Gym sign 'harmful to safety and amenity'

by LESTER CROSS

The owner of a Borders fitness centre has lost a planning appeal which means a large advertising sign he had erected in Galashiels without permission to promote his gym will have to be taken down.

Conrad Campbell, who runs his Unit8 Gym in Tweedbank, asked Andrew Sikes, a Scottish Government planning reporter to overturn the decision by Scottish Borders Council to deny approval for the sign on a gable wall in Hall Street. Galashiels.

In a decision notice issued at the weekend, Mr Sikes agreed with the Borders planning department that the sign is harmful to both amenity and road safety.

A supporting statement from Mr Campbell included the following: "The purpose of the sign installation at this location is to increase awareness of the gym’s presence to those residing and working within the central and west side of Galashiels. The gym currently has over 250 members and I’m trying to further increase membership, offering its facilities to everyone in Galashiels and the surrounding areas."

But the planning authority maintained that the advertisement would represent a threat to road safety and would, as a result, impact adversely on public safety at this location. And the advertisement would not relate well to the location at which it is displayed or be in keeping with the character of the building to which it is attached, and would contribute to unsightly clutter, thereby having an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

Mr Sikes issued his decision to reject Mr Campbell's appeal following a site visit to the location.

In his written decision notice, the reporter says: "The proposal is a 3- metre-wide x 2-metre-high non-illuminated static advertisement set within a matt black aluminium frame. The advertisement has been attached at first floor level to the gable end of a two-storey stone-built terraced residential property. The advert promotes a gym in Tweedbank, located approximately 5 kilometres (3.5 miles) from the appeal site."

And, according to Mr Sikes: ". I note the range of views expressed in representations regarding the design and obtrusiveness of the advertisement; some consider it an eyesore, while others comment that it is unobtrusive and fits well with the character of the area. 

"In my assessment, while simple in design and production, the advertisement is large, inappropriately positioned high on the gable end of a residential property and sited in a prominent location close to a principal road. As such, I consider the advertisement obtrusive. Neither does the advert relate to the location at which it is being displayed. 

"Moreover, the street in which it is located is residential in character and, in the vicinity of the appeal site, free of advertising. While there are advertisements in the wider area these are restricted to retail and commercial properties and relate directly to the location at which they are being displayed. Taking these factors together, I agree with the council that the advertisement would be harmful to the character of the building, the amenity of Hall Street and the wider area."

The reporter agreed with the council that the advertisement could cause driver distraction and unacceptably increase risk to public safety. He conclude that the advertisement was detrimental to public safety and as such was contrary to the provisions of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan (2016).

The decision notice concludes: "In addition to comments on the appearance and location of the advert, the appellant [Mr Campbell]refers to a number of other matters in his supporting statement, particularly its purpose, benefits of physical activity and the consent of the property owner to display the advert. While I note the comments, they are not matters relevant to my consideration of this appeal. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed advertisement would be contrary to the interest of amenity and public safety and, accordingly, that advertisement consent should not be granted."

 

  

Open Letter To A Genfro Life President

 DEAR MR LIFE PRESIDENT,

 Apologies for the delay in responding to your 17^th April Genfro shareholders’ letter, but it took me quite a while to disentangle your “crystallised journalist” reference. It was certainly a new one on me, and even after contacting a number of colleagues within our noble profession I was none the wiser. For they had not heard of such a specimen either!

However, after consulting this media outlet’s collection of rare and valuable dictionaries – assembled during a lifetime of writing articles about failed business ventures – I discovered the exact meaning of CRYSTALLISE: “to make or become definite and clear”.

 So, unlike the abusive verbal insults you’ve hurled at me in the past – scant reward for my best journalistic efforts – this time you appear to have unwittingly paid me a back-handed compliment. Because any reporter worth his salt strives to make things definite and clear.

Nevertheless, I have to say it has been particularly demanding to achieve crystallisation during the Avocet fiasco with so much of the information concerning bust businesses locked safely away. Add to that failure to file accounts, and empty promises of investment from wealthy but unidentified sugar daddies and it is easy to see why my task has been so devilishly difficult.

