by EWAN LAMB
The latest set of statistics from Scotland's Local Government Benchworking Framework (LGBF) shows expenditure on the Borders roads network is less than half the Scottish average even though almost 40% of the region's A routes and more than 45% of B roads are in need of repair.
A spend of just £4,897 per kilometre in 2017/18 by Scottish Borders Council in its role as roads authority compares very unfavourably with the £10,547 per kilometre average recorded by the country's other 31 local authorities. The Borders figure is the second lowest in Scotland and is even below the amount spent in 2013/14 (£5,084).
The LGBF tables reveal 38% of A class roads in Scottish Borders need attention, the fourth highest percentage and well above the 30% average. The position is even more serious for Borders road users when it comes to B routes;46% of those are in need of repair - the second highest proportion in Scotland and a full ten per cent higher than average.
There has also been a fall in the spend per primary and secondary pupil in Borders schools since 2013/14, a trend experienced across Scotland as councils reacted to the impact of public spending austerity.
The figures in this section show SBC spent £4,837 for each primary aged pupil and £6,658 per secondary pupil in 2017/18. Scotland's average sums were £4,974 and £5,014 respectively. Back in 2013/14 Borders expenditure for each primary school child stood at £4,959 while secondary pupils accounted for £6,899 per head.
Information is also available on spending and performance levels across a number of other local government departments including Corporate Services, Adult Social Care, Economic Development and Environmental Services.
A previous article looked at LGBF's data on Culture & Leisure Services which appeared to show low levels of satisfaction with Borders libraries, museums and galleries and sports facilities. SBC has produced its own set of figures which paint a much brighter picture so far as these services are concerned.
SBC devotes 7% of its total running costs on administration - two per centage points higher than the Scottish average of 5%. The gender balance in more senior posts at SBC at 42.6% compares with a Scotland wide level of 54.6%.
The Borders local authority spends far less her house on council tax collection (£4.24) than the national average (£7.35), and has a very impressive 97% collection rate for the tax, ahead of the 96% average.
But according to the LGBF website while SBC is good at collecting cash it is not so keen to part with it. A meagre 78% of invoices were paid on time in 2017/18, the 'worst' percentage in Scotland's local government system where councils averaged 93%.
The number of Borders council buildings deemed to be in satisfactory condition (62%) is the second lowest with an average of 86% of Scottish municipal properties classed as 'satisfactory'. In 2013/14 the Borders figure was 91.6%, way above the average 80.9%.
The Economic Development section shows only 4.2% of unemployed people were assisted into jobs by the SBC service in 2017/18 - Scotland's average was 14.4%.
Borders council was near the top of the league table for efficiency in dealing with planning applications. The average time taken to process and decide an application was 6.7 weeks, the third shortest in Scotland and well ahead of the average 9.3 weeks.
The percentage of procurement spend on locally based small and medium enterprises was 23% in the case of SBC against the median of 27% while the amount of expenditure on economic development and tourism at £43,132 per 1,000 people was far less than average (£91,806).
Numbers of properties in the Scottish Borders receiving super-fast broadband shot up from 30% in 2013/14 to 81%. Scotland's average currently stands at 91%. The number of vacant town centre properties at 12% is the same as the average figure.
The Borders recycles 40% of its household waste compared to a 46% average while the spend of £12,224 per 1,000 people on environmental health is short of the Scottish average (£15,496).
Sunday, 10 February 2019
Saturday, 9 February 2019
Confusion reigns over performance statistics
EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE
Scottish Borders Council has found it necessary to 'correct' national data which appears to show public satisfaction with the region's libraries, museums and galleries is lower than in any of the other 31 local authority areas in Scotland.
According to the latest figures published on Scotland's Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF) website only 52.3% of people give Borders libraries the thumbs up compared with an average 73% across Scotland. Between 2012 and 2015 the satisfaction level for local libraries stood at 66.3%, but even then the figure was well below the 80.3% Scottish median.
In the case of museums and galleries - like libraries now managed for the council by Live Borders - the LGBF rating is a dismal 40.7%, again the 'worst' in Scotland which enjoyed an average satisfaction level of 70%. Borders museums and galleries had an approval rating of 58% in the 2012-15 period against Scotland's average of 76.3%.
LGBF also includes figures for satisfaction with local leisure facilities, and here again Scottish Borders performs poorly at 59% (the second lowest percentage in the country) and trailing the average 72.7%. The data for 2012-15 awarded Borders a 68.7% approval rating in this category while Scotland averaged 78%.
Although it would seem Borders councillors should be concerned by the Framework statistics, the authority's Executive will hear on Tuesday (February 12th) that approval ratings for libraries and museums are in fact well over 80% with the standard of sports and leisure facilities satisfying 77% of local residents.
These levels of approval would place the region's culture and leisure services near the top of Scotland's league table but must confuse anyone who has taken the trouble to peruse LGBF's returns. So why are SBC's conclusions so radically different from those of the Benchmarking team?
The report which the council's influential Executive will have before them relates to the Scottish Borders Household Survey, conducted by the council in 2018. It includes the following passages:
Scottish Borders Council has found it necessary to 'correct' national data which appears to show public satisfaction with the region's libraries, museums and galleries is lower than in any of the other 31 local authority areas in Scotland.
According to the latest figures published on Scotland's Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF) website only 52.3% of people give Borders libraries the thumbs up compared with an average 73% across Scotland. Between 2012 and 2015 the satisfaction level for local libraries stood at 66.3%, but even then the figure was well below the 80.3% Scottish median.
