Avocet 'victims' urged to contact their MP

by OUR BUSINESS STAFF

Hundreds of shareholders who lost millions of pounds in the allegedly fraudulent Avocet air-dung-fuel operation are being urged to describe their experiences to their local MPs ahead of a House of Commons debate later this month.

It is hoped the circumstances which led to the costly collapse of the Avocet group of companies, headed by bankrupt businessman Martin Frost and his "co-life president" Dr Bob Jennings, can be included in the debate alongside financial injustices like the Post Office scandal, infected blood, HBOS Reading, IRHP (Interest Rate Hedging Products) mis-selling, and more.

The members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business Banking headed by co-chair William Wragg MP (Con) have secured the Backbench Business Debate, scheduled for April 18th, on the issue of fair and swift access to redress for victims of significant injustices.

The Group says: "The proposed motion aims to create statutory guidance with common principles for redress schemes, ensuring fairer outcomes for all victims of injustice. This is a significant opportunity to ensure appropriate compensation for victims of past and future large-scale scandals. Our review of this issue highlights the systemic failures in existing compensation schemes: complexity, delays, and the undue burden on victims".

An estimated 650 investors in the Avocet concept are said to have parted with between £22 million and £40 million after being promised a healthy return for their money by company bosses. But the so-called Avocet 'wonder' fuel additive was never marketed, and eventually fraud allegations were made to Police Scotland. A lengthy investigation has not resulted in charges so far.

Last July, a district judge in Leeds ruled that Mr Frost breached his fiduciary duty as a company director by using £425,000 of the firm's cash to help buy two upmarket flats in Scarborough.

In a hard hitting written judgment Judge Christopher Royle dismissed evidence submitted by Mr Frost and his supporters as inconsistent, largely irrelevant and tediously lengthy.

The successful claim by the joint liquidators of Omega Infinite PLC, the former parent of the Avocet group, was seen as a significant step in the insolvency team's bid to repossess the Scarborough properties from Mr Frost and his wife Janet. Both Mr and Mrs Frost were declared bankrupt in 2021.

Court papers lodged by liquidators Joanne Hammond and Ashleigh Fletcher, of insolvency specialists  Begbies Traynor, also claimed that company money was used by the Frosts to pay for holidays and luxury travel.

A witness statement submitted by Miss Hammond included details of four payments, all of them originating from Omega and with each sum made to a Royal Bank of Scotland account in Mr Frost's name. The amounts were for £150,000 on September 27th, 2017, £145,000 the following day, and separate transactions of £50,000 and £80,000 both completed on April 26th, 2018.

The transfers took place around the time the flats, numbered 2 and 4, in Scarborough's 57 Belvedere, The Esplanade changed hands into the ownership of Mr Frost. His assertion that the properties were in fact owned by a company called Loch Lomond Heritage of which he was a director, was also rejected by Judge Royle.

According to a post on the Avocet Shareholders' Forum: "We are hoping as many MPs as possible know the individual losses and effect this has on us as shareholders of Avocet companies. Many have lost their life savings, others have been able to replace their losses, but the bulk of the 650 shareholders plus creditors cannot. As this fraud has been primarily enacted in the U.K., it is important to have our say en masse in the House of Commons."

One shareholder who claims to have lost hundreds of thousands of pounds after investing in Avocet told us: "It's heart breaking and unbearable for many of us who put our money and our trust in the company's management. It seems that although the Frosts have been bankrupted they were able to continue living in a luxury apartment. There needs to be swift financial redress in cases like these". 

Borders to get 90 miles of 'super' pylons

SPECIAL FEATURE: NEW THREAT TO LOCAL LANDSCAPES?

With a total price tag of up to £1.5 billion it promises to be the most expensive infrastructure project the Scottish Borders has ever hosted. Yet hardly a local soul seems aware of its existence despite the potential to blight many miles of unspoilt countryside and overshadow countless heritage sites. 

At this stage it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which localities might 'suffer'. But preferred routes have now been plotted for the intrusive 118 feet high pylons and associated overhead power lines needed to expand transmission of Scotland's burgeoning electricity output.

