Second major pylon scheme for Scottish Borders

by EWAN LAMB

A crucial infrastructure project involving the development of a 30 kilometre overhead power line linking electricity sub-stations in Galashiels and the village of Eccles in Berwickshire is scheduled for 2026, and will allow two 'vintage' sets of pylons and cables to be decommissioned and removed from the landscape.

Scottish Power Energy Networks [SPEN] is currently designing the scheme before submitting a so-called Section 37 application to the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit [ECU] towards the end of this year.

The proposed new overhead line will be supported on lattice steel towers, which have six cross-arms and a standard design height of 27 metres. The tower heights will range from approximately 23 metres to 38 metres in height, depending on ground profiles. By comparison, the steel towers of the existing ‘U’ route measure between 18 and 30 metres, and the existing ‘AT’ route wood pole and steel towers are between 10 and 29 metres high.

As we reported last month, the Borders is also set to get 90 miles of so-called super pylons and transmission lines each measuring 36 metres in height as part of the National Grid's investment programme Beyond 2030. That transmission upgrade is costed at £1.5 billion.

 SPEN says that as the electricity transmission and distribution license holder for central and southern Scotland, it has a legal duty to develop and maintain a technically feasible and economically viable transmission and distribution system. 

"To ensure sufficient capacity for electricity that needs to be transmitted throughout the area, SPEN’s proposal is to remove the existing overhead lines between Galashiels and Eccles and replace them with one new route between the two substations. This upgrade is expected to ensure a more reliable and economical transmission network. Furthermore, as the existing lines get older, the need for maintenance work becomes more critical and difficult, and the exposure to unplanned outages (faults) increases. Asset replacement is therefore essential to provide secure supplies to existing and future customers."

The power company considers their scheme has the potential to have significant environmental effects, and so an EIA [Environmental Impact Assessment] is being undertaken to support the Section 37 application. "The EIA process will seek to avoid, reduce and where possible, offset likely significant impacts on the environment through an iterative design process for the proposed new overhead line".

When asked how much investment their scheme would require, SPEN told us that project costs were 'sensitive'.

We also asked whether there would be public consultation prior to work starting. 

"Public consultation was undertaken as part of the routeing stage for this project in late 2021", explained a spokesperson. "The feedback to consultation informed the selection of the proposed route to then be taken forward for further assessment and application for consent.  The consultation included engagement with the range of statutory consultees (Scottish Borders Council, NatureScot, Historic Environment Scotland, SEPA, local Community Councils) amongst others, as well as the wider public.

 "A final public event stage will be scheduled ahead of submission of the Section 37 application and will provide feedback on those comments provided previously regarding the proposed development.  The date for this has not been confirmed but it will be publicised locally ahead of that time. Following the submission of the application, the ECU will also carry out consultation on the proposed development."

During the early stages of the planning process officers at Scottish Borders Council expressed concerns over one aspect of the project - the proposed installation of an underground cable in close proximity to the now closed landfill site at Easter Langlee on the outskirts of Galashiels.

When asked for observations, the authority's Contaminated Land Officer wrote: “I had understood it was for replacement of overhead lines however it’s been highlighted to me that it includes for the laying of underground cable within the body of the former landfill to its western extent.

"The presence of the waste mass should specifically be considered as part of the development, and it’s unclear if this is considered to date. This might include potential risks to the waste mass i.e. through ignition, or to any structure e.g. cabinets (if present) through the migration and accumulation of bulk gases. There may also be wider waste management considerations”.

And those concerns were echoed by SBC's Waste Strategy Officer who warned: “Having reviewed the proposal we have concerns regarding the impact the installation of underground cabling could have on our site.

"The location plan suggests the cabling would come on to the site in an area that has landfill gas infrastructure installed over and within it, and is in very close proximity to two areas of landfill. Relocation of this infrastructure may not be easily achieved, and the integrity of the landfill sites must not be compromised. This could be challenging given the layout of the land, location of the landfills and infrastructure, and the scale of the trench."

The statement added that landfill gases would be present for which all relevant safety measures must be considered.

"Consideration of all of these issues and whether it is possible for them to be mitigated to our reasonable satisfaction need to be carefully considered prior to any underground cabling proposal being implemented."