In the case of museums and galleries - like libraries now managed for the council by Live Borders - the LGBF rating is a dismal 40.7%, again the 'worst' in Scotland which enjoyed an average satisfaction level of 70%. Borders museums and galleries had an approval rating of 58% in the 2012-15 period against Scotland's average of 76.3%.
LGBF also includes figures for satisfaction with local leisure facilities, and here again Scottish Borders performs poorly at 59% (the second lowest percentage in the country) and trailing the average 72.7%. The data for 2012-15 awarded Borders a 68.7% approval rating in this category while Scotland averaged 78%.
Although it would seem Borders councillors should be concerned by the Framework statistics, the authority's Executive will hear on Tuesday (February 12th) that approval ratings for libraries and museums are in fact well over 80% with the standard of sports and leisure facilities satisfying 77% of local residents.
These levels of approval would place the region's culture and leisure services near the top of Scotland's league table but must confuse anyone who has taken the trouble to peruse LGBF's returns. So why are SBC's conclusions so radically different from those of the Benchmarking team?
The report which the council's influential Executive will have before them relates to the Scottish Borders Household Survey, conducted by the council in 2018. It includes the following passages:
"Local services managed by Live Borders (a) At first
glance the levels of satisfaction with services managed by Live Borders, on
behalf of the Council, appear to be low. However, the number of respondents that
do not have an opinion/don’t use the services does have a significant effect on
the results. When only the responses from those that expressed an opinion/use
the service are analysed satisfaction increased markedly.
"(b) The Scottish Borders Household Survey 2018 shows
satisfaction with sports and leisure facilities at 77%; satisfaction in the LGBF
is 59%. Similarly satisfaction with libraries is greater in our local survey
(86%) than the results from the national Scottish Household Survey used in the
LGBF (52%). Satisfaction with museums and galleries is 87% compared to 40% in
the LGBF."
Public doubts concerning the reliability of the figures will only be compounded when attention turns to satisfaction levels with local schools. In this case the Borders household survey produced a low 44% approval rating.
But the survey report explains: "Overall satisfaction with schools initially appears to
be low at 44% however when the ‘don’t know’ and ‘do not use’ responses are
discounted the overall satisfaction increases to 73%. These results are
favourable when measured against the Scottish Household Survey which shows
satisfaction with schools in the Scottish Borders as 62% and 70% for
Scotland."
However the LGBF says satisfaction with Borders schools stands at 67% (Scottish average 72.3%). Back in 2013/14 the Borders figure was 71.7% while the Scottish median was recorded as 81%.
The age old phrase "Lies, damned lies and statistics" may well apply in this case.
Thursday, 7 February 2019
More financial woes at Borders council
by DOUG COLLIE
The local authority which recently splashed out almost £10 million to buy a country estate and borrowed a similar sum from the Public Works Loans Board is now facing revenue deficits at the end of the financial year which will require another round of cuts to public services.
Scottish Borders Council's financial plight is outlined in a report to be considered by the Executive Committee next week.
In it chief financial officer David Robertson details the budget pressures which will see a significant overspend for 2018/19,
The report warns: "At this stage in the financial year the Council continues to experience considerable financial pressures, primarily in Assets & Infrastructure and Health & Social Care, attributable both to increased costs and to delays in the delivery of planned savings required by the revenue budget. The underlying pressure in the account indicates that these pressures could result in an adverse variance at the year-end of around £1 million unless further action is taken."
Mr Robertson says the council's Corporate Management Team (CMT) has reviewed the position and taken action through a range of alternative measures to identify savings which, if delivered as intended, will offset this position and deliver a balanced budget by the 31st March 2019.
Local government services in the Scottish Borders have been decimated in recent years as the council imposed millions of pounds of spending cuts annually after their allocation of cash from the Scottish Government was reduced.
But in December it was confirmed SBC had paid the Hamilton family £9.6 million to buy the remainder of their Lowood Estate, near Melrose, to accommodate housing and industrial development. There has been criticism of the decision to spend millions on a custom-built gallery to house the Great Tapestry of Scotland in Galashiels, a project due to get underway in the spring of this year.
In a reference to that particular scheme Mr Robertson writes: "There has been an acceleration of revenue costs from 2019/20 relating to the Great Tapestry of Scotland project which are being funded from budget transfer from elsewhere in the Council.".
The report to councillors states: "Compounding the service pressures are costs associated with national pay agreements for 2018/19. These costs are projected to be in the region of £2 m in 2018/19, over and above thee costs originally budgeted for. Of this total £1.019 m of this total will attract assumed funding from the Scottish Government to fund additional teacher pay costs above the original Scottish Government pay offer.
"The remaining costs relate to the SJC / Chief Officers pay offer and will fall to the Council. These additional costs are based on best estimates of a complicated and currently still evolving position which does not yet have the agreement of the Trade Unions."
It is increasingly evident. claims Mr Robertson, that the Council is finding it more and more difficult to balance the revenue budget given the sustained service demands e.g. in the number and costs of care packages being commissioned by Adult Social Care, and the pressures associated with pay and price inflation.
"It is essential to ensure the financial sustainability of the council that the revenue budget is balanced and that this is achieved through the delivery of permanent savings in line with the timescales approved in the financial plan. CMT has recognised the need to enhance the delivery of service change and savings through a revised approach, which if approved will commence in 2019/20.