The details of and the reasoning for the forthcoming Borders project - the transmission towers will snake their way along two circuits, 34 miles from Harburn, West Calder to the Gala North substation before heading south for another 50 miles in the vicinity of the A7 road through Roxburghshire to Harker, in Cumberland - are laid out in Beyond 2030, a National Grid Energy Systems Operator (ESO) publication.

The preferred route - two others were rejected - is shown by the dotted lines on the map above. A similar new circuit of pylons and cables is planned across Dumfries and Galloway.

National Grid's document, covering every area of the country, declares in its executive summary: "New infrastructure of any kind can be challenging for communities during construction and once in use. However, we believe these challenges can be minimised by developers through optimisation of network designs, early engagement with communities, innovation, and appropriate community benefit packages.

"With little over a decade to 2035, progress must be swift and coordinated if we are to meet our Sixth Carbon Budget target. Further design optimisation will be required to ensure impacts on communities are minimised and wider benefits are seized upon." 

But those in charge of the daunting series of projects carrying a total value of £58 billion will doubtless be gearing up for resistance and opposition in some quarters. 

Action groups elsewhere are already functioning and fundraising to bankroll fees and legal costs for future campaigns against the pylons.

For example: the Angus Pylon Action Group in the north is already staging public meetings to voice concerns over Scottish & Southern Energy's 400Kv Kintore-Tealing overhead line project. How long before a similar group forms in the Borders?

According to Beyond 2030, the new circuit between South-east Scotland and North-west England (price range £500 million-£1 billion) which is known in the electricity generating trade as CMN3, is scheduled for 2033. Meanwhile the Harburn-Gala North line, costing between £100million-£500million, and labelled HGNC in the report is slated for 2036.

Apparently, CMN3 was identified as most suitable because two alternatives (CMNC and CMN2) would not have avoided the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales national parks. Of course, the Borders -beautiful though its landscape is - lacks that kind of protective status.

National Grid say since the ‘super grid’ was established in the 1950s, where and how electricity is generated and used has changed significantly. As a result, the transmission system needs to evolve to continue to deliver for consumers as the UK transitions to net zero. By 2035, they forecast that over the course of a year twice as much electricity may be produced compared to last year (2023).

The section covering Central and Southern Scotland outlines the case for the swathe of towers and overhead lines making up CMN3 and HGNC.

According to Beyond 2030: "As the level of energy ambition in Scotland scales up, existing challenges on the electricity network become more dominant. Currently, one of the most congested areas on Great Britain’s electricity network is the area around the border between Scotland and England. This congestion is projected to get worse, and significant investment is required to ensure the system can be run in an economic and efficient manner. 

"Without this investment, this one specific part of the network has the potential to cost consumers across Great Britain hundreds of millions of pounds per year. This is because, in the absence of the investment recommended, renewable electricity generated in Scotland will not be able to be moved to where it can be used because of these capacity constraints."

This would mean that renewable generators in Scotland would have to be paid to turn off, while additional gas and other non-renewable generation would have to be switched on across the south of the network in order to balance supply and demand - but the recommended investments would heavily reduce the requirement to do this. 

If network capacity in the region is not improved, warns the report, the costs to consumers and the amount of renewable electricity generators needed to pay not to generate will grow year on year. 

"We are looking to address this congestion in part by designing a network that provides significant additional capacity using offshore cables (which was recommended, in part, by our previous network planning recommendations), reducing, although not avoiding, the need for new infrastructure throughout the Central Belt and Borders."

The recommendations also include the construction of multiple new substations – 'helping to connect more circuits together and improve network operability'. These new substations also provide opportunities to connect future renewable electricity or strategic flexible demand projects, as well as meeting the forecasted growth in the demand for electricity. To achieve this requirement, the proposals include a new electrical ‘spine’ of upgrades and infrastructure. 

"These projects are in their very first stage of development, but the concept of such a spine will be crucial to handling the influx of power from offshore wind from off the north coast of Scotland. This spine builds upon previous recommendations for new circuit routes from the South West and South East of Scotland to the North West of England. This will provide significantly more capability across the Anglo-Scottish border."