 As an independent observer who has not invested or lost a single penny in the long-running wonder fuel circus, it has been both fascinating and shocking to watch members of the legal profession including procurators fiscal, judges, well-respected insolvency practitioners and fine upstanding members of the Borders community being subjected to your slurs and accusations when there is no evidence that any of them have had a hand in shaping your current predicament. Meanwhile, whenever this aged scribbler tries to inform his small band of readers about the fast-moving drama, featuring the death rattle of the Avocet Empire, he too is swiftly consigned by you, Mr Life President, to the ‘Bad Buggers’ naughty step.

 I see parallels between the Parable of the Fictional Get Rich Quick Wheeze and a much longer running saga which has occupied a good deal of my time since 2016 and which revels in the title Premier New Earth Recycling & Renewables (Infrastructure) PLC Fund. Just Google it for the complete story.

In both cases the business plans were allegedly based on ‘green’ technologies, designed to save the planet from environmental disaster. Gullible sections of the press and media swallowed both narratives, possibly persuading some to part with their cash. And in both cases, hundreds of creditors have been told by administrators or liquidators they will be unable to recoup their extensive financial losses.

In New Earth’s case over 3,000 souls will never see the £220 million invested in the now defunct Isle of Man-based fund. Simply put, New Earth management generated an even longer list of debts than Avocet Farms and Avocet Infinite combined.

 It is worth noting that Scottish Borders Council fell victim to both catastrophic operations, wasting over £2 million in the case of New Earth and ending up out of pocket to the tune of £31,932 from its involvement with Avocet Farms. More fool them!

 And while you, Mr Life President, seek to blame everyone for Avocet’s worthlessness except yourself, the New Earth fund directors claimed they were victims of a witch hunt after they extracted millions of pounds in management fees from what turned out to be a Ponzi operation.

But the similarities between these two notable business collapses do not even end there. In each instance a lax system of business regulation – in one case the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority, in the other the equivalent UK watchdog - allowed both operations to continue unchecked and run on well past their respective sell by dates. Although it must be said there was no Tim Carter on hand to bail out the Manx disaster with his squillions of US dollars. And the Israeli secret service showed no interest whatsoever in the offshore enticements of Premier New Earth.

Here’s hoping my response to your “newsletter” contains at least a smidgeon of crystallisation.

Yours sincerely,

Lapdog to the Bad Buggers

Borders planners approve first phase of Lowood development

EXCLUSIVE by LESTER CROSS

The controversial proposals by Scottish Borders Council for hundreds of new houses in the countryside near Melrose have come a step closer after the authority's own planning officers granted permission to their colleagues in the Estates Department for earthworks and roadbuilding on the 110-acre site.

A decision on the planning application for works at Lowood/Tweedbank which has been under discussion for over a year has been made under delegated powers without the need for consideration by councillors. A total of 20 conditions are attached to the decision notice in a bid to protect the local ecology, bats, badgers and the nearby River Tweed.

Concerns had been expressed over the proposed width of the new road: it was thought at six metres the carriageways would be too narrow to accommodate two large vehicles travelling in opposite directions. But that issue has been resolved and is dealt with in the application handling report by Lead Planning Officer Julie Hayward.

The report states: " There was some concern raised that a 6m width would not be sufficient for two busses, or larger HGV's, to pass. However, 'Designing Streets' and the 'National Roads Development Guide' confirm a 6m carriageway width as acceptable where the anticipated number of larger vehicles is relatively low. 

"Keeping the carriageway width to a workable minimum will help reduce traffic speeds overall. Marginal widening will be required at the bends in the road to allow extra width for vehicles to pass. This will have a minimal visual impact on the development and will ensure that the road infrastructure will be in keeping with the semi-rural nature of the development and with minimal impact, if any, on trees."

The only objection to the application was lodged by planning consultant David Bell, acting for Gowanloch Investments Limited, the owner of salmon fishing rights on the Tweed adjoining the Lowood Estate.

Mr Bell warned that the planning application was not competent as to apply for part of the road infrastructure by way of a planning application without undertaking Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening would be in breach of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) EIA Regulations, and would be unlawful.