"Inevitably, in a change programme of this size some areas are lagging behind expectation or have been subject to revision requiring revision to original plans. The original plan for £3.3 m of savings delivered temporarily in 2018/19 will now be addressed on a permanent basis from new proposals as part of the 2019/20 financial planning process.
"These revised plans will result in permanent cost reductions and as such they have been reflected as being delivered on a permanent basis. The remaining £4.650 m of planned permanent savings, which were delayed in the current year and required to be offset temporary measures, will now be delivered on a permanent basis in 2019/20."
In a section of his report dealing with SBC's cash balances, Mr Robertson reports: "The total of all usable balances, excluding developer contributions, at 31 March 2019 is projected to be £21.071 m, compared to £28.793 at 31 March 2018." It appears the available money in the council's coffers has decreased by nore than £7 million or some 25% in the space of 12 months.
Turning to Risk and Mitigation, the chief financial officer writes:"The major risks associated with this report are that the level of projected balances proves to be insufficient. Service budget pressures plus unexpected liabilities are the most likely sources of pressure on reserves. Current pressures being highlighted through the 2018/19 revenue monitoring process increase the likelihood of a draw down from reserves being required in 2018/19."
It looks as though elected members will have some tough decisions to make before the 2019/20 budget is set and new council tax demands are fixed.
A council critic commented: "“It looks as though the budget has been appallingly managed. Those in charge appear to have failed miserably to get on top of the finances which means the council budget this year is about £3 million light.
"Yet more cuts will be necessary and the nature of the savings may be revealed by the end of February. An alternative budget proposed by the non-Tories will no doubt be presented but the Conservative-led majority will win and we can look forward to significant cuts in services due to incompetent management."
The local authority which recently splashed out almost £10 million to buy a country estate and borrowed a similar sum from the Public Works Loans Board is now facing revenue deficits at the end of the financial year which will require another round of cuts to public services.
Scottish Borders Council's financial plight is outlined in a report to be considered by the Executive Committee next week.
In it chief financial officer David Robertson details the budget pressures which will see a significant overspend for 2018/19,
The report warns: "At this stage in the financial year the Council continues to experience considerable financial pressures, primarily in Assets & Infrastructure and Health & Social Care, attributable both to increased costs and to delays in the delivery of planned savings required by the revenue budget. The underlying pressure in the account indicates that these pressures could result in an adverse variance at the year-end of around £1 million unless further action is taken."
Mr Robertson says the council's Corporate Management Team (CMT) has reviewed the position and taken action through a range of alternative measures to identify savings which, if delivered as intended, will offset this position and deliver a balanced budget by the 31st March 2019.
Local government services in the Scottish Borders have been decimated in recent years as the council imposed millions of pounds of spending cuts annually after their allocation of cash from the Scottish Government was reduced.
But in December it was confirmed SBC had paid the Hamilton family £9.6 million to buy the remainder of their Lowood Estate, near Melrose, to accommodate housing and industrial development. There has been criticism of the decision to spend millions on a custom-built gallery to house the Great Tapestry of Scotland in Galashiels, a project due to get underway in the spring of this year.
In a reference to that particular scheme Mr Robertson writes: "There has been an acceleration of revenue costs from 2019/20 relating to the Great Tapestry of Scotland project which are being funded from budget transfer from elsewhere in the Council.".
The report to councillors states: "Compounding the service pressures are costs associated with national pay agreements for 2018/19. These costs are projected to be in the region of £2 m in 2018/19, over and above thee costs originally budgeted for. Of this total £1.019 m of this total will attract assumed funding from the Scottish Government to fund additional teacher pay costs above the original Scottish Government pay offer.
"The remaining costs relate to the SJC / Chief Officers pay offer and will fall to the Council. These additional costs are based on best estimates of a complicated and currently still evolving position which does not yet have the agreement of the Trade Unions."
It is increasingly evident. claims Mr Robertson, that the Council is finding it more and more difficult to balance the revenue budget given the sustained service demands e.g. in the number and costs of care packages being commissioned by Adult Social Care, and the pressures associated with pay and price inflation.
"It is essential to ensure the financial sustainability of the council that the revenue budget is balanced and that this is achieved through the delivery of permanent savings in line with the timescales approved in the financial plan. CMT has recognised the need to enhance the delivery of service change and savings through a revised approach, which if approved will commence in 2019/20.
"Inevitably, in a change programme of this size some areas are lagging behind expectation or have been subject to revision requiring revision to original plans. The original plan for £3.3 m of savings delivered temporarily in 2018/19 will now be addressed on a permanent basis from new proposals as part of the 2019/20 financial planning process.
"These revised plans will result in permanent cost reductions and as such they have been reflected as being delivered on a permanent basis. The remaining £4.650 m of planned permanent savings, which were delayed in the current year and required to be offset temporary measures, will now be delivered on a permanent basis in 2019/20."
In a section of his report dealing with SBC's cash balances, Mr Robertson reports: "The total of all usable balances, excluding developer contributions, at 31 March 2019 is projected to be £21.071 m, compared to £28.793 at 31 March 2018." It appears the available money in the council's coffers has decreased by nore than £7 million or some 25% in the space of 12 months.
Turning to Risk and Mitigation, the chief financial officer writes:"The major risks associated with this report are that the level of projected balances proves to be insufficient. Service budget pressures plus unexpected liabilities are the most likely sources of pressure on reserves. Current pressures being highlighted through the 2018/19 revenue monitoring process increase the likelihood of a draw down from reserves being required in 2018/19."