When asked about this particular issue, the SPEN spokesperson commented: "“Following consultation, we have received a range of feedback, including that from Scottish Borders Council regarding the potential routeing across the Easter Langlee site. 

"The project team are actively looking at design detail options to address concerns regarding potential impacts in this area and to provide the best proposed solution while balancing all considerations. The proposed solution will be reflected in a final public event stage to be scheduled ahead of submission of the Section 37 application.”

Hawick's best kept secret? Pringle's sold for £10 million!

by OUR BUSINESS EDITOR

There was dismay and consternation in the Borders town of Hawick not to mention worldwide  headlines back in the year 2000 when failing textile giant Dawson Holdings sold one of the biggest brand names in the fashion industry to a Hong Kong billionaire for what appeared to be a knockdown £6 million.

But a subsequent deal with a price tag of £10 million in which S C Fang & Sons divested themselves of the iconic Pringle of Scotland label after sinking tens of millions of pounds into the loss-making knitwear firm has passed virtually unnoticed.

Despite the best efforts of Not Just Sheep & Rugby to establish the background leading up to the transfer to new owners, Broadgate 1960 Company Ltd, and the prospects for Pringle's future, both buyer and seller remain tight-lipped.

Even Wikipedia, that internet fount of all knowledge, has yet to catch up with developments. The website gives the impression the Fang family retain ownership of Pringle's which was originally founded in Hawick as a hosiery business by James Pringle in 1815. 

In the decades immediately after World War Two the company's massive mills provided work and wages for around 4,000 employees. The spectacular decline under Dawson management saw that number shrink to a few hundred despite Pringle's global reputation as the finest manufacturer of cashmere garments.

And the last published accounts while still under Fang ownership show the average number of employees in 2023 was just 15, down from 18 in 2022. The change of ownership shifted significant control of the brand from Douglas Fang to Dominican national Menoshi Shina who is now a Pringle's director alongside Sheila Marie Geraghty, an American. The pair sit on the boards of a number of textile businesses.

Broadgate's other subsidiaries include suit makers Moss Bros, BSI Apparel, Crew Clothing, and Saltrock Surfwear. Broadgate recorded group turnover of £121.8 million in 2022 with a profit after tax of £8.6 million. The group has 1,200 on its payroll while the ultimate parent company is New Wishes 2020 Ltd, a company incorporated in Gibraltar.

The only details concerning the Pringle's deal are tucked away in the respective annual accounts of the Fang and Broadgate businesses.

According to the Broadgate accounts: "The company purchased Pringle of Scotland apparel and retail operations. As part of the negotiations the company agreed to pay Pringle International Ltd [a parent business registered in the British Virgin Islands] £10 million for both the assignment of debt owed by the target company Pringle Enterprises Ltd.(PEL) and 100 per cent of the outstanding shares of PEL".

In 1999, the year before Dawson parted with the Pringle brand, the knitting business chalked up a loss of £11.1 million on sales of £33 million.

The loss-making continued under the tutelage of magnate Kenneth Fang who earned the nickname 'King of Textiles'. Mr Fang died in 2022.

A report in the business press in 2011 had this to say: "Kenneth Fang has pumped a further £10.9 million into the iconic Pringle of Scotland brand despite continuing losses. The investment, which takes the total pumped into the company by Fang over the last three years to almost £30m, came as it reported pre-tax losses of £7.25m in the year compared to £6.7m in the prior 44-week period.

"During the year, Fang invested £5m with a further £5.9m following the financial year end. Total losses since 2006 are now more than £36m and the company has said it expects to continue to remain in the red while it invests in the long-term development of the business."

Annual losses would continue with the most recent deficits £3.078 million in 2020 and £2.247 million the following year. However, a modest £15,000 profit was logged for 2022, and a much more impressive surplus of £733,000 just prior to the sale of the company.

We contacted S C Fang to ask why it had been decided to sell Pringle's after 23 years of ownership. At the time of publication there had been no response.

At the same time a series of questions together with a request for information was sent to Pringle's for their consideration.

We asked for the reasons behind Broadgate 1960's decision to proceed with the acquisition despite a long history of financial losses under the Fang regime, and was there confidence that Pringle of Scotland’s fortunes could be turned around

 Other questions included: "Was the change in registered address from Edinburgh to the company’s native town of Hawick after Broadgate 1960’s acquisition of significance? Are there plans for investment in Pringle? Where is the manufacture of the top-of-the-range knitwear being carried out? The last accounts for Pringle of Scotland (2023) indicated a workforce of just 15 (down from 18 in 2022, and once around 4,000 in the 1960s). Are there any plans to expand that number of employees?"