He claimed that by 'salami slicing' the overall Lowood scheme into small sections the council could avoid detailed scrutiny of its proposals and their potential impact on the environment. He said: "The proposed development should not be considered in isolation; it should properly be regarded as an integral part of a more substantial development."

And according to Mr Bell: "The potential effects of the road and drainage infrastructure needed to support the Lowood project on the River Tweed's conservation objectives may not be properly considered by the Council ahead of its determination of the application.

"Insufficient detail concerning the scale and type of the mixed use development that is expected to come forward on the Estate in terms of the SPG [Supplementary Planning Guidance] is available at this stage in the overall development cycle; the Council should have regarded the road and drainage infrastructure element as constituting an EIA development."

In her report, Ms Hayward explains: ": It is expected that the development of the Lowood Estate will happen over time in a number of phases and applications. Therefore, it is vital that the guidance set out in the SPG and Design Guide is followed, to ensure the vision for the site as a whole is achieved. 

"The Design Statement submitted with this application advises that earthwork slopes will be minimised where possible to ease the road construction into the topography. The road alignment has been specifically designed to fit into the landscape, reflect the parkland nature of the site and minimise disruption to trees. Due to the level differences between the Innovation Park road (at Tweedbank) and the Estate the proposed road would be on an embankment for 130m then lowered."

Ms Hayward says the design of the development includes mitigation to reduce its visual impact; the sweeping nature of road in the views through the parkland reflecting the organic nature of the parkland character, avoiding the mature parkland trees wherever possible, positioning the proposed road against the wooded backdrop away from the River Tweed and Borders Abbey Way to limit dominance of the road from sensitive viewpoints and new planting. 

"The road has been designed to integrate as much as possible with the topography and parkland landscape to reflect the existing estate road character, by avoiding a heavily engineered approach, using a narrow road width, soft verges (no kerbs) and the gradient of banking to either side of the road would be kept as shallow as possible."

The Design Statement advises that a 6m wide road is proposed, designed to fit into the parkland nature of the site. A 2.5m wide shared footway/cycleway will be constructed next to the road from its junction with the Borders Innovation Park road. 

It is claimed the main impact on residential amenities would be during the construction phase of the new road. Such impacts, it is said, would be short term. 

"A Construction Environmental Management Plan [CEMP] will be secured by condition, which would include assessment, monitoring and mitigation in relation to construction traffic, noise, vibration, dust and air pollutants."

The proposed works include a replacement overflow pipe to take excess water from Lowood pond to the river Tweed. 

Environmental watchdog NatureScot have no objections to the proposal but advise that there is potential for the construction of the road network to impact indirectly on the river through diffuse pollution. Due to the high water quality standards of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation they would expect construction and other work to be carried out in accordance with strict environmental safeguards to prevent contamination of the watercourse with silt, construction material or debris of any description. 

Borders counselling service in schools being well used

by EWAN LAMB

The number of Borders school pupils receiving counselling for mental health and emotional issues last year was significantly higher than in many similar sized Scottish local authorities, and markedly above the level in neighbouring Dumfries and Galloway which is a larger council with more schools and considerably more children in education.

A set of statistics covering all 32 of Scotland's local government area in response to a FOI request has revealed numbers of children and young people accessing counselling during the six month period from January to June 2022. The extensive coverage of the topic, based on returns from each council, also indicates outcomes and trends encountered by the various counselling teams.

Scottish Borders Council, which has approximately 16,500 pupils in its education service outsourced its new mental health and emotional well-being service to social care charity Quarriers several years ago.

In the half-year covered by the reports, 493 Borders pupils accessed in-person provision being offered by Quarriers. This compared to a figure of 263 out of the 18,700 pupils in Dumfries and Galloway.

The numbers in Borders were also above those receiving counselling in East Lothian (160 pupils), Fife (456), Midlothian (179), Inverclyde (95), and Moray (458). The 493 Borders pupils included 43 who were attending primary schools.