It looks as though elected members will have some tough decisions to make before the 2019/20 budget is set and new council tax demands are fixed.
A council critic commented: "“It looks as though the budget has been appallingly managed. Those in charge appear to have failed miserably to get on top of the finances which means the council budget this year is about £3 million light.
"Yet more cuts will be necessary and the nature of the savings may be revealed by the end of February. An alternative budget proposed by the non-Tories will no doubt be presented but the Conservative-led majority will win and we can look forward to significant cuts in services due to incompetent management."
Wednesday, 6 February 2019
Liquidators not giving up despite court defeat
EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD
The joint liquidators of the Isle of Man recycling investment fund which was supposed to build a £23 million waste treatment plant for Scottish Borders Council will continue to quiz the former directors over the loss of £170 million of shareholders' cash.
Alex Adam and David Craine, the liquidators investigating the failure of New Earth Recycling & Renewables (Infrasturucture) [NERR] and two feeder funds have updated creditors in the wake of a decision in the Manx courts. The judge rejected their request to bring NERR directors Michael Richardson and John Bourbon before a court to be examined under oath.
The lengthy and extremely complicated liquidation - so far it has generated more than 200,000 documents - is being funded by the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority (IOMFSA) which has been heavily criticised for an alleged failure to investigate NERR and other investment businesses managed by Premier Group Isle of Man (also insolvent).
In their latest report to creditors Mr Adam and Mr Craine explain: "Further to the winding up of the Company, the appointment of the Joint Liquidators and our earlier updates, the Joint Liquidators write to confirm the outcome of the application to interview Messrs Richardson and Bourbon in Court in relation to their role as two of the controlling minds of the Company.
"Regretfully in a judgement dated 14 January 2019 the Isle of Man Court rejected the Joint Liquidators’ application. The Joint Liquidators are extremely disappointed by this outcome. Such applications are rare (because directors typically cooperate with office holders). In circumstances where the directors had presided over a c £170 million loss to investors and refused to voluntarily attend for oral interview, we had expected that the Court would appreciate the office holders’ understandable desire to ensure that matters were not delayed further than was absolutely necessary."
Unfortunately, the Court ruled that the Joint Liquidators had not sufficiently demonstrated that there was no alternative other than an oral examination.
But the report adds: "Whilst we do not agree, when the Court exercises its discretion in such matters there is little prospect of a successful appeal and, in any case, any appeal would result in further delay.
"Nevertheless, the Joint Liquidators remain committed to fully investigating the circumstances which led to the failure of NERR (and its feeder funds) and will continue to seek to obtain information from the directors through written correspondence. Unfortunately, this process is now likely to be more protracted and costly than oral interviews. It is worth noting that the Court has left open a further application in the future, should written correspondence prove ineffective."
Scottish Borders Council's involvement in a multi-million pounds contract with waste treatment specialists New Earth Solutions (also insolvent and now dissolved) and their investment partners NERR cost local taxpayers at least £2.5 million.
The cash was spent - mainly on expensive consultants and lawyers - between 2011 and 2015 in a vain attempt to deliver the urgently needed treatment facility for Borders rubbish at Easter Langlee, Galashiels. The project had to be abandoned when New Earth Solutions could not provide fit for purpose technology and NERR failed to come up with the cash.
The fact that NES, NERR and Premier Group are all now bankrupt tells its own story. And yet the regulatory authorities here in Scotland, including Audit Scotland, refused to investigate the council's actions throughout the sorry saga.
The joint liquidators of the Isle of Man recycling investment fund which was supposed to build a £23 million waste treatment plant for Scottish Borders Council will continue to quiz the former directors over the loss of £170 million of shareholders' cash.
Alex Adam and David Craine, the liquidators investigating the failure of New Earth Recycling & Renewables (Infrasturucture) [NERR] and two feeder funds have updated creditors in the wake of a decision in the Manx courts. The judge rejected their request to bring NERR directors Michael Richardson and John Bourbon before a court to be examined under oath.
The lengthy and extremely complicated liquidation - so far it has generated more than 200,000 documents - is being funded by the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority (IOMFSA) which has been heavily criticised for an alleged failure to investigate NERR and other investment businesses managed by Premier Group Isle of Man (also insolvent).
In their latest report to creditors Mr Adam and Mr Craine explain: "Further to the winding up of the Company, the appointment of the Joint Liquidators and our earlier updates, the Joint Liquidators write to confirm the outcome of the application to interview Messrs Richardson and Bourbon in Court in relation to their role as two of the controlling minds of the Company.
"Regretfully in a judgement dated 14 January 2019 the Isle of Man Court rejected the Joint Liquidators’ application. The Joint Liquidators are extremely disappointed by this outcome. Such applications are rare (because directors typically cooperate with office holders). In circumstances where the directors had presided over a c £170 million loss to investors and refused to voluntarily attend for oral interview, we had expected that the Court would appreciate the office holders’ understandable desire to ensure that matters were not delayed further than was absolutely necessary."
Unfortunately, the Court ruled that the Joint Liquidators had not sufficiently demonstrated that there was no alternative other than an oral examination.
But the report adds: "Whilst we do not agree, when the Court exercises its discretion in such matters there is little prospect of a successful appeal and, in any case, any appeal would result in further delay.
