to ensure Lowood's  success as a location for 300-400 new houses by the banks of the Tweed near Melrose.

A consultant's report setting out the problems and issues was handed to SBC months before the local authority agreed to pay the asking price for Lowood - in excess of its true value, according to the District Valuer - into the bank accounts of two Cayman Islands based businesses. When fees and charges are added the bill for Borders taxpayers will top £11 million.

The specialist firm of JLL [Jones Lang Lasalle] which carried out a detailed assessment of the Tweedbank Masterplan including the proposals for 110 acres at Lowood, concluded in a report for their clients that large-scale house building to swell the population of Tweedbank village represented a considerable financial risk.

According to the JLL report: "A fundamental failing we consider, is that there has been no commercial or development appraisal input to the preparation of the Masterplan to ensure viability".

And crucially the firm said their own appraisal demonstrated that the site could not produce a positive land value with insufficient revenue to generate a developer profit.

SBC has repeatedly shrugged off these worrying predictions with counter claims that the development of Lowood will produce economic gains and employment for the Central Borders. The intention is to sell off the Lowood land in phases to developers.

But research by Not Just Sheep & Rugby shows the number of private new-build housing starts and completions in the Scottish Borders region fell to very low levels in 2017 and 2018 while the average price for residential property locally dropped by almost seven percent between January 2018 and January 2019. The hoped for housing boom following the reopening of the Borders Railway has not yet materialised.

The figures for private-build starts make fairly depressing reading. In 2018 the total of 211 was the lowest recorded since 1998 (197). The 2017 tally of 274 was also well down on the totals for 2000 (507), 2006 (692), 2007 (1,103) and 2008 (483).

Even the 2009 total in the wake of the global financial meltdown was a respectable 331 while in 2010 the builders just exceeded that 2018 statistic of 211 by starting 215 private homes.

At the other end of the construction process new-build completions in 2018 (209) and 2017 (173) were the lowest since 1999 (215). Some of the historic annual totals outstrip the recent recorded completions by a huge margin.

For example, in the year 2000 the tally was 507, in 2003 it was 786, the 2008 figure was 473 and in 2010 it stood at 429.

Average house prices are published by the UK Government with the Borders figure at January 2019 recorded as £144,138 compared to £154,601 a year earlier. That represents a 12 months fall of 6.8%.

We also examined average house price levels for each of the local authorities closest to Scottish Borders. In each case there was a year on year increase.

Midlothian experienced the biggest rise - up 13.6% between 2018 and 2019 from £164,898 to £187,264. So has the railway been a factor in driving up prices in Midlothian? Meanwhile East Lothian saw a 2.9% hike in average prices from £215,916 to £222,212.

And even Dumfries & Galloway where average prices are markedly lower than in the Borders, saw a slight lift in the mean cost of private properties. Here the rise was 0.9% from £125,171 to £126,310.

MSP ramps up pressure on council's £11 million deal

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

A Member of the Scottish Parliament whose constituency includes Tweedbank has used her regular newspaper column to reveal she has reported Scottish Borders Council to the Accounts Commission over the cash-strapped local authority's decision to buy Lowood Estate for £11 million.

A number of submissions are believed to have been made to the public spending watchdog in a bid to force an investigation into the deal which resulted in the council acquiring 110 acres and nine properties including a mansion house. Critics claim the transaction was speculative and risky with potential long-term implications for taxpayers.

Now Scottish Nationalist Party MSP Christine Grahame, who represents the Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale seat in Holyrood, has told of her 'increasing concerns' after reading reports linked to the Lowood transaction.

She writes: "There is a very big stushie about the purchase by SBC of Lowood Estate, partly because the purchase price appears to have been above valuation".

The council has repeatedly refused to release the District Valuer's valuation on Lowood so that it could be compared with the £9.6 million SBC paid over to Lowood Estates Ltd. and Genesis Trust & Corporate Services, businesses based on the tax haven of Grand Cayman in the Caribbean. And all 34 elected members have been warned they must not quote the DV's figure in public.

Freedom of Information requests have shown the council paid £420,000 in transaction tax  and when other fees and charges are added the overall cost adds up to £11 million. SBC even paid the sellers' legal fees and charges of £72,000.

In her column, Ms Grahame states: "There are also challenges to the housing development plans (which the council needs to recoup the money) which are seemingly light on necessary detail, raising serious questions about this Tory council's grasp of economic reality.

"In the meantime I have read through reams of material, including both the Ryden report on the purchase [Ryden was the firm of consultants commissioned by SBC] and a report by JLL [Jones Lang Lasalle were asked to prepare a report for a neighbouring riparian owner].

"My concerns have, as a result, increased, so I have now reported SBC to the Accounts Commission and as it refuses to publish the District Valuer's report (which is key) have asked the assessor's office for sight of that".