We were told on April 9th our request had been passed to Pringle's holding company which now manages public relations and marketing. Further attempts were made to elicit a response but we have heard nothing further.

Genfro strike-off application may be null and void

by LESTER CROSS

The surprise move  by company life president Dr 'Bob' Jennings to sign the death warrant of the avocet fuel additive 'empire' is already mired in controversy amid claims his application to strike Genfro Ltd. from the companies register is "illegal and invalid".

It is believed some of those who claim to have lost significant sums after being persuaded to invest by the Avocet Group's wild claims of huge future profits may attempt to block the strike-off application by submitting objections with Companies House.

The rules governing the dissolution of businesses by strike-off demand the application form should be signed by "a majority of the company's directors". In this case, Jennings - appointed to the board in August 2021 - has been the sole director of Genfros since last October.

However, the firm's Articles of Association dating from January 2021 clearly state: "Martin Frank Frost and Dr James Robert 'Bob' Jennings shall each hold the office of life president of the company. Life presidents will not be directors nor will they take part in the management of the company".

According to one holder of worthless Avocet shares: "Those Articles could not be clearer. They specifically prohibit Jennings from acting as a director, so any actions or decisions he has taken in that post are illegal and invalid. Companies House needs to be aware of this".

Genfro was the conduit through which Avocet management repeatedly attempted to reassure doubting investors by dreaming up bogus unnamed international venture capitalists or business barons, said to be willing to pay hundreds of millions of pounds (or dollars) for 'incredibly valuable' avocet patents.

As previously reported, the most elaborate of the fake scenarios featured Parachute Holdings Inc. [PCH], a non-existent 'global player' led by a magnate whom Frost christened Tim Carter. PCH was said to have a net worth running into tens of billions of pounds.

"The ‘mystery investors’ are known to some of Genfro’s prominent shareholders, its lawyers, but most importantly the Secretary of State for Industry Mr Kwasi Kwarteng who was approached to secure anonymity", Frost wrote in a missive circulated in August 2021. 

It was yet another imaginary tale which included the use of a UK Cabinet minister's name and his government department in an attempt to impress Genfro and Avocet stakeholders. The cock-and-bull story was to be exposed as a result of our inquiries.

The next chapter in the saga saw a collection of documents distributed by Frost including the text of a letter purporting to have been sent by 'Tim Carter' to Sarah Munby, Permanent Secretary in Mr Kwarteng's office with the anonymity request for PCH.

The letter to Ms Munby - many who read it commented on the "virtually identical" writing styles of Frost and Carter - stated: "Over the last three years, PCH has acted as a guardian angel to controversial Anglo-Irish businessman Martin Frost who promoted Avocet Natural Capital Plc.

"To keep ANC Plc alive and protect its valuable intellectual property PCH is responsible for: over £2 million pounds of gift life support funding; liaison with colleagues who control the ownership of the Israeli Leviathan and Tamar gas fields which prompted a $100,000 offer to ANC’s subsidiary Avocet IP Limited for its old AFS jet fuel from air patents. 

'Carter' asserted that because of "SNP inspired badness" PCH decided it was wasting resources attempting to support a company focused out of Scotland. PCH had therefore encouraged Frost and  Jennings to set up a completely new entity, Genfro Limited. 

The fallacious claims went on to maintain that PCH had funded four provisional patents of which one for a non-explosive methanol additive to allow green methanol to become a clean replacement diesel was the most valuable. 

The mystery investors were about to fund a further 30 fuel and agricultural patents which should result in Genfro Limited becoming a £200 million IP company.

And according to the concocted paperwork: "Down to ongoing perceived dishonesty infusing Scottish politics along with unjustified and apparently racially motivated SNP hate campaigns, PCH wishes to keep out of the limelight.

"Our understanding is that under UK company law PCH and colleagues can retain anonymity providing we keep our respective overseas shareholdings below the 25% threshold. Please confirm promptly if our understanding is correct: if not I regret PCH will not invest in the UK."