Descriptions of the two aspects of new infrastructure in the Borders are included in the report:

CMN3 - Greatly increases the network capability between Southern Scotland and Northern England. It also increases access to the transmission network in the Borders area Rationale: This option forms part of the new north to south electrical spine. It provides significant capacity for power flows between Scotland and England, reducing constraint costs for consumers and allowing onshore and offshore wind to be used more effectively. This is beneficial as the area in which the alternatives were previously recommended is extremely congested. Moving these circuits allows for other alternatives which score better against our four design objectives.

 HGNC - Improves the capability of the existing east coast circuits in Scotland and provides power to an additional offshore link from Scotland Rationale: This option forms part of the new north to south electrical spine. It provides significant capacity for power flows between Central Belt and the Borders. It will also allow for better use of existing and new circuits in the South of Scotland and North of England, reducing constraint costs for consumers and allowing offshore wind to be used more effectively.

And all of this will follow the relentless development of wind farms across the Borders landscape with still no let up in the number of new applications reaching local planners and the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit.

The feverish race to get large turbines up and running has (so far) resulted in Scottish Borders Council's wind farm database running to an impressive 24 pages although not all of the proposed schemes have been sanctioned.

Nevertheless, there is a growing body of opinion within the region that many local hill ranges are in danger of being swamped and industrialised by the sheer number of green power projects. Time to call a halt, say the critics.

 

  

 

 

Borders planners got this one wrong!

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF

A business development recommended for approval by planning officials but subsequently rejected by Borders councillors has been firmly kicked out by a Scottish Government appeals reporter who described the proposals as materially harmful to neighbouring residents.

As we reported earlier this month, the elected members on Scottish Borders Council's planning committee dismissed proposals (by five votes to two) for the formation of storage space for agricultural machinery and equipment, and for up to 2,500 tonnes of potatoes on a field at Mounthooly Farm, near Jedburgh.

The committee's refusal flew in the face of a recommendation for approval by senior planner Ian Aikman. In his report, Mr Aikman stated: ""The proposed use would not be incompatible with the existing land use pattern or the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

"The choice of site, layout, and scale of proposals will not result in further adverse impacts. The development will accord with the relevant provisions of the statutory Development Plan and there are no material considerations that would justify a departure from these provisions".

Following an appeal to the Scottish Government's Planning and Environmental Appeals Division [DPEA] by Andrew Ramsay, of Kelso-based Ramsay Mounthooly Ltd., the council found itself asking planning reporter Sarah Foster to reject that appeal. And in a decision notice just issued she has done just that.

Commenting on the impact Mr Ramsay's plans might have on the character of the area, Ms Foster says: "The proposed storage yard would be ancillary to an established employment site that has developed incrementally in a former agricultural steading in the countryside. What is now a small industrial estate is currently set back from the road, well hidden from the public realm by portal framed buildings originally constructed for agricultural purposes. 

"Views of the estate are also interrupted by an attractive range of traditional agricultural buildings not in the ownership of the appellants. As a consequence, the industrial use is not immediately obvious when viewed from outside the steading and it does not significantly affect the character of the area."

The reporter adds that she could see at the site visit there was limited external storage space left within the steading as land previously used for storage has been developed with more industrial units.

"I saw external storage largely limited to the north eastern corner of the site where large, wooden crates were being stacked in piles up to approximately six metres high. This suggests that there may very well be a need for the proposed storage yard ancillary to an established employment use as allowed for under LDP [Local Development Plan] Policy ED7." 

The storage yard could not reasonably be established on land within a Development Boundary given that the established use was located within the countryside. 

However, the development of a storage yard within the field, as proposed, would inevitably bring the activity currently confined within the steading further south, beyond its existing limits, into a much more prominent position, clearly visible from the road. 

"The storage yard would thereby completely change the character of the site and, when seen from public vantage points, the field would lose its agricultural appearance regardless of the proposed boundary planting. It would instead take on an industrial character that would detract from both the site itself and from surrounding properties, including the traditional stone barns to the west, which I consider to be significant in terms of the historic environment of the area.

Commenting on the impact on residential amenity, Ms Foster writes: "It is my opinion that the increased activity, including intensified vehicular movements, would inevitably generate noise and disturbance of a level that would be materially harmful to the residential amenity of surrounding dwellings.. 

