Council's annual package of facts and figures

by EWAN LAMB

Total payments made to the top team of nine officers at Scottish Borders Council exceeded the remuneration paid to all of the authority's 34 elected members, according to figures contained in the unaudited accounts for 2021/22.

The newly-published document shows the cost of paying leading officials in the directorate rose by more than 21% last year from £651,957 in 2020/21 to £791,308 in the financial year to March 2022. Two officers were paid more than £100,000 - chief executive Netta Meadows received £136,081 while David Robertson, director of finance and corporate governance was paid £113,258.

Meanwhile, over the same period the remuneration to councillors was up by 7.4% from £686,000 to £737,000. 

In a Foreword to the accounts the council's newly elected leader Councillor Euan Jardine writes: "Despite an extremely challenging operating environment during 2021/22 the Council achieved the following: delivered a responsive approach to supporting communities, businesses and vulnerable individuals through the ongoing COVID-19 recovery period. The Council administered almost £74 million of grants to local businesses during the pandemic with funding also provided to those in financial hardship

"Transformed homecare services through the roll out of mobile handheld technology to over 400 staff, optimising the scheduling of care visits and improving staff safety;  Achieved £9.3 million of  Financial Plan savings, £3.5m of which were on a permanent recurring basis; Delivered a net underspend of £1.427 million from a revenue budget of £294.7 million; and Delivered new investment in assets for the Borders of £59.6 million in schools, flood protection, roads and other assets."

And Mr Jardine goes on to say: "The next year presents many opportunities and challenges for the Council including:  the Council’s ongoing recovery from COVID-19;  the continued delivery of the Council’s transformation programme; delivery of IT transformation through the digital strategy;  delivery of the major construction elements of the Hawick Flood Protection Scheme; Progress delivery of Galashiels, Peebles and Hawick High Schools and Earlston Primary School and Health Centre; Collaborate with South of Scotland Enterprise (SOSE) on the delivery of the wider Regional Economic Partnership including Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal and City Deal."

The nuts and bolts of SBC's finances are detailed in a management commentary signed off by Mr Robertson.

It says: " A key pillar of the Council’s longer term planning is a transformation programme which aims to deliver a Council that is adaptable, efficient and effective, and one ultimately capable of not only meeting the challenges ahead, but of fully optimising outcomes for the citizens and communities for which it is responsible. 

"The programme is designed to deliver savings in a more cross cutting, permanent and sustainable way in the future, through a planned series of service reviews. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a fundamental impact on the way the Council is organised and in the way the Council delivers services. In future greater reliance will be placed on technology to modernise the Council."

 A Corporate Financial Risk Register was used as the basis for setting reserve levels in 2021/22 and future years. 

The commentary explains: "This approach seeks to quantify the risks facing the Council’s finances, including over optimistic saving assumptions, unplanned employment and pension costs, the failure by managers to enact effective budgetary control, severe weather events, an economic downturn, potential contractual claims and unplanned emergencies in deriving an appropriate level of unallocated balances. 

"This approach, despite being subject to an element of informed judgement, reflects the risks inherent in setting the revenue budget, the scale and complexity of the organisation and the reasons reserves are held in the first place. The accumulated financial risk in the 2021/22 Risk Register was assessed to be £12.895m and the projected usable General Fund balance, at £6.315m, was sufficient to cover 49% of risks identified."

 Overall, Financial Plan savings of £9.301 million were delivered during 2021/22 in order to balance the costs of delivering services and the available resources. The regular budget monitoring reports to the Executive Committee tracked the delivery of these savings against the Financial Plan proposals. The total savings of £9.301 million are made up of £5.148 million savings included in the 2021/22 financial plan plus £4.153 million brought forward from previous years. 

"To date the Council’s approach to longer term financial planning has delivered permanent savings of £66 million. Ongoing effort will be required going forward to successfully deliver the Financial Plan due to the scale of further savings required in 2022/23 and beyond and the challenges now posed through COVID-19 recovery and current economic challenges."