So, we decided to ask government officials whether Mr Kwarteng had made an order to secure PCH's requested anonymity.

Following a comprehensive search of the department's records, we were told: "We can confirm that no approach in such terms has been received by the Secretary of State."

However, although Carter & Company left the scene or were consigned to the dustbin, Genfro soon came up with a different fairy tale from its bulging playbook of myths and legends.

In May 2022 shareholders were told by Frost that back in 2015 a retired scientist had formulated a  plan to base the Avocet business ventures in Delaware, USA.  

"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 (approximately £255 million) on a tapered purchase for extant and to be intellectual property, such to be directly controlled from the US and 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 and past shareholders and 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."

In light of its repeated efforts to dupe and deceive, many of Genfro's critics remain nonplussed as to why not a single regulator or watchdog overseeing business and trade intervened during the company's three years in existence.

Now, the strike-off application lodged by Jennings means any patent applications still registered to Genfro Ltd. will become the property of the Crown if or when Genfro is dissolved. No doubt Mr Kwarteng's successor as Business Secretary [ Kemi Badenoch] will be over the moon.

Jennings moves to kill off 'Son of Avocet'

HAS THE LAST CHANCE SALOON FINALLY CLOSED FOR GOOD?

WORLD EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD 

It was a business which its joint life presidents Martin Frost and Dr Bob Jennings used to spread a myriad of false claims that their "disruptive technology" company was being courted by the Israeli Intelligence Service, and told over 280 shareholders that enigmatic investors from the USA were ready to splash out $400 million to acquire its valuable fuel additive patents.

But now, after none of the outlandish and fictional promises or the threatened multi-million pound law suits against a host of 'naysayers' ever materialised, Dr Jennings has sensationally lodged an application to have Genfro Ltd. struck off the Register of Companies and dissolved.

It means that Genfro, dubbed "Son of Avocet" by long-suffering shareholders in the two men's various companies, will cease to exist unless there are objections to the application. The outfit, which started life in September 2020 as Gennfros Ltd., has never filed accounts.

A number of other firms of which Frost and Jennings are or were directors now find themselves in liquidation or administration with combined debts running into many millions of pounds. In one case, administrators have been seeking to recoup £1.25 million from Jennings.

The scheme which had the development of the Avocet 'wonder fuel' at its heart was hatched in 2014. A company bearing the name Avocet Infinite PLC and headed by Frost and Jennings persuaded some 650 investors to take shares with repeated promises of astronomical returns. But production of the fuel never even started as the pledges from Avocet's directors grew ever more fanciful.

At one point Frost circulated extracts from court documents he had filed as evidence for his bankruptcy hearing which claimed Avocet IP patents had been independently valued by patent attorneys Coller IP in December 2019 with an estimated worth of up to £400 million.

The paperwork also showed there was a pending transaction for the purchase of Avocet/Gennfros 'jet fuel from air' intellectual property for 100 million US dollars to be concluded in mid-April 2021. Despite assurances given in court at Leeds that IP sales would allow Frost to pay one major creditor £3.2 million, the judge was far from convinced and declared the self-dubbed 'controversial Anglo-Irish businessman' and his wife to be bankrupt in October 2021

Earlier, Avocet Infinite had changed its name to Omega Infinite before becoming the subject of a compulsory liquidation court order.

However, even that major setback failed to dampen the enthusiasm of Frost and Jennings as they continued to peddle their non-existent promises of jam tomorrow. They became self-appointed joint life presidents of Gennfros at its formation in September 2020, and handed themselves index-linked honoraria of £24,000 a year.

One of countless shareholders' letters, distributed by Frost in January 2021, outlined proposals for a  Gennfros research and development facility and the creation of joint fuel and energy ventures with major world oil and gas suppliers. 

The circular declared: "Dr. Bob Jennings and his team continue to establish new families of IP [intellectual property] in energy and agriculture. From £8 million of funds provided by the new investors measures are in hand to establish a Gennfros Limited research and development centre upon a site identified in Northern England. Land purchase negotiations are well in hand. 

"Gennfros Limited’s new intellectual property shall be subject to an independent valuation in April 2021. Given the huge interest in the non-explosive methanol additive, it is hoped that such valuation shall exceed £200 million". But like every previous claim these ones were described by disgruntled shareholders as 'complete hogwash' or 'utter bunkum'.