"The potential for items to be stacked on the yard would have an adverse and overbearing visual impact considering the very short separation distance that exists between the boundary of the proposed yard and the boundary of these properties. I feel that any conditions that could be added to make this potential impact acceptable would be so limiting to the operations as to render the storage yard itself unusable. 

"It is my opinion that the storage yard use would not be compatible with surrounding uses. I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which would still justify granting planning permission. 

No economic 'boom' yet from reinstated rail service, study concluded

 BORDERS RAILWAY IN FOCUS 

Although the Borders Railway exceeded expectations in terms of passenger numbers following its opening in 2015, and is achieving its original investment objectives, the £295 million project does not appear to have had a transformational impact on the regions of Midlothian and the Scottish Borders.

This important conclusion from a Department of Transport (DfT) commissioned analysis completed last year runs counter to recent claims of an economic 'boom' for Galashiels following the rebuilding of the 35-mile northern section of the Waverley route.

The 259-page report shows the findings from an in-depth investigation of 15 major transport investment initiatives ranging in size from the Borders Railway up to the Greater Manchester Metrolink and the Jubilee Line Extension. The analysis was undertaken by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates [CEPA], an advisory firm. The study set out to establish whether each project had delivered a transitional impact for local economies.

But although the extensive document has been publicly available since last June, it has received little or no press and media coverage while many politicians and civic leaders appear to be unaware of its existence. A request for sight of the report was made by at least one Scottish MP at a session of the Commons Transport Committee earlier this month.

Key findings from the Borders Railway investigation are presented as follows:

"Employment • Primary research suggests that the Borders Railway had a modest positive impact on employment, as the stations in ‘urban’ and ‘semi-urban’ areas experienced a significant increase in employment following the scheme’s opening relative to comparator areas. 

"Productivity • No evidence of direct productivity impacts found. 

"Housing • New housing is being built in the corridor but so far, the number completed is less than the 10,000 originally envisaged. • An urban expansion is planned around the new station at Shawfair, but as at Spring 2021, only 1,000 of 4,000 new homes had been built. 

"Regeneration • Regeneration was not an objective of this scheme. 

"Environment • User surveys suggest that the railway led to a significant modal shift from car to rail, saving more than an estimated 36,000 annual single car trips."

CEPA explain that the main aim of the Borders Railway was to promote accessibility to and from the Scottish Borders and Midlothian to Edinburgh and the central belt of Scotland, with a particular focus on enabling residents of the Borders and Midlothian to access the Edinburgh labour market.

The Borders Railway has succeeded in improving accessibility between the Scottish Borders, Midlothian and Edinburgh. Commuting has been the most common journey purpose of users of the railway, and Edinburgh the most frequent journey destination, suggesting that the line has supported access to employment opportunities in the capital for residents of the Scottish Borders.

According to the report: "Discussions with stakeholders suggested that the Borders Railway has exceeded expectations in terms of attracting tourism to the Borders region. This may be due to notable publicity efforts when the route opened. 

"However, the evidence suggests that the railway has had limited broader economic impacts. There may have been a positive effect on employment around stations closer to Edinburgh, but there is little evidence that the scheme has had notable effects in terms of productivity, housing or property values. In particular, there has been little construction progress at Shawfair, a new township served by the railway".

CEPA anticipate that one of the key outcomes of the Borders Railway will be to expand Edinburgh’s labour catchment to incorporate the locations on the new line. As with HS1, they expect existing residents in these areas may be able to gain new jobs in Edinburgh where they can be more productive, and these areas may attract new residents. This would increase Edinburgh’s employment density, further improving productivity.

"By becoming part of the Edinburgh labour market catchment, we expect the locations on the new railway line to attract new residents, which may in turn support the development of housing. This would increase the population of the area or prevent what would otherwise have been a reduction in the population."

The analysis suggests that the Borders Railway had a modest positive impact on employment. The areas surrounding the ‘urban’ stations (Brunstane, Newcraighill and Shawfair) and ‘semi-urban’ (Eskbank, Newtongrange and Gorebridge) experienced a significant increase in employment following the opening of the Borders Railway whereas the areas surrounding ‘rural’ stations (Galashiels, Tweedbank and Stow) did not. 