 In conclusion, Mr Robertson states: "The operating environment for the Council continues to be very challenging. The Council is faced with a number of financial and economic influences such as increasing demands on services, current inflation affecting the costs of goods and services and wider labour market factors affecting the Council’s ability to recruit to fill key vacancies in a number of areas. New digital innovations, business process re-engineering and technology solutions continue to be pursued in order for the Council to deliver vital services to the community as efficiently and effectively as possible."

The accounts show the council funded four exit packages in 2021/22 with the highest single pay-off given as £63,585. In the previous financial year three exit packages cost the council £30,151.

Costs associated with the underwriting of PPP (Public Private Partnership) schools are also given in the report. The sum payable in 2022/23 is £15.152 million while the total amount outstanding stands at £317.130 million.

SBC also forked out £10.144 million in interest payments on loans (£11.943 million in 2020/21). The total debt figure has been reduced from £220.793 million last year to £215.326 million at the end of March 2022.

 

Galashiels trees felled 'illegally', inquiry rules

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Some of the oldest and largest beech trees in the Galashiels area may have been lost as a result of unauthorised felling in a 150-year-old forested area known as Crotchet Knowe, a planning inquiry was told.

Now, landowners Lynda and Gordon Stoddart, of Melrose Road, Galashiels have failed in an appeal against a so-called Restocking Direction imposed on them by Scottish Forestry [SF] which instructs them to plant at least 160 replacement trees of similar species to those felled. 

The Stoddarts had claimed the trees they took down were on garden ground and therefore not covered by felling restrictions. But Scottish Planning Reporter Alasdair Edwards has dismissed the appeal and ordered them to carry out the replanting by March 31st 2023.

Paperwork associated with the case, including the decision notice issued on June 10th is published on the Planning and Environmental Appeals website.

A report written by Scottish Forestry following an anonymous tip-off in January 2021 said the agency had received reports of tree felling and substantial earthworks that looked to be development (rather than forestry related) in mature woodland at Crotchet Knowe. 

"The majority of the felling works are located behind the bungalow that sits to the south of Melrose Road (No. 24) on the western fringe of Langlee . Aerial photographs suggest that most of the earthworks appear to be taking place on a previously wooded part of the site and may be damaging remaining trees around the periphery of the earthworks.

"Some large tree stumps have been removed and deposited down the steep wooded bank at the south end of the earthworks and there are almost certainly others buried beneath the earthworks. This mostly mature mixed broadleaved woodland is thought to include a few of the biggest/oldest beech trees in the Galashiels area and looks to be a valuable link in the local woodland habitat/landscape network (linking Langlee Woods higher up to the blue/green network along the Gala Water corridor below) and providing an attractive buffer/screen in the narrow gap between Galashiels and Langlee.

SF investigated the tree felling in terms of the Felling Regulations (unauthorised felling) but also provided information to the local authority enforcement team as the earthworks appeared to be development related. On arrival on site Nick Forsyth and Greg Macfarlane, from Scottish Forestry, measured all available stumps providing an indicative volume of removed timber. Some remaining lengths of felled timber were also measured. 

Significant evidence of timber processing was identified, suggesting that a large amount of timber had already been removed from site.

According to the report: " Mrs Stoddart refused to provide the name of the contractor used to fell the trees and did not say where the timber from the site has been taken. Mrs Stoddart offered a restock proposal, but it did not meet the like‐for‐like requirements, so this was rejected by SF. A restock direction was sent to the landowner requesting that the whole area be restocked with similar species."

In their submission to the Reporter the owners contended no offence had been committed where the plot known as 24 Melrose Road, Galashiels was considered as a residential plot made up of dwelling, hardstanding and garden grounds.

The Stoddarts contested the SF designation and explained how the lack of maintenance and change in circumstances of the previous owner had allowed substantial over grow to occur. 

"The owners have made it clear from the outset the plans they have for the residential plot and have acted in good faith to amicably resolve this dispute. However in the view of the owners, SF have acted merely to escalate. From the initial request for an ‘outline plan’, during a pandemic whilst there were Government’s restriction on movement etc., which was rejected within hours of submission to where we are today. 