The JLL document, handed to the council in March 2018, around nine months before the Lowood deal was wrapped up last December, warned their costings of the housing element of the so-called Tweedbank Masterplan was financially unviable for developers.

It has been claimed since that at least some councillors were not shown the damning report which warned there was no strong demand for housing plots in the Central Borders at that time. A redacted version of the Ryden report carried a similar cautionary note.

The 'highly unusual' procedure used by SBC to obtain legal advice as to the standing of Lowood Estates Ltd. and Genesis Trust has also been questioned by critics.

It has been disclosed that the so-called Opinions on both companies came from a law firm working for the sellers and also based in the Cayman Islands. Under the terms of the sales contract SBC picked up the £3,100 bill for the advice.

There was no mention of the Lowood land and property deal in the recently published council accounts for 2018/19 which are currently being scrutinised by external auditors Audit Scotland.

Melrose hotels want Premier Inn project stopped

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Agents for five Melrose hotel businesses, including prominent accommodation providers in the Borders tourist industry have lodged an objection to a £12 million 'retail park' project including a 70-bedroom Premier Inn planned for nearby Tweedbank.

Edinburgh developers are seeking planning permission for the hotel along with other facilities including a filling station. But they have dropped the idea of incorporating a food store at Tweedbank following strong opposition from local retailers and community councils.

The revised planning application to Scottish Borders Council is currently out for consultation, and the Melrose hoteliers submitted their objection in the last few days via Philip Neaves of Felsham Planning & Development Ltd, also Edinburgh based.

Mr Neaves is objecting on behalf of, Burts Hotel, Townhouse Hotel, George and Abbotsford Hotel Partnership, King's Arms Hotel and Station Hotel. 

A written submission says: "We are instructed to submit an objection to the above application on the grounds of: Landscaping and protection of trees; Impact on Eildons; Undermining town centre vitality and viability by putting local businesses under threat; Unsustainable travel patterns and the need to drive to Melrose for evening entertainment."

According to Felsham Planning: " I consider the proposed development turns the SG Development Vision on its head – proposing the removal of the woodland which will result in the landscape screening being lost, the uninterrupted visibility of the development, and does not comply with the SG Development Vision aspiration to develop an internal principal frontage along the western side of the site.

"I suggest that the proposals amount to overdevelopment of the site and this has required the removal of the majority of the screening woodland. I suggest the southern elevation of the retail store, and Petrol Filling station, seen as they will be, entering Tweedbank do not achieve the high quality built environment that meets the design standards".

In a section headed Impact on Town Centre Vitality and Viability, the submission states: "Town centres are under threat and their vitality and viability needs to be protected.

"The nature of Melrose town centre is a material consideration in assessing this proposal. The vitality and viability of Melrose depends on wider considerations than retail. That vitality and viability will be undermined by a larger hotel than envisaged accompanied by ancillary development that was not part of the Special Planning Zone.

"Melrose is an important centre. It serves the needs and wants of the diverse resident, working and tourist populations. The result of these characteristics is that the café culture has developed which means that the characteristics of Melrose are recognised to be unique to those of other centres in the retail hierarchy. That should not be undermined by unforeseen and unplanned expansion of the hotel element of the SPZ.

"High street shops rely on footfall and the key to success is dwell time providing attractions that will keep people in the shopping street as long as possible and blending retail and other attractions. 

"The range of support features is increasingly what makes people visit a centre, not the retail. Melrose sets a standard of how town centres should develop and we would urge your Council not to grant consent for a development that could undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre by having a significant impact on the hotel sector. For these reasons we respectfully request that your Council refuse this application."

Melrose Community Council, whose members previously argued the retail park would pose a huge threat to the viability of existing businesses have maintained their opposition despite the amendments made by the developers.

In a newly lodged written statement the community council says: "This proposal contravenes Planning Policy as it is placing this development on land retained for Commercial Business. SBC must stand by this and support the already established businesses.

"We in Melrose still need to support what is one of the few still strong vibrant High Streets in the Borders. At present we have five hotels and numerous guest houses, bed and breakfast facilities which all fight for a share of an uncertain market.  Most of our High Street shops are occupied and open for business.

"It is easier to retain a High Street environment than try to regenerate a High Street environment as SBC are finding throughout the Borders with fringe developments sucking the life out of high streets. There is also a feeling that a four-storey hotel is far too high for this location in Tweedbank as there is nothing else this height within the surrounding area." 

Recycling your true blue propaganda

by EWAN LAMB

The thankfully thin summer edition of SB Connect,  'your community newspaper' used for propaganda purposes by Scottish Borders Council, only runs to twelve pages - four of them devoted to the promotion of waste recycling and the need to cut landfill costs.