"However, it should be noted that both the impacted and comparator areas for the ‘urban’ and ‘semi-urban’ stations were experiencing an upward trend in employment prior to the opening of the Borders Railway, so it is possible that the gains are due to some other confounding factor that could not be controlled for in the analysis. The Borders Railway “Blueprint for the Future” states that the local authorities identified land to deliver around 24,000 homes in Midlothian and the Scottish Borders by 2024. There is limited evidence to show how many of these have been built – one source suggests that 10,000 new homes had been built as of September 2020."

A section of the report headed Performance Against Investment Objectives comments on each of those objectives and shows the line is achieving on several fronts:

"Promote accessibility to and from the Scottish Borders and Midlothian to Edinburgh and the central belt – Achieving. Large volumes of users were using the service to travel between the Scottish Borders / Midlothian and Edinburgh. While commuting was the most common journey purpose, there were also a significant number of leisure and tourist users and evidence that the line has improved access and encourage people to make additional / new trips which they previously did not make.

"Foster social inclusion by improving services for those without access to a car – Largely achieving. There was strong agreement amongst respondents to the user survey that the railway has enabled them to access opportunities without using the car/only using the car for a portion of the journey. However, while the re-opening of the railway has resulted in improvements in access between the stations, it has also resulted in changes in bus service provision within the study area, most notably the reduction of the X95 service to an hourly service in May 2016.

"Prevent decline in the Borders population by securing ready access to Edinburgh’s labour market – Achieving. Commuting was found to be the most common journey purpose and Edinburgh is the most frequent destination, suggesting that the line has secured access to employment opportunities in the capital for residents of the Scottish Borders and Midlothian. The results also suggest that the improved access opportunities associated with the rail line have influenced people’s residential choices and encouraged in-migration to both Midlothian and the Scottish Borders.

"Create modal shift from the car to public transport – Achieving. The responses to the User Survey suggested that there has been a significant modal shift from car to rail, with the majority of respondents (64 percent) who previously made their trip by another mode stating that they drove all the way to their destination equating to an estimated 36,000 saved annual single car trips from the sample alone."

Rail project down south hoping to copy Borders "boom"

by EWAN LAMB

A decision by bosses of a planned £6 billion rail route linking the university cities of Oxford and Cambridge to reference the "success" of the Borders Railway as illustrating the huge potential of their scheme has evoked criticism in some quarters.

The East West Railway Company [EWR], set up and funded by England's Department for Transport (DfT) issued a news release last week which used the 35-mile Edinburgh to Galashiels route as a case study, comparing the Borders project with the proposed 38-mile of tracks which would reinstate train travel in the Oxford/Cambridge area.

The EWR story included contributions from Councillor Euan Jardine, leader of Scottish Borders Council, who was quoted as saying: "The project has massively exceeded expectations, providing a boom to overcome initial opposition to the railway.”

And Mr Jardine went on to claim the town of Galashiels 'used to be a struggling, run-down high street before the railway’s arrival, but is now a rejuvenated town centre'.

Earlier in March a House of Commons Transport Committee session examining East West Rail heard how Borders Railway has been “extraordinarily popular”, had generated “lots of economic development” and that “tourism has increased massively” as a result of the railway.

And Beth West, Chie Executive of EWR, said: “Borders Railway is an outstanding example of how a railway can be transformational for local economies and communities, helping places flourish and become more dynamic and desirable to visit. Successful case studies like Borders Rail provide an encouraging and inspiring blueprint for East West Rail to deliver a huge, positive legacy for residents, business and economies across the route.”

However, not all of the voices quoted by the Bedford Independent newspaper thought the comparison with the Borders Railway should have been flagged up. According to the paper's article written by local journalist Erica Roffe: "The MP for Bedford and Kempston, Mohammad Yasin (Labour) said he welcomes investment in public transport infrastructure.

“But it is a false comparison to argue that just because one rail project has been a success, that another one will be,” he said.

“Each project is unique. Plans are one thing, implementation quite another and I think there is a very long way to go before EWR can talk about success.”

Both Mr Yasin and Bedford's Conservative mayor Tom Wootton suggested that EWR should focus on communicating with residents in Bedford, rather than focusing their attention on projects at the other end of the country, according to the Independent.