A breakdown of the counselling statistics submitted by the Borders council shows the following for each school year: Number of children in P6 22;  P7 21. Number of children in S1 81; S2 124; S3 106; S4 70; S5 41; S6 28. 

The service being delivered by Quarriers appears to be achieving positive results.

According to the SBC return on so-called closed cases: "95% reported an improvement in their ‘Resilience’ 24% reported a reduction in ‘Risk Taking Activity’ 91% reported an improvement in their ‘Ability to Cope’ 45% reported an improvement in their ‘Confidence’ 64% reported an improvement in how they manage ‘Worry/Anxiety’ 14% reported an improvement in ‘Support’ from families and supportive adults."

The range of presenting issues has also been tabulated by the council.

"Presenting issues numbers Exam Stress 37; Self-Harm 57; Trauma 19; Depression 105; Bereavement  14;  Anxiety 238; Gender Identity 12; Emotional/Behavioural Difficulties 150; Substance Use 7; Body Image 33; Other Suicidal Ideation 15; Other Disordered Eating 28; Other Sleep Hygiene 32; Other Confidence/Low Self-Esteem 144; Other Relationship Issues 73."

The comments and reflections section of the Borders authority's return includes the following observations: "We have noted a significant rise in young males accessing the service. 170 male pupils accessed support during this reporting period compared to 134 in the previous report. This is an increase of 27%. 

"We continue to provide emotional health and wellbeing support to Primary 6 and Primary 7 pupils in the cluster areas of Galashiels, Selkirk and Hawick. During this reporting period, we have noted a significant increase in the number of young people in Primary 6 accessing the service (22), compared to 0 in the previous reporting period."

Quarriers explain their service accepts referrals from school Pastoral Staff as well as operating a self-referral and a supported self-referral system. To self-refer, young people are able to make direct contact with the service. Alternatively, a supported self-referral enables parents and professionals to support young people to make contact with the service. 

"Using this method of referral enables young people to take ownership and responsibility of their own mental health and emotional wellbeing. Young people often present with more than one presenting issue and thus there will be more themes counted than cases opened. Depression counted as those young people presenting with ‘low mood’ and not necessarily a clinical diagnosis of Depression. Anxiety counted as those young people presenting with ‘feelings of anxiousness’ and not necessarily a clinical diagnosis of Anxiety."

Scottish Borders Council has been asked for comment.

Borders new housing completions down 8%

by DOUG COLLIE

The sluggish market demand for housebuilding in the Scottish Borders has been further illustrated in a new report which shows completions fell by eight per cent to just 298 in 2021 despite a plentiful supply of land for developers.

An updated Housing Land Audit 2021 assembled by Scottish Borders Council has been produced just days ahead of a public hearing before a Government planning reporter which will examine the housing land issues in the authority's draft Local Development Plan (LDP). The LDP will determine which sites should be earmarked for new housing over the next ten years.

As we have reported recently, Ferguson Planning, a consultancy representing several site owners, claim the future housing land requirement should be increased to 8,000 units for the period 2023-2032.

But the council, in a recent submission to the reporters who are examining the LDP, maintain such a figure would result in a completely unrealistic and unjustified housing land requirement. 

According to SBC: "Furthermore, it is not considered that there is sound justifiable evidence and workings for the proposed figure of 8,000 units over the ten year period." The hearing is scheduled for April 26th.

The council explains that house completions over the period 2009-2020 totalled just 4,263 units while the housing land requirement contained within the adopted Local Development Plan was 13,422 units. Planning officers say allowing for 480 completions annually (4,800 over the coming ten years) will be more than enough to satisfy developers' demands.

The purpose of the council's annual Housing Land Audit is to identify and monitor the established and effective housing land supply, to meet the requirement for monitoring housing land, set out within Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).

The 2021 Audit, posted on the national planning appeals website this morning, shows the total number of completions in the past five years peaked at 345 as part of the 2019 audit. 

"Within the 2021 audit, there has been a decrease of 26 completions since the previous audit. The completion rates overall within the Scottish Borders have been much lower than the pre-recession rates, with many of the sites under construction within the Borders at a slow rate or stalled, due to lack of developer/mortgage finance."