SBC is set to spend £103,000 of public money over two years to blow its own trumpet via the pages of SB Connect which is designed, printed and distributed by Paisley-based Connect Publications (Scotland) Ltd. Virtually every household in the Borders received a copy of the latest edition at the end of last week courtesy of the postal service.

Despite the heavy emphasis on 'Reasons to Recycle' - apparently too many of us have been putting recyclable stuff in the BLACK wheelie bin - there's no mention in the current issue of the council's new arrangements on the waste management front which have - according to SBC - eliminated the need for landfill at Easter Langlee altogether, albeit at a cost of £47 million over the next five years.

As previously reported here, the multi-million pounds contract for the management and treatment of residual refuse has gone to Levenseat, a company based near the village of Forth in Lanarkshire. The costs involved in hauling an estimated 42,000 tonnes of waste by road on the 50-mile journey from Galashiels to Levenseat's premises for treatment have yet to feature in any council press statement.

The £47 million figure was revealed in a contract award notice published on the Public Contracts Scotland website. But no-one seems to have looked at the potential implications of such large-scale expenditure which is needed to beat the Scottish Government's landfill ban, effective from 2021.

Over the five years covered by the deal with Levenseat an estimated 210,000 tonnes of rubbish will be taken from the spanking new £5.5 million waste transfer station at the Easter Langlee site up to Forth.

A simple calculation - divide £47 million by 210,000 - and it is possible to estimate the cost per tonne for disposal of Borders waste via the system which came into operation at the beginning of July. The figures suggest a cost of £223.80 per tonne, and that does not include spending on kerbside collections carried out by the council.

According to an expert who works in local government procurement had SBC delivered a conventional treatment plant at Easter Langlee as planned that facility would have resulted in waste treatment costs of around £80 per tonne after inflation uplifts since the project was finally abandoned in 2015.

He said: “Anything over £100 per tonne is expensive. On the basis of the financial statistics included in the contract award notice the preferred solution appears to be a very expensive option for the Council”.

It would seem the financial difference between an environmentally unfriendly road haulage option and the failure to deliver the planned Mechanical Biological Treatment plant at Easter Langlee will be many millions of pounds over the five year lifetime of the new deal which includes an option to extend the contract further into the future.

So far the cost of the contract has not been an issue for the public, possibly because SBC has chosen not to set out the likely burden on its taxpayers. But within days of the haulage of waste to Lanarkshire kicking in concerns were being expressed about the 88 lorry movements a day needed to carry out the brand new procedure.

A report in last week's Southern Reporter by journalist Kathryn Wylie outlined the worries and fears expressed at a meeting of Galashiels Community Council. There were claims the public had been 'kept in the dark' over traffic routes for the trucks carrying the garbage.

It had been assumed the heavy vehicles would arrive at Easter Langlee via the A68, then cross Lowood Bridge onto the C77 to Easter Langlee. But in fact the lorries will use the A7 south before travelling through Galashiels.

The community council agreed to request more details of the contract with Levenseat.

In the so-called 'silly season' when news is in short supply, SB Connect should surely have been the perfect vehicle for informing the public about the shift from landfill to road transport as a means of disposing of the Borders' annual output of 42,000 tonnes of municipal waste.

But there's more...

On the day Borders posties were shoving SB Connect through our letter boxes there was a second propaganda treat in the shape of The Borderland News, a publication filled with the range of good deeds carried out on our behalf by the UK Government and our local Tory parliamentarians.

No doubt it was pure coincidence that the two productions arrived on the same day although The Borderland News also tells us of the great job Conservative-led SBC is doing.

The Scottish Borders Conservatives publication "on behalf of John Lamont MP, Rachael Hamilton MSP, Michelle Ballantyne MSP and Councillor Shona Haslam" gives the impression the Westminster Government has delivered the so-called Borderlands Growth Deal - said to be worth £345 million in total - virtually single-handed "including a smaller contribution from the SNP Government".

But once the statistics are unpicked in fact the Scottish Government (to give it its correct title) is putting up £85 million for investment north of the border while £200 million of the £260 million coming from the UK Government will be devoted to territory on the English side of the national boundary. 

The Conservative Party broadsheet includes several other political attacks on "the SNP", and there's even an accusation that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon went to Hawick ahead of the 2016 election to promise a feasibility study on extending the Borders Railway "in a bid to get votes". One is tempted to say 'how dare she' for surely no Tory politician would stoop so low.

In the interests of accuracy it was the "SNP Government" which reinstated the rail service from Edinburgh to Tweedbank in spite of strong resistance and criticism from opposition parties, including the Conservatives. The success of the Borders Railway, despite its well documented shortcomings, seems to have persuaded the Tories to get aboard and hijack the project as their own.

FOOTNOTE - Please help SBC to achieve its recycling targets by placing SB Connect and The Borderland News in the BLUE wheelie bin.