Some of the statistics contained in two Scottish Borders Council reports produced last year hardly point to a "boom" in the fortunes of the Galashiels retail sector since the trains started running almost nine years ago in 2015 with a marked drop in so-called footfall, and 19 per cent of town centre shop units lying empty.

The council's 2022 retail survey showed the 19% vacancy rate represented an increase of two per cent since the summer 2021 audit. A total of 46 town centre units out of a total of 239 were unoccupied.

According to the survey: "The vacancy rate in the town centre has fluctuated over previous years notably from a high of 19% in winter 2016 to 15% in winter 2017. The opening of the Galashiels Transport Interchange, Border Railway and The Great Tapestry of Scotland should benefit the performance of the town centre over time, once these developments bed in. The performance of the town centre will continue to be monitored closely, particularly the vacant units along Channel Street and the north end of the High Street, and via the Town Centre Core Activity Area Pilot Study."

The picture was equally downbeat when it came to the town's footfall figures, again assembled by the council.

Footfall relates to the number of people entering a surveyed area over a given time, in this case in the course of a week.

The report for 2022 explains: "Galashiels has not recovered from the significant 33% decrease in footfall, as a result of the pandemic restrictions in 2020. There was no change to the footfall figures in 2021 and a further decrease of five per cent in footfall in 2022. Although, the town has the second highest footfall overall, which correlates with having a larger population, Galashiels town centre footfall is less than half its 2007 count."

Back in 2007 the average weekly footfall for Galashiels was 9,650, a figure which had fallen to 7,080 in 2019. The totals for 2021 and 2022 were 4,760 and 4,500 respectively.

Borders council has 480 'non-operational' buildings on its books

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF 

Councillors in the Scottish Borders will be told in no uncertain terms next week that the vast portfolio of 'assets' currently in local authority ownership is much too large, and the estate is now financially and environmentally unsustainable with a £22 million maintenance backlog.

The need to radically rationalise a total of 1,658 items on the asset register, including 484 'non-operational' buildings is outlined in a report written by Ray Cherry who became Scottish Borders Council's new Chief Officer, Estates, last June.

His appointment followed a review in 2022 which came to the conclusion that much of the estate - measuring the equivalent of 55 football pitches - is near end of life, in poor condition or is uneconomic to fix.

That review also claimed: "The estate is oversized; digital tools can improve ways of working; spaces do not reflect what services need to deliver effectively; there is little meaningful progress in partnership working and joined up public services; there is a desire for more creative use of council assets by the community.".

Next week's meeting will be asked to sanction a proposed rationalisation target for the next 5 years. Mr Cherry sets out the benefits that "will be realised as well as the need for all Council services to play their part in supporting the objective, contributing to right sizing the estate, both of which will contribute to targeting how we invest, where we maintain to improve the efficacy of our estate, decarbonising and reducing costs. 

"The target 10% (39,000m2) reduction of the estate over a five year period proposed in the report recognising the role that all Scottish Borders Council services have a collective role in working together to realise this objective."

Mr Cherry believes the "siloed nature" of how the council staff work creates difficulties in managing  assets effectively. There are historical and cultural legacies that have meant that SBC has not always arrived at optimum estates solutions, nor ensured that they are implemented to best effect. Much of the Council estate is seen as a liability rather than an asset.

The report explains that plans to reimagine council headquarters in Newtown St. Boswells as a civic hub, to optimise use of the building, increase occupancy and utilisation is progressing. Physical works are underway on-site to support the proposal. 

NHS Borders have already occupied a portion of the building. Live Borders [Sport & Leisure Trust] have followed, and discussions continue with other public and third sector partners with a view to working more closely, and collaboratively, pooling resources whilst helping share or reduce operational costs and maximise the return on investment that SBC has committed. 

According to Mr Cherry, the rationalisation strategy could produce benefits which might include: "Services are better protected (with a reduction in the estate being prioritised over reducing services);  reduce operational costs; increase capital and revenue income to support the Council’s financial sustainability; more concentrated and targeted investment in improving condition and functional suitability of key assets; fit for purpose estate aligned to meet service needs; more concentrated and targeted actions to reduce energy costs and consumption, and reduce direct carbon emissions."