The audit points out that in monitoring the effective housing land supply national policy does not specify how planning authorities should assess the availability of the five year supply. 

"The Council approach is to measure likely demand, which is illustrated by the performance of the development industry over the previous five year period as required by SPP, using historical completions data for this purpose. This provides a clear distinction between providing land to meet the theoretical requirement and ensuring the presence of a five year effective land supply to meet prospective market demand."

A section of the audit report headed Current Economic Situation/Covid-19 Pandemic Recovery states: " As stated in previous audits, an estimate of the timescale for delivery of housing projects has been continually difficult due to the downturn in the housing market. The programming of sites within the audit continues to be a reasonable expression of what can be developed within the given time periods and there is a significant degree of uncertainty beyond 2 to 3 years. 

"Furthermore, a large number of sites were subject to delays and stalling as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, since early 2020. As a result, it is acknowledged that this will have impacts upon the programming of sites going forward. This has been taken on board within the programming. SBC are also aware of the ongoing economic position regarding the lack of development finance and the availability of mortgage finance for buyers. 

"It should be noted that in recent years there are very few local house builders developing sites within the Scottish Borders. The above demonstrates the direct impact upon rural areas including the Scottish Borders as a result of the current economic climate and COVID-19 pandemic recovery. As housing completions remain at a low level, this directly impacts upon the identification of the effective housing land supply from the total established land supply and there is a need to place the housing requirement into context."

FOOTNOTE: The 2019 housing audit included details of planned housebuilding on the council-owned Lowood Estate adjacent to Tweedbank village. The proposal is for a phased development of 300 new homes, and at the time 30 units were to be completed in 2023, followed by 50 in 2024, 50 in 2025 and 120 "post seven years".

The new audit indicates the first 30 houses will not now be constructed until 2025 with the subsequent three batches of 50 to follow in 2026, 2027 and 2028. The remaining 120 are again pencilled in for "post seven years".

The developer is 'unknown' while all 300 homes are classed as "mainstream" and none in the  "affordable" bracket.

Not much room for Avocet's "bad buggers" in Wilmington jail?

by OUR CRIME AND PUNISHMENT TEAM

The unfortunate individuals who may be targeted in a forthcoming $500 million Avocet/Genfros lawsuit in Wilmington, Delaware should be forewarned of conditions in the local nick should the US judge find against them and they opt for prison as an alternative to parting with wads of cash.

Martin Frost, joint life president of Genfros who was chairman of the Avocet Group prior to his bankruptcy, has given details of the largest (in monetary terms) court action yet proposed by him in a bid to recover multi-million pound losses from the 'bad buggers' he blames for multiple business failures.

A newsletter from Mr Frost to Genfro Plc shareholders dated April 12th claims the company's mysterious, unidentified 'donors' are seeking to obtain the assignment of "your debt claims" caused by a named family, by two firms of insolvency specialists appointed to investigate the affairs of Avocet Infinite Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and Avocet Farms Ltd. (in administration), and others.

Investors are being invited "to join in the class actions being brought by Avocet, and Genfro shareholders in Wilmington, Delaware, USA."

The email from Mr Frost warns: "In the US the consequences of company wrongdoing by professionals are more expensive and carries punitive damages. Thus, given all the circumstances of theft, legal fraud, failure to renew Avocet patents, bad mouthing by the XXXXX and the ‘bad buggers’: the total award from a US jury trial is not likely to be less than $500 million US to Avocet shareholders with [insolvency practitioners] carrying the brunt. Currently, Genfro’s donors have the process and evidence to commence these US proceedings this April."

This is not the first time naysayers and critics of Avocet have been threatened with the full force of the Delaware legal system by Mr Frost.

In October 2020, as part of Avocet's investigation into email leaks, Mr Frost told shareholders: "Our new investors are appalled at the lack of Avocet truth pedalled on social media, on forums, and on blogs by people who should know better. So, on Thursday I shall advise who receives what and how our new investors will curtail the activities of naysayers. And yes, I do confirm that Delaware Counsel in USA is instructed to bring suit in Wilmington against those of you who breach email privacy."