"Nevertheless, the Joint Liquidators remain committed to fully investigating the circumstances which led to the failure of NERR (and its feeder funds) and will continue to seek to obtain information from the directors through written correspondence. Unfortunately, this process is now likely to be more protracted and costly than oral interviews. It is worth noting that the Court has left open a further application in the future, should written correspondence prove ineffective."
Scottish Borders Council's involvement in a multi-million pounds contract with waste treatment specialists New Earth Solutions (also insolvent and now dissolved) and their investment partners NERR cost local taxpayers at least £2.5 million.
The cash was spent - mainly on expensive consultants and lawyers - between 2011 and 2015 in a vain attempt to deliver the urgently needed treatment facility for Borders rubbish at Easter Langlee, Galashiels. The project had to be abandoned when New Earth Solutions could not provide fit for purpose technology and NERR failed to come up with the cash.
The fact that NES, NERR and Premier Group are all now bankrupt tells its own story. And yet the regulatory authorities here in Scotland, including Audit Scotland, refused to investigate the council's actions throughout the sorry saga.
Tuesday, 5 February 2019
Tweedbank retail fears countered by developer
EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE
The claims made by objectors that a £14 million retail park including a 71-bedroom Premier Inn hotel at Tweedbank in the Central Borders will have a devastating impact on the economy of nearby towns as well as inflicting environmental damage have been dismissed by representatives of the developers.
Fears have been expressed that local businesses in Melrose and Galashiels will be forced to close once the proposed scheme is up and running as it will attract customers and footfall away from the high streets.
In addition experts say the loss of a large number of mature trees to make way for the construction work is unacceptable. Many of those trees are the subject of a Scottish Borders Council TPO (Tree Preservation Order).
But an Economic Impact report prepared for the project applicants, Edinburgh-based Manor Place Developments, includes some big numbers on job creation, investment and expenditure by additional visitors.
The study by Turley Economics, of Manchester, explains the project constitutes:: • 71-bedroom Premier Inn hotel with landscaping and car-parking • 2,044 square metre foodstore • 167 square metre Costa drive-thru restaurant ; and • BP Petrol Filing Station with M&S/Wildbean Kiosk (Sui Generis). The application site covers about 5.8 hectares and has never been developed, despite being land zoned for development for around 40 years as part of the Tweedbank Industrial Estate.
Turley's report in support of the planning application says: "The construction phase will support important investment in the construction sector, equating to £14.25 million, inclusive of professional fees and infrastructure costs. Investment of this scale could be expected to support a gross average of 95 FTE (full time equivalent) construction-related jobs on site over the anticipated 15 month construction period."
An assessment of Investment and Gross Employment concludes: "Applying the appropriate GVA (Gross Value Added) measures to the net additional employment impact generated by construction indicates that an additional £9.3 million in GVA could be generated".
The claims made by objectors that a £14 million retail park including a 71-bedroom Premier Inn hotel at Tweedbank in the Central Borders will have a devastating impact on the economy of nearby towns as well as inflicting environmental damage have been dismissed by representatives of the developers.
Fears have been expressed that local businesses in Melrose and Galashiels will be forced to close once the proposed scheme is up and running as it will attract customers and footfall away from the high streets.
In addition experts say the loss of a large number of mature trees to make way for the construction work is unacceptable. Many of those trees are the subject of a Scottish Borders Council TPO (Tree Preservation Order).
But an Economic Impact report prepared for the project applicants, Edinburgh-based Manor Place Developments, includes some big numbers on job creation, investment and expenditure by additional visitors.
The study by Turley Economics, of Manchester, explains the project constitutes:: • 71-bedroom Premier Inn hotel with landscaping and car-parking • 2,044 square metre foodstore • 167 square metre Costa drive-thru restaurant ; and • BP Petrol Filing Station with M&S/Wildbean Kiosk (Sui Generis). The application site covers about 5.8 hectares and has never been developed, despite being land zoned for development for around 40 years as part of the Tweedbank Industrial Estate.
Turley's report in support of the planning application says: "The construction phase will support important investment in the construction sector, equating to £14.25 million, inclusive of professional fees and infrastructure costs. Investment of this scale could be expected to support a gross average of 95 FTE (full time equivalent) construction-related jobs on site over the anticipated 15 month construction period."
An assessment of Investment and Gross Employment concludes: "Applying the appropriate GVA (Gross Value Added) measures to the net additional employment impact generated by construction indicates that an additional £9.3 million in GVA could be generated".
The report then examines net additional employment following completion. It says: "Evidence supplied by the client
shows the development will support a total of 125 gross jobs on
site during its operational phase. Once splits between the number of full and
part-time workers have been accounted for, the gross FTE jobs supported will number 75."
And Turley predict a bonus for the council in the shape of extra business rates. Analysis of similar properties indicates that
the business rates to be collected annually by the council once the businesses are operational, will equate to some £370,000 per
annum.
The new Premier Inn's guests will also bring benefits to the local economy, claims the assessment document.
The 71 hotel rooms are expected to accommodate about 29,250 overnight stays on an annual basis. The
accommodated guests could be expected to spend up to £1 million annually in
the local economy. This figure represents wider
spending that will be generated on retail and leisure
activities, not inclusive of expenditure on accommodation and transport to and
from the destination.
In conclusion Turley say: "- Both the temporary construction and lasting
operational economic impacts of the proposed development will support local and
national policy commitments to driving sustainable economic development.
Positive impacts in terms of employment and productivity will be generated, and
will therefore support and drive further growth in Scottish Borders’ economy,
particularly in terms of the local tourism industry."