"The owners have shown that the whole plot confirms to an acceptable definition of garden and domestic curtilage and was purchased as a ‘whole’ residential plot. The owners would further emphasise here that a change in physical characteristics in an overall garden area cannot be deemed to negate that part from being a garden."

But Scottish Forestry countered: "This case relates to the appellants wish to build a new house on the land where the woodland removal occurred. The appellant would have been aware of that the land included woodland from the sales brochure. 

"SF does not accept the case made by the appellant that the felled trees were part of their garden. SF has proved that 15.45 cubic metres of non-exempt timber was felled without permission. Therefore this review concludes that the Conservancy acted appropriately and reasonably in issuing the Restocking Direction as all the evidence required to issue a restocking direction was in place and is still valid."

Mr Edwards agrees with that assertion in his decision notice.

"I find that the area subject to felling does not currently constitute garden ground and that there is nothing substantially present to suggest that it was previously used for such purposes. I find that the land subject to felling was woodland. 

"This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the land is identified in the National Forestry Inventory (2019) as a ‘broadleaved woodland’; shown on aerial photography with a large canopy prior to felling; identified on the original ordnance survey mapping from 1843-1882 as the “Crochet Knowe” (an area of mixed woodland); and continues to be identified on the current ordnance survey as an area of woodland." 

Mr Edwards says there is little doubt that the felled trees comprised those annotated on the original ordnance survey mapping as measurements of the tree stumps by Scottish Forestry indicate that the felled trees were in excess of 150 years old. This indicates that a continuous woodland had been in situ on the land for a significant period prior to felling.

" I find that the land prior to felling was not garden ground and, consequently, was not exempt from the offence of unauthorised felling. I also note that the appellants have considered using the land to build an eco-house with pre-application advice having been sought from Scottish Borders Council for the erection of a house. This appears at odds with the aspiration to use the land as a garden.

"In any event, there is no planning permission for a house on the land which would warrant an exemption for the unauthorised felling. I find that the land where felling occurred was woodland at the time of felling and did not, and does not, constitute garden ground. There are no other exemptions which apply or have been successfully argued. Consequently, the appeal that the land was exempt from the offence of unauthorised felling fails."

 

£7 million budget underspend as council balances pile up

by DOUG COLLIE

Supply issues and delays meant Scottish Borders Council's plans to devote £66 million to capital projects last year fell £7 million short of target while councillors will be told this week that total 'usable' balances in the authority's coffers increased by an impressive £16 million during 2021/22.

A series of reports dealing with SBC's finances and performance over the 12 months to March 31st will be presented to leading elected members. The array of statistics includes confirmation that revenue spending on services resulted in a net, unaudited outturn underspend of £1.427m. The underspend (less than 0.5% of final approved budget) was delivered following a number of earmarked balances being carried forward from 2021/22.

The document covering capital expenditure on bricks and mortar projects has this to say: "The final capital outturn statement for 2021/22 includes the reasons identified by the Project Managers and Budget Holders for the variances to the final approved budget. 

"This identifies an outturn expenditure of £59.634 million which is £7.134 million below the final revised budget of £66.766 million including timing movement in the final quarter of £7.474 million. A number of macro-economic factors affected the Capital Plan during 2021/22. Construction materials supply chain has been subject to unprecedented disruption in recent months. A surge in demand coupled with constraints on supply has led to price increases, shortages and longer lead times."

Officials also explain that unplanned delays due to restricted access to care homes as a result of Covid-19 has impacted all care home related capital projects. Unspent budget resulting from these delays will be carried forward into 2022/23 when all care home works are to be re-prioritised and accelerated. 

Meanwhile the report adds: "Slower than anticipated progress in the development of plans for care homes /care villages in Hawick and Tweedbank has resulted in a timing delay. Unspent budget to be carried forward into 2022/23."

So far as revenue spending is concerned a number of council departments have underspent in 2021/22. The report says: "Council services have delivered an underspend position whilst delivering significant financial plan savings totalling £9.301 million".

That £9.30l million figure is the exact amount of savings required by the council's financial plan.