That prompted one shareholder to comment: "It looks as though I'll be on my way to the United States once the extradition process is completed. I find these threats quite intimidating although I fail to see how an American court has any jurisdiction over events that take place in Great Britain".

As far as we are aware no-one has been extradited to Delaware so far, and that particular threatened lawsuit has fallen by the wayside. Associated warnings from Mr Frost at the time of action being taken against 'leakers' in English or Scottish courts also appear to have died a death.

A newsletter from the Avocet chairman in May 2021 revealed that researchers were to open files on a familiar list of Avocet critics and dissidents with total claims in subsequent writs estimated by Mr Frost to exceed £100 million. Again, nothing transpired.

However, with the stakes so high this time round, Not Just Sheep & Rugby decided to take a close look at the Wilmington penal system in case some of the "bad buggers" don't have the means to pay their share of any $500 million award.

It is more than likely failure to come up with the spondulicks would result in incarceration in Wilmington's Howard R Young Correctional Institution in the Gander Hill area of the city. 

The jail's website tells us: "The original facility, now called the West Wing, was designed to hold 360 detainees, individuals who are awaiting trial/sentencing or unable to make bail. In 1992, a new section, the East Wing, opened. This construction project added 480 beds for sentenced offenders. Additional construction projects have increased the capacity to 1,180. The facility now averages 1,500 offenders."

It is to be hoped conditions have improved since Delaware Online published an article by Cris Barrish, of The News Journal which centred on serious overcrowding in the state's prisons.

According to the feature: "The men at Wilmington’s Howard R. Young Correctional Institution are crammed inside the gym because the prison has 608 more prisoners than it should, continuing a recent trend of the worst overcrowding in more than a decade.

"Throughout the prison’s West Wing, cells designed for one man now hold three, with one sleeping on the floor. Still more live in bunk-style housing in rooms meant for vocational training, or in offices once used by counsellors in the booking and receiving section."

And, Barrish wrote: "The problem highlights another side of Delaware’s dysfunctional criminal justice system, which locks up those awaiting trial in prisons that also house convicted felons.

"Nowhere best illustrates the overflow than the gym, where five rows of 20 blue plastic cots rest on the floor. Prisoners eat meals in shifts at eight wooden picnic tables that barely fit between the side line of the basketball court painted on the floor and the concrete walls. The bathroom has one sink and one toilet, and typically has a line of men waiting their turn."

You have been warned!

Serious blow for flagship Borders innovation park

by LESTER CROSS

A revised Business Case is being drafted for the £29 million Central Borders Innovation Park - expected to produce 380 well-paid jobs and boost the local economy to the tune of £350 million - in the wake of a post-Covid slump in demand for office space.

The initial phase of the project which is being promoted by Scottish Borders Council close to Tweedbank railway station has involved construction of offices for CGI, the local authority's IT providers, and for the so-called Inspire Academy, also a council-funded venture.

According to the original business plan, approved by councillors only four years ago, the various phases of the park scheme were set to deliver 11,469 square metres of office space coupled with 3,350 square metres of industrial units. It meant more than 77 per cent of the new buildings would be occupied by offices.

But a meeting of SBC's Executive will be told next week in a report prepared by economic development officer Stuart Kinross of a new factor threatening to blow the project off course.

Mr Kinross writes: "The Borders Innovation Park at Tweedbank is a £29m capital programme, which includes a contribution of £15m from the City Region Deal, £5m from Scottish Borders Council, and £9m from other partners. 

"A Full Business Case was approved by Council in January 2019 prior to being approved by the City Region Deal Joint Committee in March 2019. This business case envisaged a build-out of office and industrial space over three phases. The first building on the site, which is an office for the Council’s IT provider, CGI, and an Inspire learning hub opened in 2022. 

"However, with the Covid-19 pandemic, the anticipated demand for office space has been greatly reduced and there is therefore a need to re-configure the proposed programme. This will require the drafting of a revised Full Business Case, which is currently expected to be presented to Council in November 2023 prior to being considered for approval by the Joint Committee in December 2023."

