Scaled down Borders windfarm 'no longer a threat to Hermitage Castle'

by EWAN LAMB

Heritage watchdog Historic Environment Scotland [HES] will not object to the development of a 53-turbine windfarm in the Borders although the area contains scheduled monuments and the largest concentration of prehistoric hillforts anywhere in the United Kingdom.

HES had warned it would try to block original proposals by Muirhall Energy to erect 62 turbines and carry out associated works to create the Teviot windfarm in open countryside south of Hawick. 

The agency feared the project would compromise Hermitage Castle, one of the finest examples of a medieval castle in Scotland, and other monuments of national importance - the Tinlee Standing Stone, a 1.35-metre high pre-historic stone, and the Catrail Earthworks.

But in a newly published submission to the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit, HES says the removal of some of the turbines coupled with "mitigation measures" means it will not now object to the scheme. But it is conceded one of the turbines will still have an impact on the castle which has associations with Mary Queen of Scots and Sir Walter Scott.

In its statement, HES explains: "Our key interests in this case relate to the potential impacts on the setting of the designated historic environment assets in the vicinity of the proposed development. We welcome the work that has been done to date to address the impact on the historic environment."

In a section of the submission dealing with Hermitage Castle, HES says the monument is one of the great medieval fortresses of Scotland. The castle and its surrounding surviving medieval elements, including a chapel and deer park, occupy a prominent site on the valley floor on the north bank of the Hermitage Water, with steep rising hillsides to the north and south. The monument had a strategic role in controlling passage through Liddesdale, commanding views along the valley to the east.

"The original proposed development would give rise to significant adverse impacts on the integrity of the setting of Hermitage Castle caused by the appearance of a number of turbines in views towards the castle and directly behind/above it from the main approach road from the south east. This raised issues in the national interest for this asset and we would have objected to the scheme on grounds of significant adverse impacts on the integrity of Hermitage Castle’s setting."

In the view of HES, the removal of some turbines and the reduction in height of others  had significantly reduced the visual impact on the castle on the approach from the south-east. But the tip of Turbine 28 would still appear on the ridge directly behind and above the monument in a key view towards the castle on the approach road.

"We therefore disagree with the conclusion in the AEI (Additional Environmental Information) Report that the proposals would result in a minor level of effect. Other than a line of telegraph poles beside the minor road, this would appear as the only modern structure within this landscape.

"However, we consider that the design revisions presented in the AEI Report have considerably reduced the visibility of the wind farm on this key approach to Hermitage Castle. Following the mitigation the effect has been reduced to a level where it would no longer significantly affect the integrity of setting of the scheduled monument or raise issues of national interest." 

The HES assessment reaches similar conclusions for the Tinlee Stone and the Catrail.

The statement ends: “Although we disagree with some aspects of the applicant’s approach to the assessments, we agree with their overall conclusions of no more than a minor significance of effect for the majority of scheduled monuments with the exception of those identified above. We do not object to the proposed development."

A very different approach has been taken by Kenneth Moffatt, member of a family of artists and goldsmiths who have had a business - the Johnnie Armstrong Gallery and Borderlands Museum at Teviothead alongside the A7 trunk road - dating back to 1978.

In his lengthy written objection to the windfarm, Mr Moffatt writes: "We have constantly been involved in raising the profile and attempting to have the archaeology and the cultural heritage of the region both recognised and recorded, as an asset for the area. No consultation has taken place with local businesses on the Teviot windfarm footprint, other than the limited few who appear to be financially involved, directly or indirectly, with the proposal."

Mr Moffatt claims the windfarm will dominate the epicentre of the Teviothead Volcanic Complex, a unique and largely understudied geological region of concentrated clustered volcanic vents. As a spur of the Cheviots, these hills form an incredible and almost impregnable natural fortress – the consequence of which caused the Romans to build Hadrian's wall.