According to the report: "The level of savings required by the financial plan, totalled £9.301m, in 2021/22. The outturn position shows that £3.489m (37%) savings were delivered permanently in line with approved plans, £1.932m (21%) were delivered in 21/22 with no requirement for the savings to be delivered from 2022/23, with the remaining £3.880m (42%) delivered on a temporary basis through alternative savings."

A range of other topics are covered. 

The Executive members are told: "Unprecedented market conditions and inflationary pressures have impacted both the Council and its key contractors during 2021/22. Associated pressures have been funded in the overall 2021/22 outturn position. These pressures are continuing into 2022/23 with support from the Council being requested by contractors in these challenging market conditions.

"An agreement for pay award for all staffing groups was reached for 2021/22, this has been fully funded in year and has been provided for permanently in the base budget from 2022/23. Pay award negotiations for 2022/23 continue and therefore continue to present a risk to the revenue budget in the next financial year. An assumed 2% pay award across all staff groups was budgeted for, any deviation from this level of increase will result in financial implications which will require to be addressed through the in-year monitoring process."

The department with the largest budget over-run was Infrastructure & Environment - An overspend of £484k is being reported. 

"Within this position £174,000 is being returned to the Covid-19 reserve primarily as a result of increased Planning Fee Income. After returning this to the Covid reserve the service have a remaining net adverse position of £502,000. 

"During 2021/22 the service responded to emergency flood and storm events with costs in excess of £400,000, the milder than average winter experienced has allowed the service to manage some of these costs within existing budgets. In addition there have been costs of £302,000 for leachate disposal from the landfill site (at Easter Langlee, Galashiels). The service is impacted by inflationary increases particularly within the construction and utility markets."

Figures demonstrate how revenue balances in every category have increased markedly since March 2021. The so-called General Fund Balance now stands at £51.991 million compared to £36.440 million the previous year.

Meanwhile the General Fund Reserve increased in the same period from £8.831 million to £9.848 million. General Fund (Earmarked) balances rose from £24.362 million to £35.590 million.

The report explains: "The total of all usable balances, excluding developer contributions at March 31st 2022 is £64.481 million compared to £48.264 million at March 31st 2021".

Council's £31 million Covid grants revealed

by LESTER CROSS

The Scottish Government handed Scottish Borders Council a total of £31.6 million during the last financial year to combat Covid-19 issues, councillors are told in a report to be considered by the local authority's Executive.

Over the twelve months from April 1st 2021 to March 31st 2022 more than 50 grants were allocated to the Borders from national funds. In a number of instances additional resources were provided to allow Covid related schemes to be administered.

In a separate report detailing the council's financial position at the end of 2021/22, the authority's head of finance David Robertson writes: "The Council has administered £73.9 million of funding which has been passed to over 5,770 businesses through a variety of business grants. The COVID-19 reserve was utilised during 2021/22 to maintain public services utilising further specific support from Scottish Government to support individuals and businesses during the pandemic. 

"The challenging operating environment has included significant recruitment and retention issues across the Council which have contributed to the year end underspend position but in doing so have resulted in capacity issues with a number of teams experiencing recruitment issues in filling vacant positions."

Mr Robertson goes on to explain: "The funding received by Scottish Government in 2021/22 along with unspent sums carried forward from 2020/21 were deployed to cover financial impacts identified during 2021/22. The balance of funding not required in 2021/22 has been earmarked into 2022/23 into the COVID-19 reserve to support further financial impacts. The COVID reserve, which was created during 2020/21, and totalled £15.682 million at the end of 2020/21 has been partly deployed through the revenue budget in 2021/22 and now totals £9.465 million."

This is the full list of Covid-19 payments received by Scottish Borders Council in 2021/22

General Administration funding (Leaders Nov) 406,000

Administration of £100 COVID Spring Hardship payment 5,585

Administration of COVID-19 Business Support: Large Self Catering,Exclusive Use Properties and Bed & Breakfast Establishments paying Council Tax 330,000

Food Insecurity 177,550

Financial Insecurity 330,000

Children & young people's mental health (pandemic grant £246,750; framework grant £82,250) 329,000