The developer's planning consultant Phil Pritchett states in an email to council planners: "It should be noted that the Premier Inn is focused on
providing high quality and reliable bedroom accommodation with a limited food
and beverage offering. The new visitors expected would therefore seek out food
and beverage offerings locally. Melrose in particular stands to gain
significantly from the locational qualities of the hotel and there will
therefore be a positive knock on effect on the town as a result."
In a reference to concerns over potential losses caused by tree felling on site Mr Pritchett says: "It does not appear to have been mentioned by respondents regarding the
overall quality of the TPOd trees and also the fact that a large swathe of
trees within the same TPO area were removed by the council when it was
considering sites to accommodate the Great Tapestry of Scotland.
"The proposed
use was not in that instance for employment use whereas the
council supported the location and also the removal of all of the trees. This
remains a material consideration in the determination of this planning application as the reasons given for locating the Great
Tapestry for Scotland at Tweedbank are similar to those which we have given in
support of this tourism related proposal."
710-page file makes interesting reading
EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB
The publication of a thick file of information provides a detailed insight into payments made by Scottish Borders Council to its suppliers over the last two years.
A Freedom of Information request to SBC by Nikhil Prabhu who has lodged similar FOIs with local authorities throughout the UK asked for "all transactions over £500 from 1st April 2017 to 31st December 2018".
The council supplied Mr Prabhu with 710 pages of data which he has posted on the What Do You Know website. SBC's own FOI archive has not been updated for a year which means Freedom of Information request 12570 may not be available locally for some time.
Each entry on the file gives a date, the name of the business receiving the cash and the amount paid to them. In many instances multiple payments are recorded as having been made to the same supplier.
Details of the goods or services provided are not included in the disclosure so any of the items featured in this Not Just Sheep & Rugby article will be reproduced without comment.
The amounts vary from repeat transactions running into millions of pounds to Scottish Borders Education Partnership which manages three Public Private Partnership schools and IT specialists CGI to individual payments involving Borders pubs and restaurants.
Law firms and consultants including a selection of recruitment firms have been paid sizeable sums for services. At the more modest end of the financial scale SBC has paid money to a diverse range of suppliers from Eskdale Shooting Services which, according to its website, provides "luxury bespoke game shooting packages" (£5,194 and £1,680) to Where's The One - music workshops and team building - seven payments totalling some £20,000.
A £1,000 payment was made by SBC on 21st July 2017 to "BRS Conservatives" and on June 14th 2018 £1,560 was paid to offshore law firm Mourant Ozannes. Their website indicates they advise on the laws of British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guernsey and Jersey.
Council taxpayers will no doubt wish to browse the document to see for themselves where their cash ended up. The remainder of our selection - including a number of multiple transactions - is published in the form set out in the file sent to Mr Prabhu. By way of explanation each item has a date followed by the name of the recipient, then the amount paid.
The publication of a thick file of information provides a detailed insight into payments made by Scottish Borders Council to its suppliers over the last two years.
A Freedom of Information request to SBC by Nikhil Prabhu who has lodged similar FOIs with local authorities throughout the UK asked for "all transactions over £500 from 1st April 2017 to 31st December 2018".
The council supplied Mr Prabhu with 710 pages of data which he has posted on the What Do You Know website. SBC's own FOI archive has not been updated for a year which means Freedom of Information request 12570 may not be available locally for some time.
Each entry on the file gives a date, the name of the business receiving the cash and the amount paid to them. In many instances multiple payments are recorded as having been made to the same supplier.
Details of the goods or services provided are not included in the disclosure so any of the items featured in this Not Just Sheep & Rugby article will be reproduced without comment.
The amounts vary from repeat transactions running into millions of pounds to Scottish Borders Education Partnership which manages three Public Private Partnership schools and IT specialists CGI to individual payments involving Borders pubs and restaurants.
Law firms and consultants including a selection of recruitment firms have been paid sizeable sums for services. At the more modest end of the financial scale SBC has paid money to a diverse range of suppliers from Eskdale Shooting Services which, according to its website, provides "luxury bespoke game shooting packages" (£5,194 and £1,680) to Where's The One - music workshops and team building - seven payments totalling some £20,000.
A £1,000 payment was made by SBC on 21st July 2017 to "BRS Conservatives" and on June 14th 2018 £1,560 was paid to offshore law firm Mourant Ozannes. Their website indicates they advise on the laws of British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guernsey and Jersey.
Council taxpayers will no doubt wish to browse the document to see for themselves where their cash ended up. The remainder of our selection - including a number of multiple transactions - is published in the form set out in the file sent to Mr Prabhu. By way of explanation each item has a date followed by the name of the recipient, then the amount paid.
Audit Scotland - Scotland's public spending watchdog -181003 Audit Scotland 6,664.00 181003 Audit Scotland
8,000.00 181003 Audit Scotland 90,076.00 180523 Audit Scotland 6,663.00 180523
Audit Scotland 8,000.00 180523 Audit Scotland 92,077.00 180131 Audit Scotland
3,600.00 180126 Audit Scotland 6,663.00 180115 Audit Scotland 8,000.00 180115
Audit Scotland 88,077.00 171122 Audit Scotland 5,823.00 171117 Audit Scotland
90,057.00 170913 Audit Scotland 6,570.00 170811 Audit Scotland 5,824.00 170811
Audit Scotland 6,570.00 170621 Audit Scotland 92,390.00.