He adds: "Additionally the Teviot wind farm footprint has unique and compounded archaeology of international importance, from the prehistoric period onwards. This region, however, is almost completely unexplored, and to date no serious modern archaeological investigations or excavations have taken place at all.

"The broader region in which the Teviot wind farm proposal is set has a total of 408 recorded prehistoric hillforts. This is the highest concentration of hillforts found anywhere in Scotland, Ireland, England or Wales. In fact this is 25 percent of the total number of hillforts found in Scotland, and 10 per cent of the total found across the UK and Ireland combined."

And, according to Mr Moffatt: "This region is now included by extension in UNESCO's World Heritage Roman Frontier. In a region of such archaeological importance, elsewhere in the UK it would be required to have a full team of archaeologists surveying and excavating ahead of any proposed scheme – as we see for instance on the HS2 project – with major discoveries as a consequence.

"Until a full and comprehensive study of the region is made, for a scheme of this magnitude to be allowed would be a reprehensible act of vandalism in the eyes of the world".

Liquidator unpaid for nine years' work costing £100,000

by OUR BUSINESS EDITOR

The research and development company which preceded the evolution of the worthless Avocet group of businesses headed by now bankrupt 'entrepreneur' Martin Frost is to be dissolved after a nine-year liquidation process.

But AFS Ventures Ltd., just like several other entities involved in the non-development of a wonder fuel, will leave unpaid debts as well as an unsolved mystery concerning the fate of its intellectual property (IP), said by Mr Frost to be worth £4 million. 

The patents were sold to Omega Infinite PLC, the Avocet parent company once chaired by Mr Frost, but subsequently the subject of a compulsory liquidation order and with financial deficits running into many millions of pounds.

Reports prepared by AFS Ventures liquidator Eric Walls, of KSA Group, include an entry of £680,000 for an 'Intellectual Property Settlement'. 

However, in a statement of receipts and payments submitted to the Registrar of Companies earlier this year, Mr Walls declared that the final level of consideration in respect to the IP sale had not been paid.

He wrote: "It had been unclear as to whether any further funds would be realised in respect of the company's IP due to the complexities of this matter, and the compulsory liquidation of Omega. 

"Having reviewed the latest progress report of that liquidation, I now consider that the likelihood of any realisation in respect of the amounts owed for the IP are extremely remote. I therefore now intend to bring my administration of this case to an end".

Mr Walls was appointed voluntary liquidator of AFS Ventures in February 2015, a month after Mr Frost, in his capacity as a director of the firm, signed a Declaration of Solvency which affirmed the company would be able to pay its debts in full together with interest within 12 months.

According to the Declaration, the patents were worth £4 million while liabilities totalled £2.85 million.

But a Statement of Affairs produced by Mr Walls in 2021 included a sum of £493,000 as the book value of the IP. But the actual amount the patents would realise was described as "uncertain".

In a Final Account Prior to Dissolution, published today by Companies House, Mr Walls reveals details of a first and final dividend of 2.07 pence in the £ paid to preferential creditor HMRC. The revenue had lodged a claim for £100,650 which means it will receive approximately £2,083.

Unsecured creditors who will not receive a dividend of any kind are law firm Womble Bond Dickinson, owed £75,000 and KSA Group, due £100,000 for Mr Walls' remuneration.

The liquidator repeats earlier statements that he has complied with his obligations under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy has requested that the contents of the report remain confidential.

Mr Walls adds: "This is an extremely complex matter, further complicated by the compulsory liquidation of Omega and the bankruptcies of certain individuals connected to or associated with both the company and Omega".

Formal dissolution of AFS Ventures will occur automatically approximately three months from now.

 

Country house renovation ends in financial disaster

by DOUG COLLIE

A development company set up to renovate a Victorian manor house in the Scottish Borders ran up debts estimated at £2million after a potential sale fell through when the property suffered major damage as a result of a heating system failure.