Safe schools return (Logistics) 1,772,000

Education Recovery (additional staff, family support, digital) 955,000

Additional funding to cover continued education recovery 1,032,000

Lost income scheme 1,416,569

Financial Insecurity Fund (balance) 54,925

Spring Hardship Payment 259,518

Discretionary Fund (balance) 900,296

Tackling Child Poverty Fund - Parental Employability Support Fund (PESF) Boost 114,000

Self-Isolation Assistance Service - extension 41,895

Additional £15m flexible funding for Level Four 330,000

To support Covid-19 pressures including lost income (20/21) 5,110,000

Test & Protect - local self-isolation assistance service funding to 11/1/21 13,000

Test & Protect - support for people extension to 11/1/21 48,000

Share of £400k for admin of hardship grants 5,585

EH &TS Covid-19 officers 38,000

SG education logistics funding (share of £20m) 506,000

SG consequentials funding (share of £49m) 195,520

COVID-19 funding - SBC share of £259m national one-off funding 5,757,000

COVID-19 Funding 889,000

Learning needs of children and young people 1,199,000

Low Income Pandemic Payment 1,163,500

Family Pandemic Payment 356,320

Low Income Pandemic Payment - admin 69,085

Family Pandemic Payment - admin 12,252

Scottish Child Payment Bridging Payments (Oct & increased winter) 392,829

Scottish Child Payment Bridging Payments - additional admin (Oct payment) 6,126

Additional cleaning staff, materials & PPE 520,000

Private Sector Housing Grants admin fee 2,000

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 480,000

Community Equipment Store 50,000

Wipes in Secondary schools 520,000

Masks in schools 28,000

Funding for Environmental Health Officers 54,000

Admin. for self-isolation grants 19,700

Local Self-Isolation Assistance Service (Apr - June 21) 47,775

Additional costs associated with the self isolation support grant 20/21 22,673

Additional costs associated with the self isolation support grant 21/22 13,604

Self-isolation support 2021/22 30,000

Local Self-Isolation Assistance Service (July - Sept 21) 47,775

Extension of Local Self-Isolation Assistance Service (Oct - Dec 21) 47,775

Extension of Local Self-Isolation Assistance Service (Jan - Mar 22) 47,775

Business Ventilation Fund - administration 15,100

December/January Business Support Top Up – Hospitality admin. 26,900

School ventilation - CO2 Monitors 64,000

Tenant Grant Fund 184,000

Business Support Administration Grant 2021/22 81,000

Financial Insecurity Flexible funding 470,000

Council contribution towards Covid-19 pressures 28,000

Assumed IJB funding through the LMP 4,626,000

TOTAL - 31,641,632 

Teviotdale's future - wind or wood?

SPECIAL FEATURE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Many of those fortunate enough to live in Teviotdale, that beautiful, largely unspoilt valley south of Hawick, are surprised it has taken this long. But now that it has materialised a significant number of them seem prepared to welcome or at least tolerate the possible arrival of the locality's first wind turbines.

Plans for the so-called Teviot Wind Farm on agricultural land 'east of Priesthaugh' have been known about for a couple of years. But now it is official - a formal planning application lodged along with promises of handsome financial rewards for the local community.

The massive electricity producing facility with 62 turbines being promoted by Muirhall Energy may well offer an alternative to blanket forestry, seen by some as a creeping death knell for traditional farming in Teviotdale. But no doubt others will campaign to block the wind farm at all costs, citing its likely devastating visual impact among the rolling hills..

Certainly the developers are holding out the prospect of unprecedented 'riches' which would in all probability help strengthen the fragile economy of the valley.

The planning application is accompanied by a glossy report from consultants Biggar Economics which states: "The Proposed Development is situated approximately 8 km to the south-west of Hawick in the Scottish Borders and it is anticipated that it will comprise up to 62 turbines with a generating capacity of around 409 MW. 

"In addition, it will also include a solar array of up to 34 MW of solar photovoltaic (PV) array and 100 MW of battery storage. Muirhall Energy has made a guaranteed tender commitment to local businesses and proposes an initial investment fund of £500,000 for the local community."

No doubt opponents will dismiss this as a bribe of some sort. But it is clear a remote rural area like Teviotdale can ill afford to pass up money of this magnitude. And there will be much more to follow, according to Biggar Economics.