Baillie Gifford - asset managers - 181206 Baillie Gifford & Co 43,872.46 181206 Baillie
Gifford & Co 132,808.64 180913 Baillie Gifford & Co 39,764.80 180913
Baillie Gifford & Co 136,657.22 180503 Baillie Gifford & Co 37,577.11
180503 Baillie Gifford & Co 148,089.79 180131 Baillie Gifford & Co
42,791.15 180131 Baillie Gifford & Co 146,901.53 171018 Baillie Gifford
& Co 40,907.38 171018 Baillie Gifford & Co 139,176.37 170809 Baillie
Gifford & Co 137,281.70 170719 Baillie Gifford & Co 40,067.02 170524
Baillie Gifford & Co 41,408.27 170524 Baillie Gifford & Co 136,616.45.
CGI IT UK Ltd, awarded a £92 million contract by the council in 2016 to include the creation of 200 new jobs - 181123 CGI IT UK Limited 120,000.00 181114 CGI
IT UK Limited 3,375.60 181114 CGI IT UK Limited 556,581.14 181031 CGI IT UK
Limited 27,166.80 181019 CGI IT UK Limited 556,581.14 181017 CGI IT UK Limited
24,000.00 181017 CGI IT UK Limited 421,532.40 181003 CGI IT UK Limited
14,794.80 181003 CGI IT UK Limited 556,581.14 180815 CGI IT UK Limited
561,893.30 180706 CGI IT UK Limited 21,780.00 180704 CGI IT UK Limited
571,686.97 180615 CGI IT UK Limited 565,492.30 180613 CGI IT UK Limited
120,000.00 180511 CGI IT UK Limited 576,261.60 180413 CGI IT UK Limited
617,372.40 180404 CGI IT UK Limited 4,290.00 180404 CGI IT UK Limited
180,260.40 180323 CGI IT UK Limited 9,616.02 180321 CGI IT UK Limited 53,469.60
180314 CGI IT UK Limited 118,768.80 180307 CGI IT UK Limited 577,690.80 180226
CGI IT UK Limited 24,000.00 180223 CGI IT UK Limited 586,162.80 180221 CGI IT
UK Limited 5,911.20 180221 CGI IT UK Limited 6,506.40 180221 CGI IT UK Limited
7,473.60 180216 CGI IT UK Limited 3,375.60 180216 CGI IT UK Limited 59,155.20
180214 CGI IT UK. Limited 3,375.60 180214 CGI IT UK Limited 6,979.20 180214
CGI IT UK Limited 75,194.40 180214 CGI IT UK Limited 89,552.40 180131 CGI IT UK
Limited 7,473.60 180131 CGI IT UK Limited 7,473.60 180131 CGI IT UK Limited
8,920.80 180129 CGI IT UK Limited 7,473.60 180110 CGI IT UK Limited 578,113.20
171208 CGI IT UK Limited 578,113.26 171120 CGI IT UK Limited 4,737.60 171108
CGI IT UK Limited 6,795.34 171108 CGI IT UK Limited 579,073.20 171106 CGI IT UK
Limited 288,775.80 171009 CGI IT UK Limited 580,258.80 170927 CGI IT UK Limited
142,815.60 170915 CGI IT UK Limited 120,000.00 170913 CGI IT UK Limited
580,258.80 170908 CGI IT UK Limited 3,870.00 170904 CGI IT UK Limited 8,433.60
170825 CGI IT UK Limited 71,224.20 170823 CGI IT UK Limited 30,000.00 170823
CGI IT UK Limited 144,000.00 170816 CGI IT UK Limited 2,752.80 170816 CGI IT UK
Limited 3,834.00 170816 CGI IT UK Limited 8,253.60 170809 CGI IT UK Limited
581,427.60 170807 CGI IT UK Limited 78,028.80 170726 CGI IT UK Limited 4,391.63
170707 CGI IT UK Limited 420,000.00 170707 CGI IT UK Limited 586,882.80 170705
CGI IT UK Limited 48,920.40 170621 CGI IT UK Limited 60,000.00 170621 CGI IT UK
Limited 150,000.00 170621 CGI IT UK Limited 180,000.00 170621 CGI IT UK Limited
585,517.20 170613 CGI IT UK Limited 831,600.00 170607 CGI IT UK Limited
831,600.00 170602 CGI IT UK Limited 60,000.00 170524 CGI IT UK Limited
585,517.20 170426 CGI IT UK Limited 687,674.40.
Further information from the 710 pages of data may be included in a follow-up post on this site. Meanwhile the document in its entirety can be accessed here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/543397/response/1300013/attach/2/FOI%2012570.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
Monday, 4 February 2019
Hawick councillors at loggerheads
by DOUG COLLIE
A bust-up at local government election time between a veteran Hawick councillor and two other elected representatives from the town ended up at the door of the Standards Commission which was asked to look into potentially "misleading and disrespectful" Facebook posts.
But the spat involving former amateur boxing champion Davie Paterson (Independent) on one side of the dispute, and Watson McAteer (Independent) and Stuart Marshall (Independent) on the other has ended with the complaint against Mr Paterson being dismissed by Bill Thomson, Scotland's Standards Commissioner without the need for an investigation. All three were and are serving members of Scottish Borders Council.
The complaint from Messrs McAteer and Marshall was submitted because they considered comments made by Councillor Paterson on Facebook relating to both men to have been inaccurate, misleading and disrespectful.