Financial statistics for the venture include the following: Cost to date £7.526 million – funding £4.398m (external) and £3.128m (council). Total cost by 2032/33 £22.068m – external £17.065m and council £5.021m.

Justification for the innovation park was outlined in the original business case presented to Edinburgh and South East of Scotland City Region Deal by SBC. The document sought approval of £15 million of funding under the authority of the city deal approved by the Prime Minister and First Minister of Scotland in July 2018.

It was claimed the project had a positive economic impact with an estimated Benefit-Cost ratio (BCR) of £16:£1.

The strategic case put forward by the Borders council stated: "There is a strong rationale for major investment to be expended on a Central Borders Innovation Park at Tweedbank. It will provide a wide range of benefits to the Scottish Borders within the context of the wider Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region as it: · Complies with all key national, regional, and local strategic plans. · Will boost employment by creating 383 jobs excluding construction. · Is anticipated to increase GVA by £350 million excluding construction. · Will contribute to inclusive growth by creating high-quality employment opportunities. · Will encourage innovation through the development of high quality infrastructure that will enable businesses to grow. · Will encourage new employers and employees into the area, bringing new skills and experience." 

In a section of the Business Case headed The Case for Change, it was claimed the depressed state of the office and industrial property market in the Scottish Borders required the level of public sector investment planned under this programme. 

Such investment would supplement the £350 million spent on the Borders Railway. It would overhaul the current reliance on low value, obsolescent stock with high quality premises that would allow for a more competitive business location. Demand analysis suggested there was potential to fill the space proposed. It seems that demand may no longer be present.

The council's report added: "As with many other rural economies, the Scottish Borders has to overcome the problem of market failure caused by a combination of remote locations and poor infrastructure, a lack of supply of modern business premises and the increasing obsolescence of existing stock. Public sector intervention is needed to address this issue, which is crucial to ensuring that sustainable, inclusive economic growth can take place. 

"The coming of the Borders Railway has presented a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enable the local economy to grow. A Central Borders Innovation Park, situated next to the Borders Railway terminus at Tweedbank, would meet the urgent need for high-quality business space in the central Scottish Borders. It would stimulate business growth and associated job creation, enhancing the area’s inward investment offer, particularly to high-value, innovative sectors, as well as meeting the needs of indigenous businesses thereby improving their competitiveness. 

"It would also help to address inequalities in the area by providing access to better quality, higher paid jobs. This Full Business Case [FBC] seeks approval to invest £27,750,000, including £15,000,000 of City Region Deal funding, to develop five plots in the vicinity of Tweedbank Railway Station across three programme phases. A further £1,270,000 will be spent on creating infrastructure to improve access to these plots.". 

The FBC also claimed Scottish Enterprise was confident its business centre/co-working space would assist in helping to kick-start the wider generation of Tweedbank and also in creating a gateway to the Scottish Borders and an office hub that would compete with the out-of-town/satellite offices on Edinburgh’s periphery.

So far as economic impacts were concerned: "The programme will have a large beneficial impact on local and regional employment and productivity. Meeting the objectives of increasing employment, particularly that which is highly skilled and well-paid, and increasing productivity, would have a direct and an indirect impact on the local economy through increased household income and demand for local services." 

The debt requirement for the innovation park was also revealed in the 2019 FBC. Financial modelling estimated the amount of borrowing required to cover outstanding deficits at the end of each financial year. 

The council's overall borrowing requirement would peak at £12.3 million in Year 6 (2023- 24) with repayment taking place in Year 15 (2032-33). The cumulative operating costs (capital and revenue)  showed the project, as originally conceived, would generate an overall surplus of £11.1 million by Year 30 (2047-48). 

"Scottish Borders Council can currently borrow at a rate of between 2.75 per cent and 3 per cent. For reasons of prudence, a borrowing rate of 3 per cent has been used in the modelling."

However, the cost of borrowing climate has changed dramatically in recent months. Interest rates on loans approved in March 2023 by The Treasury's Public Works Loans Board - the main source of debt funding for public bodies, including local authorities - ranged from 3.9% to 5% with the vast majority of transactions having rates in excess of 4.2%.