"Employment in the region is largely concentrated in lower wage sectors, such as retail, resulting in workers out-commuting for higher paid work. Fuel poverty is higher in the Scottish Borders than average and deprivation levels are significantly higher in Teviot and Liddesdale. These conditions indicate a lack of high value jobs in the region, difficulty attracting and retaining younger people into the area and longer-term problems that require long term solutions, such as those proposed as part of the Proposed Development. 

"Total development and construction costs for the Proposed Development were estimated at £488 million, of which Teviot and Liddesdale could secure contracts worth £10.4 million and the Scottish Borders, £48.7 million. Accounting for direct, indirect and induced economic impacts, during its development and construction phase the Proposed Development could generate up to: £5.3 million Gross Value Added (GVA, a measure of economic output) and 75 job years in Teviot and Liddesdale; £29.7 million GVA and 424 job years in the Scottish Borders; £43.8 million GVA and 607 job years in the South of Scotland.

"Annual expenditure on the operations and maintenance of the Proposed Development is estimated to be up to £10.3 million for each year of its lifespan. The total annual economic impact of this could be:  £1.4 million GVA and 19 jobs in Teviot and Liddesdale; £2.4 million GVA and 34 jobs in the Scottish Borders; £2.8 million GVA and 41 jobs in the South of Scotland. In addition to the economic impact generated throughout the construction and operation of the Proposed Development, an industry-leading community investment package of £7,000 per MW would provide £2.86 million per year for the local community."

When Not Just Sheep & Rugby canvassed opinion on the ground in Teviotdale one respondent told us: "Speaking to people many prefer turbines to the spectre of blanket forestry which is spreading throughout the valley. Forestry gives nothing back to the community either financially or jobwise. And once the trees are cut there is a blight on our landscape for ever.

"Even where there are wind turbines people can still farm livestock. There is a real danger that if the windfarm is rejected by the planners then this area will all be virtually covered in conifers. I would say young people in the valley are more in favour of wind farms. They're seen as a better option than forestry."

And there was a realistic assessment of the money on offer from Muirhall from a contributor who told us: " Personally we believe if we work with the wind farm people we may have some influence on position, number and height of the turbines, and also what as a community we can gain. 

"It is a surprise that it has taken so long for this issue to reach us. We need to look at the bigger picture and hopefully capitalise on this project for the valley Hawick and Borders."

There was a realisation too that the proposal for 62 turbines was bound to provoke conflicting opinions: "As with many topics this is potentially divisive and as a community we are conscious we have to ensure it doesn't cause splits or fall outs between those for and those against. There is a great community spirit here and it would be a shame if it was damaged or if neighbours and friends fell out. So far that hasn't happened."

If an increase in forestry planting is to play a leading role in bolstering Teviotdale's economic wellbeing there are certain to be difficulties along the way.

Twelve months ago the Southern Uplands Partnership [SUP] warned in a position statement on forestry: "Large scale coniferous forestry planting backed by financial incentives in the shape of public grants is altering the landscape in many areas of the South of Scotland without proper consideration for the impacts on local communities"

SUP claimed this was being driven by a combination of public grant, economics and assumed environmental benefits.

Their statement added: "We believe this change is not being as carefully considered as it should be. We risk losing a range of habitats, species and opportunities for a more diverse pattern of land use that might improve community and environmental resilience.

"In the South of Scotland, we are concerned that the mixing of the terms forest and woodland is misleading because of the huge extent of planation forest and the much more limited extent of more diverse woodland."

The South of Scotland already has a lot of tree cover. In 2014 Dumfries & Galloway already had 31% tree cover and the Scottish Borders had 18.5%. The average for South Scotland is now thought to be 25% (2019 figure) compared to the average across Scotland of approximately 18% of the land classed as forest and woodland”.

According to SUP: "There is a real concern that South Scotland is taking more than its’ share of new tree-cover. In addition, disproportionately more of the planting is coniferous forest and much less of the planting is woodland compared to other parts of Scotland. 