Details of the financial problems which bedevilled the firm behind the restoration of Cardrona House, near Innerleithen, have been revealed in a so-called Statement of Proposals by administrators appointed by a finance company due £1.5 million from the failed business.

Margo Eyre Property Development Ltd. was set up in 2019 by Jennifer Anna Marguerite Redhead-Eyre who lives in the big house under a tenancy agreement. 

According to the report by administrators Michelle Elliot and Chad Griffin, of insolvency experts FRP Advisory, Ms Readhead-Eyre claims she is an unsecured creditor of the company and is owed £369,000 under a director's loan account.

A claim for £15,500 arising from 'disputed' legal fees has also been lodged by the law firm Clarity Simplicity Ltd which petitioned Selkirk Sheriff Court in May to have Margo Eyre Property Development wound up.

A month later Together Finance, the secured creditor, lodged a Court of Session notice of the appointment of administrators.

The Statement of Proposals filed at Companies House says: "The company's aim was to renovate the property [Cardrona House] to allow it to be sold at a profit. It is understood the company did not initially undertake any other trading activities and there are no other known assets".

Following the impact of COVID, the company applied for and secured Bounce Back loan support.

The administrators add: "In June 2022, the company re-financed its borrowings with a loan from Together Finance which was granted a standard security over the property and a floating charge.

"The property was marketed for sale and a deal was agreed in principle, with an expected completion date in January 2023. In December 2022 there was a failure of the heating system which resulted in significant water and other damage to the property. The purchaser subsequently withdrew from the sale".

The inability to sell the house meant Margo Eyre Property Development was unable to repay the loan owed to Together Finance. The director advised of a potential new buyer but details were not provided.

"Rescuing the company as a going concern will not be achieved", say the administrators, "as it did not have sufficient working capital to continue to trade in the short term, and insufficient assets to liquidate to satisfy creditor demands".

Even the secured creditor is unlikely to be repaid in full, explains the report. The intention is to dissolve the company as it is not anticipated there will be any funds available for distribution to unsecured creditors.

The last published accounts for Margo Eyre Property Development, covering the year to February 2023, showed an operating loss of £213,000 and net liabilities of £1.239 million. The business had no employees.

The administrators state: "An estimate of the property value has not been disclosed in order to protect commercial confidentiality ahead of the marketing process".

Cardrona House is a B-listed manorial-style property dating from 1841 and designed by prominent Scottish architect William Burn. The house was commissioned by Captain James Ker, who served in India with the 33rd Madras Regiment. The Ker family owned the Cardrona estates from 1685 until the 20th Century.

Empty 19th Century villa costs its owners over £1 million

by LESTER CROSS

A once-splendid early 19th Century classical villa by the banks of the River Tweed is to be marketed by estate agents seventeen years after the charity which owns it vacated the property.

Gattonside House, near Melrose, a former care home run by the Brothers of Charity [BOC] (Scotland), fell victim to vandals and to thieves who stole the roof lead after the religious order moved out in 2007. 

There have been a number of attempts since then to take forward plans aimed at converting the B Listed house into 15 flats with new build homes in the substantial grounds. But after development schemes were abandoned, the BOC Trustees were forced to take drastic action to safeguard the crumbling structure.

In 2022, Scottish Borders Council planners approved the installation of a temporary roof and scaffolding for a period of two years to enable permanent restoration of the damaged roofing timbers and slates. 

But now it has been revealed the extensive repairs to the roof have not been carried out. And agents for the Trustees have applied to the council for an extension to the current short-term measures. 

Solicitor Sandy Fowler, of the agents, Harper Macleod, explains in a report backing the fresh application for Listed Building Consent: "Whilst the dampness has now dried out as a result of the temporary roof being erected, it has been reported that wet rot and dry rot have spread throughout the building, including into the roof beams. 