Undeterred by his critics, Frost told investors in May 2021 that Parachute Holdings (PCH), "a company with annual revenues that exceed the GNP of Scotland", would invest £400M into Gennfros. It may be worth noting that at that time Scotland's GNP totalled a mildly impressive £170.9 billion.

Following the name change to Genfro Ltd in June 2021, the contents of Frost's newsletters became even more incredible and ridiculous. The imaginary organisation he called (PCH) headed by an individual by the name of Tim Carter, M.B.A. PhD arrived on the scene. Unfortunately no-one had ever heard of PCH - a company with no office address or contact numbers - or Carter, apart from Genfro management.

There followed a missive alleged to have been written by 'Carter' himself in which it was stated: "PCH will develop Gennfros for mankind's benefit. PCH hopes that many of you will take up its generous offers. Those that remain will be well impressed by PCH's forward drive and blunt approach. But those of you who have reservations please just take our offers and GO".

Then, in a 'Dear Friend' email Carter told shareholders his name was Tim, and his instructions were to establish a London office from which his top brass would develop a "merchant adventures emporium".

Here are a few more incredible extracts from Frost 'newsletters' 

January 2021 - "Chevron, Total, and Rosneft will enter into joint venture agreements with Gennfros, followed, in early March, by many other oil companies".

January 2021 - "A 'major' oil company is offering £50M for Avocet IP Ltd., and £200M for all of Gennfros Limited".

February 2021 - "An offer of US $100M has been received for the air-to-fuel patents".

April 2021 - "An offer of $50M has been made for the residual IP in Avocet IP (after the sale of the air-to-fuel IP)".

March 2022 - "A deal has been concluded with a foreign government that has agreed to pay £400M for all of Gennfros' intellectual property".

June 2022  - "The Israeli Intelligence Service will give extravagant gifts to Avocet and Gennfros shareholders".

Whenever challenges were encountered or criticisms levelled there were threats that Genfro would move lock, stock and barrel To Wilmington, Delaware from where even more law suits would be initiated. Not a single action was ever raised in the courts seeking damages.

Now comes what could be the final act in this long-running fairy tale.

The Companies House website carries details of Jennings' application to have Genfro committed to the flames.

Headed IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, and dated April 5th, 2024, the paperwork explains: "This company has applied to be struck off and dissolved. The registrar will proceed unless there is reasonable cause not to and on dissolution any assets remaining in the company will be passed to the Crown. Guidance is available on grounds for objection. If in doubt seek professional advice".

In a so-called DECLARATION OF DIRECTOR signed by Jennings, it states: "I apply for this company to be struck off the register and declare that none of the circumstances described in sections 1004 and 1005 of the Companies Act 2006 (being circumstances in which the directors would be otherwise prohibited under those sections from making an application) exists in relation to the company".

And a FIRST GAZETTE NOTICE scheduled for publication on April 16th according to the website informs readers: "The Registrar of Companies gives notice that unless cause is shown to the contrary, the company will be struck off the register and dissolved not less than two months from this date."

Government guidance on strike off and dissolution of companies includes an instruction that directors who make the application must, within seven days of transmitting the application to Companies House,  send copies to members [usually the shareholders], creditors, His Majesty's Revenue & Customs [HMRC] and the Department of Work & Pensions [DWP]

It remains to be seen whether any of Genfro's listed shareholders will even bother to try and keep the worthless business afloat. It may only be remembered for the untruths spouted during its distinctly underwhelming

 existence.

Meanwhile, it is understood a long-running investigation by Police Scotland into complaints of alleged fraud linked to the Avocet Group's activities is continuing.

'Rationalisation and disposal' policies for Borders Museums

by DOUG COLLIE

Poor quality and broken objects in a vast collection of 50,000 items currently shown or stored in eleven Scottish Borders museums may be disposed of or destroyed as part of a rationalisation which will also influence future policy on acquisitions and development.

The region's rich heritage is reflected in the exhibits on display in the diverse range of museums spanning thousands of years of history and embracing 'celebrities' as diverse as Mary Queen of Scots and world champion racing driver Jim Clark.

Scottish Borders Council - owners of the collections - and Live Borders, the arms length trust which manages the museums have produced their Collections Development Policy (2024-2029).