The report suggests that each estate asset will be evaluated considering objective data and informed criteria to be classified in one of the following three categories: Retain and Maintain; Retain and Invest; Divest or Dispose. 

"A number of Council buildings play a significant role within communities across the Scottish Borders, particularly those that community groups use regularly or those that have a significant civic presence. For assets that fall into this category and are classified ‘Divest or Dispose’, engagement will need to be undertaken with the relevant community. 

"It is proposed that engagement will take place with relevant communities through community councils, Town Teams and other relevant community organisations explaining how a determination has been reached. Following this three-month grace period, from the date of engagement, an expression of interest should be submitted by the relevant community or third-party body."

While the strategy is expected to cut costs and generate income, Mr Cherry also mentions the need for additional resources to deliver the rationalisation programme.

The report concludes: "This is an ambitious programme, essential to the Council’s long term financial and environmental sustainability. There will be resource implications to achieve this, primarily in the Estates Team. 

"Initial data gathering and assessments of SBC assets is time consuming, requiring technical and professional skills. Much of this is available within the teams, but additional resource is expected to be needed to deliver the programme. Some resource can be sought from the private sector; however, it is anticipated that an expansion of in-house staffing may also be required alongside a reprioritisation of workload."

"Payment for patents sold to Avocet 'extremely remote'" - liquidator

by OUR BUSINESS EDITOR

The intellectual property belonging to the forerunner of the insolvent Avocet Group of companies which was valued at £4 million in 2015 has still not been paid for following its 'sale' to an associated business now in compulsory liquidation.

Bankrupt Martin Frost, a director of AFS Ventures Ltd nine years ago when the company was to be wound up, signed a so-called Declaration of Solvency which claimed there would be a £1.1 million surplus after all debts were paid.

Later, the patents held by AFS, which had been involved in research and development for BioFuels, were supposed to have been 'sold' to Avocet Infinite PLC of which Mr Frost was chairman. And the 50,000 £1 shares in AFS were in the ownership of Loch Lomond Heritage, another firm controlled by the Frost family.

Avocet Infinite attracted 650 shareholders who invested many millions of pounds, hoping to benefit from that company's 'revolutionary air-to-fuel' developments. But not a single product was brought to market before Avocet Infinite changed its name to Omega Infinite before being liquidated.

The latest twist in the complicated nine-year liquidation process involving AFS is contained in a 'progress report' from insolvency expert Eric Walls, of KSA Group, who has been joint liquidator from the outset. He has now announced his intention to "bring my administration of this case to a close".

His newly published report covering the period January 2023 to January 2024 shows asset realisation during the 12 months totalled £14.76 (gross bank interest).

The AFS report says: "The only remaining asset detailed on the Statement of Affairs (SoA) was in respect of the company's intellectual property which had been sold to Omega Infinite PLC which is in compulsory liquidation, albeit the final level of consideration in respect of that sale has not been paid.

"It had been unclear as to whether any further funds would be realised in respect of the company's intellectual property due to the complexities of this matter and the compulsory liquidation of Omega. However, having reviewed the latest progress report from that liquidation, I now consider that the likelihood of any realisation in respect of the amounts owed for the intellectual property are extremely remote".

The only distribution of money to be made by Mr Walls will be to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs who filed a claim for £100,650 in respect of unpaid Value Added Tax (VAT).

Mr Walls adds: "For clarity, whilst remuneration of the liquidators remains outstanding in respect of the prior MVL (Members' Voluntary Liquidation), it is not intended to lodge a claim in this respect of this liquidation. We give notice that no dividend will become payable to the unsecured creditors in this liquidation."

One of those unfortunate creditors is law firm Womble Bond Dickson - due £75,000. A solicitor from the practice, Victoria Smith, witnessed the 2015 Declaration of Solvency.

According to Mr Walls: "There are a number of legal actions ongoing in respect of a number of matters, none of which the liquidators of the company, or the company itself, are party to. I am therefore unable to comment any further on these matters as these continuing disputes may result in further legal action".

And he concludes: "Based on the reports of the joint liquidators of Omega, it is now believed that no realisations will be made".

After reading Mr Walls' report, an individual who has followed the entire Frost/Avocet saga from the AFS Ventures days onwards commented: "So that is that and it only took nine years to get……..well, where?