"This is evident from the recent statistics for 2020/21 and continuing a long term trend in South Scotland. There are also concerns that the drive to meet planting targets is pushing forestry onto sites which are not suitable eg peatlands (where the climate benefits are questionable) and species-rich habitats (where there is likely to be a net-loss of biodiversity)."

So, will Teviotdale opt for wind or wood, or perhaps a blend of both?

Avocet life president hit with £1.25 million claim

by OUR BUSINESS UNIT

The latest set of correspondence to be circulated by former Avocet Group chairman Martin Frost has disclosed that lawyers acting for the administrators of an insolvent business have lodged a claim for more than £1 million against Dr 'Bob' Jennings, another Avocet board member.

Meanwhile, recipients of a lengthy letter from Mr Frost are told how the frozen carcasses of 82 head of cattle were lost to bluebottles and vermin after freezers were switched off at Avocet's agricultural HQ in rural Berwickshire in 2020.

Mr Frost's own bankruptcy was confirmed last October following a claim by United Kingdom Agricultural Lending Ltd that he owed them in excess of £3 million after Avocet subsidiary Orrdone Farms Ltd defaulted on a loan. As a bankrupt Mr Frost is disqualified from being a director of any company.

However, hundreds of investors in the Avocet Group were told recently that intellectual property said to be owned by the troubled organisation was being sold to Israeli buyers for many millions of pounds. At the same time Genfro Ltd., another Avocet creation, would be relocating overseas.

In a message accompanying documents sent out this week, Mr Frost declared: "As with many others the Avocet / Genfro intellectual property buyers will not deal using a failed state apparatus where a rule of law no longer reigns. Hence the total relocation to the United States. Please find enclosed two articles. First a PDF of three pages addressed to Dr. Bob Jennings. Second my analysis for Bob to be wary given that Scottish justice now ranks below that of Zimbabwe."

The PDF referred to is the contents of a letter to Dr Jennings from Edinburgh solicitors representing the Orrdone Farms administrators.

According to the letter: "We refer to previous correspondence with our client to which you have repeatedly failed to respond".

Progress reports by administrator Emma Porter have consistently referred to the complete lack of co-operation by all of Orrdone's directors.

The amount specified in the letter of claim is £1,254,263.

But in an accompanying letter to Dr Jennings - also circulated -  Mr Frost writes: "It beggars’ belief that given the interchanges, intromissions by third parties, that Dr. Bob Jennings and / or his associates are accused of failure to communicate with Ms. Porter. 

"It is accepted that as a director you have statutory duties. That said, you obtempered such. Indeed, it is not your (Bob’s) fault if the Administrators acted and continue to act in a negligent, careless, unlawful, and fraudulent manner."

Since their appointment in 2020, Mr Frost has levelled a wide range of allegations against the Orrdone administrators. But now a new 'accusation' can be added to the list.

Mr Frost states: "Contrary to the undertaking provided by CMS plus statute law, the Administrators broke into Harcarse Hill (Avocet's Berwickshire base) in March 2020 (then refused access to the Frosts and / or agents) and seized the personal laboratory assets and the Piemontese frozen dressed meat.

"The dressed healthy beef was from 82 cattle and was valued at some £5,000 per animal (circa £410,000) The Piemontese frozen meat was housed in deep freeze fridges, the Administrators turn off the electricity and all the frozen meat perished. 

"Adjacent to the frozen meat freezers Martin Frost had stored his personal Peugeot sports car, as meat perished in the freezers, some freezers sprung open which attracted vermin and blue bottles which in turn destroyed the fabric of Martin Frost’s car (which the Administrators then scrapped). The vermin and the blue bottles then transgressed into Harcarse Hill farmhouse where Frost personal possessions (clothes etc.) were destroyed."

A former Avocet employee who worked at Harcarse Hill described the claimed loss of 82 frozen carcasses as "fanciful".

The ex-staff member said: "Two home bred Piemontese young bulls which were sub-standard for breeding purposes were slaughtered and returned to two Harcarse Hill freezers located in a garage. Value £2,500 approximately."