Shortage of storage space at some locations and a limited amount of money for future additions to collections are both acknowledged in the policy document.

According to the report which will be considered by members of SBC: "Measures include: Update reference to priorities for rationalisation or disposal necessary for legal, safety, care or conservation reasons including material in heavily damaged or very poor condition; and disposals for curatorial reasons."

And the authors of the report - Avril Marriott, Programme Manager and Fiona Colton, Live Borders Head of Museums, Galleries & Archives warn: "If the amendments to the existing Collections Development Policy are not approved it is unlikely that Live Borders Museums and Galleries will achieve an award of Full or Provisional Accreditation. In turn this could affect eligibility for grant aid, partnership opportunities and the allocation of Treasure Trove archaeological material from the Finds Disposal Panel.  The Policy reduces the risk of uncoordinated or unplanned collecting."

As the document points out the Council holds the permanent collections of museum objects and works of art in stewardship on behalf of Scottish Borders communities. The Council also has responsibility for a section of the permanent collections designated as Common Good historic and cultural assets which are managed by Live Borders as part of the museum, library and archive collections. 

"At this time, the collection (which is held in stewardship by Scottish Borders Council and managed by Live Borders Museums & Galleries) comprises approximately 50,000 items. It is anticipated that through an active Collections Development Policy this will continue to grow. The core collections include objects, works of art, Common Good heritage and cultural assets and information relevant to the Scottish Borders region. Supporting collections include photographs, personalia, high quality replica objects, handling collections and reconstructions, topographical and pictorial representations including archaeological records, reports, books, maps and printed ephemera associated with named collectors, excavations and relevant sites."

Rationalisation and disposal of unwanted items will be through a formal review process that identifies which collections are included and excluded from the review. 

It is claimed the outcome of review and any subsequent rationalisation will not reduce the quality or significance of the collection and will result in a more useable, well managed collection.

"The process will be documented, open and transparent. There will be clear communication with key stakeholders about the outcomes and the process.

"Priorities for rationalisation and disposal include:  Rationalisation or disposal necessary for legal, safety, care or conservation reasons including material in heavily damaged or very poor condition (broken and beyond economic repair, badly damaged by woodworm, water damage, fire damage, mould or insect infestation, provide a significant risk or danger to either people or property), especially where high costs of conservation outweigh the importance of the object".

In a section headed 'DESTRUCTION' the report says if it is not possible to dispose of an object through transfer or sale, the governing body may decide to destroy it. 

"It is acceptable to destroy material of low intrinsic significance (duplicate mass-produced articles or common specimens which lack significant provenance) where no alternative method of disposal can be found. Destruction is also an acceptable method of disposal in cases where an object is in extremely poor condition, has high associated health and safety risks or is part of an approved destructive testing request identified in an organisation’s research policy." 

Wind farm threatens Borders Iron Age forts

by LESTER CROSS

Historic Environment Scotland has warned it is unlikely to provide the necessary consents for development of a 19-turbine wind farm which, it is claimed, would have a devastating impact on a chain of Iron Age hill forts and a prehistoric homestead in the Lammermuirs near the Borders town of Lauder.

The sites which could be seriously blighted by the wind farm are protected Scheduled Monuments of national importance, and HES has told the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit (ECU) that any direct impacts on the forts without Scheduled Monument Consent, administered by HES, would be likely to trigger so-called Compliance Procedures. These could include enforcement and stop notices.

Renewable Energy Systems Group has applied to the ECU for permission to construct Longcroft Wind Farm with turbines of approximately 6.6 megawatts each and associated ancillary infrastructure. The towers would have a maximum blade tip height of up to 220 metres, and a Battery Energy Storage System  with a capacity up to 50 megawatts.

In a 24-page report on the proposals, HES insists there are no mitigation measures outlined in the company's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to lessen the overall detrimental affect on the monuments in their care.

The report states: "The proposed development raises significant concerns for our interest, such that we object to the proposal for its significant adverse impacts on the integrity of the setting of the following scheduled monuments: Addinston, fort, Longcroft, fort, Glenburnie, fort and Longcroft Hill homestead".

Following review of the EIA report and visualisations provided by the applicant, and HES's own site visit in February, the heritage agency considers there is no mitigation which is likely to reduce the impacts to a level that is acceptable. Furthermore, HES considers that the conclusions reached within the cultural heritage chapter of the EIA report have underestimated the severity of impacts on several heritage assets and their setting.