But Mr Thomson has told the complainers: "I have given detailed consideration to the copy Facebook postings which you have provided, together with the additional explanatory information which you have supplied. I note that all of the comments made by Councillor Paterson appear to relate either to political matters, or to actions or decision making on the part of the Council and/or its officers."
In his assessment of the complaint, the Commissioner said he noted that the complainer (Mr McAteer) had considered comments made by Councillor Paterson on Facebook during the election period in 2017 to have potentially given rise to an infringement of electoral law.
"But consideration of such matters falls outwith my jurisdiction, and accordingly I am unable to deal with this aspect of your complaint", said Mr Thomson.
He added: "Secondly, as I have indicated and as you have alluded to in your correspondence to me, the application of the Code must take account of other applicable legislation. In particular, I am required to have regard to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Section 10 of the ECHR guarantees a right of freedom of expression.
"As applied by the courts, enhanced protection applies to those who engage in or who comment on matters of 'political expression'. The term is not specifically defined. Essentially, it covers matters of public concern including, but not limited to, issues of political contention and public administration. The protection is wide and can even extend to comments which some may consider to be inappropriate, offensive or insulting. It seems to me that the respondent’s [Mr Paterson] comments are protected in this way, notwithstanding the obvious upset which they have caused you."
In closing the case Mr Thomson stated: "Accordingly, taking account of the circumstances and the detail of your complaint, I am satisfied that the alleged conduct could not amount to a breach of the Councillors’ Code and that there is, therefore, no basis for me to investigate your complaint. I appreciate this outcome will offer you no comfort, but I hope you will realise that I must operate within prevailing legislation and the powers conferred on my office."
Councillor Paterson had aimed criticisms at his fellow councillors (or candidates as they were at the time) over their apparent support for changes to the council's controversial grass cutting frequencies. The alterations meant the fortnightly cutting of grass in council owned open spaces was to be reduced to one cut every four weeks.
His attack on Mr McAteer and Mr Marshall also centred on moves to take the Hornshole site outside Hawick into the care of the town's Common Good Fund. Hornshole was the location for a famous skirmish in the Sixteenth Century when local men defeated an English raiding party. The site is the scene of an emotional ceremony at the annual Common Riding.
Mr Paterson had strongly opposed taking Hornshole out of private hands and into the Common Good which is administered by the council. He believed it would land the local authority with unwanted maintenance costs.
A bust-up at local government election time between a veteran Hawick councillor and two other elected representatives from the town ended up at the door of the Standards Commission which was asked to look into potentially "misleading and disrespectful" Facebook posts.
But the spat involving former amateur boxing champion Davie Paterson (Independent) on one side of the dispute, and Watson McAteer (Independent) and Stuart Marshall (Independent) on the other has ended with the complaint against Mr Paterson being dismissed by Bill Thomson, Scotland's Standards Commissioner without the need for an investigation. All three were and are serving members of Scottish Borders Council.
The complaint from Messrs McAteer and Marshall was submitted because they considered comments made by Councillor Paterson on Facebook relating to both men to have been inaccurate, misleading and disrespectful.
But Mr Thomson has told the complainers: "I have given detailed consideration to the copy Facebook postings which you have provided, together with the additional explanatory information which you have supplied. I note that all of the comments made by Councillor Paterson appear to relate either to political matters, or to actions or decision making on the part of the Council and/or its officers."
In his assessment of the complaint, the Commissioner said he noted that the complainer (Mr McAteer) had considered comments made by Councillor Paterson on Facebook during the election period in 2017 to have potentially given rise to an infringement of electoral law.
"But consideration of such matters falls outwith my jurisdiction, and accordingly I am unable to deal with this aspect of your complaint", said Mr Thomson.
He added: "Secondly, as I have indicated and as you have alluded to in your correspondence to me, the application of the Code must take account of other applicable legislation. In particular, I am required to have regard to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Section 10 of the ECHR guarantees a right of freedom of expression.
"As applied by the courts, enhanced protection applies to those who engage in or who comment on matters of 'political expression'. The term is not specifically defined. Essentially, it covers matters of public concern including, but not limited to, issues of political contention and public administration. The protection is wide and can even extend to comments which some may consider to be inappropriate, offensive or insulting. It seems to me that the respondent’s [Mr Paterson] comments are protected in this way, notwithstanding the obvious upset which they have caused you."
In closing the case Mr Thomson stated: "Accordingly, taking account of the circumstances and the detail of your complaint, I am satisfied that the alleged conduct could not amount to a breach of the Councillors’ Code and that there is, therefore, no basis for me to investigate your complaint. I appreciate this outcome will offer you no comfort, but I hope you will realise that I must operate within prevailing legislation and the powers conferred on my office."
Councillor Paterson had aimed criticisms at his fellow councillors (or candidates as they were at the time) over their apparent support for changes to the council's controversial grass cutting frequencies. The alterations meant the fortnightly cutting of grass in council owned open spaces was to be reduced to one cut every four weeks.
His attack on Mr McAteer and Mr Marshall also centred on moves to take the Hornshole site outside Hawick into the care of the town's Common Good Fund. Hornshole was the location for a famous skirmish in the Sixteenth Century when local men defeated an English raiding party. The site is the scene of an emotional ceremony at the annual Common Riding.
Mr Paterson had strongly opposed taking Hornshole out of private hands and into the Common Good which is administered by the council. He believed it would land the local authority with unwanted maintenance costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)