"As a result, it is not feasible to simply replace the lead roof in isolation without undertaking significant further restoration works required to the residual building. Even if it were possible to complete the roof works in isolation without further addressing the wet and dry rot, our client has a very real concern that if the Council were to mandate the roof to be replaced at this point in time, then the replacement roof will simply be stolen once again whilst the building remains unoccupied."

Mr Fowler says Gattonside House is currently uninhabitable and will continue to remain unoccupied. 

He adds: "To evidence this concern, despite the continued existence of security fencing over the site, there is evidence that the site continues to be breached by intruders. Our clients are a charity, and to date, they have incurred significant expense in erecting the scaffolding and installing the temporary roof (approximately £900,000) and erecting and maintaining security fencing at a cost of approximately £120,000 per annum."

The initial cost of simply replacing the lead roof (without undertaking the further works required) have been estimated at approximately £850,000. 

"To sufficiently restore the roof will therefore involve addressing the wet and dry rot throughout the property, and given the vast sums involved, as well as the outlined security concerns, this will have to be completed by a developer as part of the overall restoration of the property under the Development Permission. The Property is currently in the process of being marketed with Savills to allow for a purchaser of the site to be found. 

According to Historic Environment Scotland's file on Gattonside House: "A well-detailed early 19th century Classical villa with additions by distinguished architects, John Smith, of Darnick, and Robert Lorimer, located beside the River Tweed overlooking the Eildon Hills. The bow-fronted, arcaded porch provides a striking central feature to the principal south facing elevation while inside, a fine top-lit inner hall with arcaded upper gallery is an important centre-piece to the arrangement of interior spaces, adding to the building's special interest.

"Between 1821-1824, Sir Adam and Lady Ferguson, close associates of Sir Walter Scott lived at Gattonside House. Following this the house was acquired by retired banker George Bainbridge who employed eminent local architect, John Smith of Darnick in 1824 to enlarge it."

The house was taken over by BOC in the early years of the 20th Century, and it functioned as St Aidan's Care Home for the charity until it was no longer required for that purpose. 

Ten years ago discussions were held between BOC and Rivertree Developments Ltd, a firm specialising in the conversion of large country houses with a view to forming a joint venture to ensure Gattonside's future. At the time it was estimated conversion work to produce 15 apartments would cost in excess of £2 million. However, the proposals did not proceed and a planning application was withdrawn in 2016.

 

Exit package remains hidden under wraps!

The never-ending saga of a simple request for information

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDITOR

This is the story of a Freedom of Information request with a lifespan (so far) of thirteen months which perfectly illustrates how the current FOI system is letting down those who use it while at the same time allows councils and other public bodies to conceal intelligence for longer.

It was back in June 2023 when the draft annual accounts for the previous fiscal year showed that a fortunate individual who had been on the payroll of Scottish Borders Council trousered an exit package worth £160,295 on leaving his or her employment.

When council sources suggested the sizeable award had gone to Netta Meadows, the short-lived SBC chief executive who departed in mysterious circumstances in September 2022 after just 15 months in post, a FOI request seemed the best way to find out where such a substantial wad of taxpayers' cash had gone.

In addition, the local government 'trade' paper Municipal Journal had carried a report suggesting Ms Meadows had submitted a grievance, with a hearing due to take place shortly before she left. 

So, the Borders local authority was asked for copies of all paperwork related to the procedure together with the reasons for her quitting the £136,000-a-year top job.

A month later came this response from People, Performance and Change at SBC: "The Council is obliged to publish details of any payments made to any employee who has a material controlling interest in the affairs of the Authority through the annual accounts remuneration statement. This applies to all members of the Council Management Team who held office during the year. No such payments were made to any Chief Officer in the year 2022/23.  Were any such payments to be made to an individual they would be disclosed within the remuneration statement.  

"As regards the further details you seek, the Council can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any such information.  Any such information held would be exempt from disclosure in accordance with S.38(1))b) of the Act on the grounds that it constitutes personal data and its release would contravene the principles contained in S.86-91 of the Data Protection Act 2018."