 

Disruptive technology Avocet Group to be "terminated"

by OUR BUSINESS UNIT

The bankrupt former chairman of the Avocet Group of companies has announced that all of the UK businesses which were supposed to be involved in ground breaking agricultural practices and fuel production are to be terminated.

Martin Frost is disqualified from involvement in the running of companies following confirmation of his bankruptcy by a judge last October.

But in a so-called Personal Note to 'colleagues' who have invested many millions of pounds in the troubled Avocet Group, Mr Frost outlines plans to develop the company's concepts abroad. So far not a single commercial product has been brought to market since Mr Frost and his fellow directors founded the business in 2014.

A number of investigations into Avocet's activities are continuing while businesses within the organisation are in liquidation or administration with long lists of creditors. One lending company is owed more than £3 million, and many shareholders now believe their investments are worthless.

According to Mr Frost's note, dated May 27th: "In 2014 AFS Ventures Plc set up two US Delaware based subsidiaries. These companies are now owned by Genfro Limited."

It is perhaps worth noting that according to Genfro Ltd's articles both Mr Frost and his colleague Dr Bob Jennings are life presidents of that company with annual index-linked honorariums of £24,000.

Mr Frost's correspondence continues: "In January 2015, Dr. Glyn Short (a former ICI scientist) formulated a strong business plan to focus the Avocet business from Delaware in the US. 

"I regret that I was induced to centre the Avocet business in Scotland. That said Israeli friends have now conditionally offered 1.2 billion shekels on a tapered purchase for extant & to be intellectual property, such to be directly controlled from the US & Israel. This means that all UK based companies shall be terminated. 

"A committee under Dr. Bob Jennings shall ensure a fair distribution of monies coming into the US to existing & past shareholders & creditors of Genfro Limited, Avocet Natural Capital Plc, and Omega Infinite Plc. Going forward the Avocet related concepts will be developed in Israel, the EU, and North America."

The note then indicates that further updates including notice of significant exit rewards shall start "late Sunday 29th May 2022." Questions will be taken and answered after June 15th, 2022.

A long-suffering Avocet investor who passed a copy of Mr Frost's note to Not Just Sheep & Rugby commented: "More baloney. We were promised payment for our shareholdings months ago by Martin Frost but all we get is one delaying tactic after another".

The latest developments in the long running saga sparked intense activity on the Avocet Shareholders' Forum where individuals post their comments and air their frustrations.

A contribution from 'Concerned' reads as follows: "In his “personal note” of  May 27th, 2022, Frost tells us that he has negotiated a sale price of 1.2 billion shekels for the Avocet and Gennfros IP. That works out to approximately £285 million. How disappointing! A little over a month ago Frost was promising us that he would conclude the sale of the same IP to these same Israelis for £400M and that it would be paid to us at the beginning of May. 

"This represents a decrease in the sale price in one month of almost 30%! I don’t know about you, but I think that due to poor performance, we may need a new negotiator to act on our behalf!! - aside from the fact that Frost is already legally prohibited by law from acting in an executive capacity on behalf of Avocet or any company!"

This prompted responses from another investor identified as FDF.

He wrote: "I am afraid that I have more bad news. I follow these matters somewhat closely. The two US entities that Frost speaks of are Avocet Solutions Inc. and Avocet Inc. Both are registered in Delaware. 

"According to the Delaware Secretary of State, both Avocet, Inc. and Avocet Solutions Inc. are not in good standing. They have been marked “void” which indicates they have not paid their franchise taxes or have not filed their annual reports with the State, in this case, since 2018. Given this, and the fact that all of the IP (intellectual property) was transferred to Avocet Infinite and then ultimately on to Avocet IP, I question why the Israelis would have any interest in either of these companies?"

 The same Forum poster then advised: "Ask your MP why complaints that affect 700+ investors and involve in excess of £13M are taking so long to be addressed? Especially given that the validity of some of the complaints should be dead simple to determine. 

"For example, we were enticed into investing in Gennfros with the promise from Frost that “mystery investors” would almost immediately buy our shares at 300% of what we just paid for them. Why hasn’t the Insolvency Service been able to verify the simple fact of the mystery investors’ existence, or, if they have, why have they not acted on it?"