Applying to the council for a review of their decision seemed pointless. But under FOI regulations a requester has no choice if the case is to be appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner. The review process consumed another month of valuable time while interest in who had actually been given the £160,000 golden goodbye had already waned somewhat.

Needless to say, SBC stuck to its guns, and Commissioner David Hamilton was asked to intervene and investigate. Any hopes this would bring the lengthening email trail to a rapid end would soon be dashed.

The appeal was validated in early September 2023. But nothing more was heard from the Commissioner's office until December when there was a request for an update.

According to the SIC: "Please accept my apologies for how long you have been waiting for your case to be allocated to an investigator. I’m really sorry this process is taking so long.  Your case is one of 200 that are still awaiting allocation to an investigating officer.  

"However, our Head of Enforcement is in the process of assessing all of the cases in our backlog with a view to them all being transferred to an investigating officer and I can advise you that he reviewed your case this week.  Our office is also recruiting for additional investigators."

There seemed to be cause for optimism in January 2024 when this email arrived from the information watchdog: "Our new strategy -  From 1 January 2024, we will split our appeal caseload into two separate workstreams, with two distinct teams responsible for progressing appeal cases. Cases received prior to 1 January 2024 will be marked as ‘blue’ cases and progressed by a newly-established, highly effective and experienced team. Your appeal falls into the ‘blue’ category.

"Please be assured that we will continue to progress your application as quickly as possible. Where it appears appropriate, we will contact you shortly to confirm that you still have a live, ongoing interest in the information at the heart of your request and to explore whether there are any potential avenues to explore to resolve your application. My team may also provide you with an indication of the likely outcome of your case.  Please bear in mind that my investigator(s) assigned to the ‘blue’ cases are highly experienced members of my Enforcement Team and we would encourage you to consider the advice they provide you very carefully."

However, this proved to be yet another false dawn. Three months later another update was requested.

The response this time had a familiar ring about it: "Your application is currently awaiting allocation to an investigator. At this stage, I cannot give you a timescale for when it is likely to be allocated or when you can expect to receive a decision. 

"We will, however, endeavour to progress your case as quickly as we can. When your case is allocated to an investigator, they will contact you to introduce themselves and to set out the scope of their investigation. You may also be contacted prior to your case being allocated if potential avenues to resolve your application are identified. Further to the changes set out in our email of 23 January 2024, we have hired a number of new investigators this year and have two more investigators due to start with us at the end of the month. This will allow us to allocate cases more quickly."

With all remaining remnants of patience gone, SIC was approached on June 24th with the following message: "My request’s inclusion in the ‘blue’ category has failed to produce any progress, let alone reach a decision. This is extremely disappointing and frustrating. Can I respectfully ask for a detailed update on ‘progress’ with my case – has it even been allocated to an investigating officer? Has any contact been made with SBC? Under FOI regulations, public authorities are supposed to respond to requests within a given time. Are there parallel regulations for the timescale in which the SIC must produce a decision notice?"

In a rapid response received the same day, SIC declared: "I can confirm that there is not currently an investigating officer for your appeal. However progress has been made by our validation team, who handle certain initial steps before an investigator is assigned. We have requested information from the Scottish Borders Council, and received its comments in October 2023. 

"The investigating officer, when assigned, will get in touch with both you and the council to introduce themselves and ask you any follow up questions they may have. On the basis of this information a draft decision shall be prepared, and go through a two stage approval process. In terms of our timescales, section 49(3)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 states that (subject to certain qualifications that do not seem to apply to your case) the  Commissioner must "reach a decision on the application before the expiry of four months after receiving it, or before the expiry of such other period as is reasonable in the circumstances."

When it was pointed out to the SIC that the organisation was failing members of the public whose requests were blocked or denied by public bodies, the Commission provided a further response on July 17th.

This time they commented: "At this stage, it is not possible to provide a definitive timescale for when you can expect to receive a decision from the Commissioner. Generally, we would expect an investigation to conclude within a matter of months of the case being allocated to an investigator. 

"However, a number of factors can affect this (e.g. workloads, case complexity, the volume of information we are required to consider, etc.). Your case is currently awaiting allocation to an investigator. For the reasons set out in previous correspondence to you from the Commissioner’s office on this matter, we cannot, at present, provide an estimate date for when this will take place. We will inform you as soon as we are in a position to allocate and progress your case."

CONCLUSION: Scotland's FOI system appears to be in disarray if this case is typical of the hundreds awaiting decisions. As we reported yesterday, 197 requesters are still due an outcome more than twelve months after lodging appeals with the SIC.

Over 190 FOI appeals undecided after 12 month wait

by LESTER CROSS

There are calls for the Scottish Parliament to give the country's Information Commissioner "realistic resources" to deal with Freedom of Information [FOI] appeals after Not Just Sheep & Rugby was told a total of 197 live cases have been on the watchdog's files for more than 12 months.

The sheer scale of the long-term backlog facing staff working for Scottish Information Commissioner [SIC] David Hamilton was revealed after one of our own information requests - originally submitted to Scottish Borders Council in June 2023 - fell victim to lengthy delays after it went to appeal.

We were told earlier this month that our application to the Commissioner which was validated as long ago as last September has still not been allocated to an investigating officer. And the SIC could give no indication when a decision notice would be issued.

After discovering that another FOI requester from the Borders had waited more than two years for her case to be dealt with, we asked the Commission in June: "How many ‘live’ cases currently on the SIC’s books were raised with you at least 12 months ago?"

Our question was deemed to be a FOI request. In a response received last week we were told: "I can confirm that, as of 25 June 2024, we had 197 live cases that were raised with us at least 12 months ago (i.e. on 25 June 2023 or earlier)."

The lengthening list of cases being processed by the SIC has been a matter of concern for stakeholders in the FOI system for some considerable time. But the number raised more than a year ago and still not signed off will do little to lessen the frustration felt by those waiting for decisions.

In February, Mr Hamilton told a Parliamentary committee: "It is unfortunate that we have a backlog, which has built up. As with many organisations, that is partly down to COVID and its legacy, but we are now dealing with it. 

"Fundamentally, we could not keep up with the demand that was coming in, but we have now put measures in place whereby we have stopped the bleed, and we have control of the situation. We are dealing with the backlog in a managed and slightly different way, which has generally been well received across the organisation."

The Commissioner's concern had been that, if someone were to put in an appeal to his office "today", without any action being taken, they could wait for 18 months or two years before it was even considered, which was not an acceptable position to be in. 

He added: "We have now made it a straight-through process, and all the cases that have come in since the beginning of January are progressing straight through to allocation and investigation. That is for dealing with the current cases. Of course, we need to deal with the backlog, too, and we are working on that."

We asked the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland (CFOIS) to comment on the backlog of 197 long-term appeals currently with the SIC.

Carole Ewart, director of the Campaign, pointed out that FOI law in Scotland was only powerful because the rights and duties were enforceable and freely accessible through the powers of the Scottish Information Commissioner.  

She said: "Therefore delays in progressing FOI appeals weakens the regime overall, is hugely frustrating and annoying for requesters and harms the public interest as the system enables information to be kept secret for longer.   The lengthy and established backlog of FOI appeals to the Commissioner proves that the Scottish Parliament must reform Scotland’s outdated FOI law so duty bearers get decisions right first time and allocate realistic resources to the Commissioner to ensure the appeals system operates efficiently.  Consequently there is no operational or reputational advantage to designated public bodies refusing disclosure of information on spurious grounds."

 CFOIS is urging people to support Labour MSP Katy Clark's Bill to reform the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 as it would "strengthen rights and duties".  

Ms Ewart added: "The law is now 22 years old and the range of operational problems is increasing from levels of non-compliance such as the failure to respond to requests within 20 working days and the problem of outsourcing public services to other bodies making accessing information difficult. We look forward to supporting the Bill because the public interest is served by working together to build a resilient future for FOI".

COMING NEXT: OUR EXPERIENCE AT THE HANDS OF THE FOI SYSTEM

Borders bid for National Park status 'lacked coherence'

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

An assessment panel which considered five nominations for the designation of Scotland's third national park rejected a bid from a Borders campaign group and claimed opposition from the local council had been an important factor in their decision.

A rival bid from nearby Galloway will now be taken forward following the approval of Scottish government ministers.

The Borders campaign started in 2016 to promote the benefits of a new designation for an area of the former county of Roxburghshire as a national park adjoining the existing Northumberland National Park on the south side of the Cheviot Hills.

Promoters commissioned an independent study which was published in 2017.  The document claimed that the proposed area met the three conditions for National Park status required by Scottish legislation and reported enthusiastic support from local people, communities and businesses.  

It argued that designation would strengthen the economy within the National Park and the surrounding area, encouraging tourism and attracting other companies to the region. It also suggested that establishing and running a National Park need not be costly but would soon yield a substantial return on investment.

However, campaigners were dealt a devastating blow last December when members of Scottish Borders Council voted 27-2 to back a recommendation by local authority officers not to support the establishment of a park.

The report to council cited potential negative impacts, including increased house prices, additional bureaucracy and pressures on infrastructure and services. Members also criticised the park proposal for not incorporating in its geographical area large parts of the Borders.

Former council leader David Parker declared: "This has been a half-baked proposal since its inception. We have had seven years for the campaign group to set out why we should have a Borders National Park and they have consistently failed to to do that.

“In fact is this is not a Scottish Borders National Park, it’s a bit of Roxburgh National Park, with most of the Borders not included in it."

In their final report published today, the independent panel chaired by Simon Fuller, states: "Whilst smaller than the existing two National Parks, the area proposed (c.136,000 hectares) was deemed by the expert panel to be of an appropriate size for consideration as a National Park. The panel felt the coherence of the proposal could be clearer, particularly in relation to the River Tweed, which featured prominently in the nomination text, but was much less central to the geography of the proposed National Park area."

The panel recognised that a limited number of natural heritage designations within the area were of outstanding national importance with the River Tweed being an important Special Area of Conservation (SAC). However, it was noted that the Tweed fell only partly within the boundary of the nomination.

"In terms of how a National Park in the Borders could meet the special needs of the area, the nomination lacks a coherent assessment of the vision and opportunities for natural heritage enhancement. It demonstrates a good understanding of the pressures and opportunities of National Park designation for enhancement of cultural heritage. The nomination presents a range of issues relating to the sustainable use of natural resources and the area’s social and economic needs, however there is a lack of specific detail about how National Park designation could help to address these issues."

The panel assessment also claimed the role of a National Park in promoting tourism and addressing visitor management issues was not coherently set out in the nomination. 

"It does not appear to take account of wider regional or national strategies. The nomination presents some issues that are of wider strategic importance and identifies the general role of a National Park, however it lacks specific detail of how a National Park in the Borders would address issues such as climate change mitigation and adaptation and nature friendly farming."

The nomination lacked more recent evidence of local support. Support from local businesses and community councils was mentioned but not evidenced. 

"The nomination has not been supported by Scottish Borders Council and a resolution by the Council states that it does not believe that a compelling and cogent case for a National Park in the Scottish Borders has been made. The panel noted that further public and stakeholder engagement and consultation would need to be undertaken to determine the level of local support comprehensively."

The panel’s overall assessment was that the Scottish Borders nomination did not sufficiently meet the appraisal criteria and therefore should not currently be considered for designation as a new National Park. The opposition to the nomination from Scottish Borders Council was also considered to be important.