"We identified our concerns with the proposed development and the direct impacts to the prehistoric monuments within and in near proximity to the development site, potential impacts on their setting, and disruption of the key relationships between the monuments in the area within and surrounding the proposals. 

"We highlighted that the proposed development would be located in a rich archaeological landscape which overlooks Leader Water and that this landscape included a chain of prehistoric forts located in strategic positions above the valley from which the proposed development would be highly visible."

"The conclusions reached in the Cultural Heritage chapter of the EIA report have underestimated the severity of impacts upon several scheduled monuments and their setting. The HES assessment of these impacts is that they are significant and sufficient to raise issues of national interest."

Each of the monuments is considered in some detail.

Addinston Fort - The monument is a hillfort which dates to the later prehistoric period. The fort is oval  and has twin ramparts with external ditches, measuring approximately 82 metres northwest to south-east to 50 metres transversely. The inner rampart and ditch have been constructed on a massive scale. A causeway across the inner ditch marks the position of an entrance at the south-east.

"The monument is a well-preserved example of a hillfort, which can make a significant addition to understanding the construction, function and symbolism of later prehistoric hillforts. Its form and position, together with a number of sites of similar date but of varied type in the immediate vicinity and along the Leader Water, have the potential to greatly increase our understanding of the settlement, economy and development of the landscape in the Iron Age in this area."

The RES assessment suggests the turbines would represent a minor effect on its [Addinston Fort] setting, resulting in a moderate adverse impact. 

But that view is strongly challenged by HES. They say: "No mitigation is proposed in the EIA report to lessen adverse impacts; therefore, we consider that the proposed development raises issues of national interest for our remit in relation to Addinston, Fort such that we would object to the proposals.

And HES has adopted a similar position so far as the other three monuments are concerned.

Longcroft fort - The monument comprises a hillfort which dates to the later prehistoric period. The fort is also oval in shape, with a series of four large ramparts and intermediate ditches. Where best preserved in the north-east of the site, the earthworks measure 26 metres across, with the ramparts surviving to over 1.5 metres in height.

"The eastern entrance appears to cut through the rampart in an oblique fashion, making access to the fort’s interior less straightforward, and possibly designed to put the visitor at a deliberate disadvantage. The monument is of national importance as a well-preserved example of a hillfort, which can make a significant addition to understanding the construction, function and symbolism of later prehistoric hillforts."

Glenburnie fort -  The monument comprises a fort which dates to the prehistoric period. The ramparts are on the south-east side of the fort and cross the neck of the spur to enclose the site of the fort. Again, HES assert the monument is of national importance as a well-preserved example of a promontory hillfort, which can make a significant addition to understanding the construction, function and symbolism of later prehistoric hillforts.

"Its form and position, together with a number of sites of similar date but of varied type in the immediate vicinity and along Lauderdale, have the potential to greatly increase understanding of the settlement, economy and development of the landscape in the Iron Age in this area."

Longcroft Hill homestead - The monument comprises a scooped homestead of the Iron Age (some 2000 to 3000 years old). The homestead consists of a roughly oval scoop with a broad, high bank on the downhill side. The monument is of national importance because it is a well-preserved example of an Iron Age scooped settlement with associated field boundary which has the potential to enhance  understanding of monuments of this type. 

In conclusion HES asserts: "Turbines, along with ancillary infrastructure of the proposed development, would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the monuments’ setting. They would significantly undermine the ability to understand, appreciate and experience important aspects of the monuments’ setting, including key views and approaches, the intentional exploitation of the topographical landscape, and the deliberate construction of the hillforts to be visible and have visibility and control over this landscape. Consequently, this would significantly reduce the ability to understand, appreciate, and experience the monuments’ cultural significance."

James Cameron, Senior Development Project Manager for Longcroft Wind Farm, told us:.

"RES takes time to carefully design our projects to maximise local economic, social and environmental benefits. At Longcroft Wind Farm we started talking to the local community and other stakeholders, including Historic Environment Scotland (HES), about our initial proposals in spring 2023. 

"The valuable feedback we received during our pre-application consultation led to us to refine the design of the project by dropping a total of five turbines. 

"We’ll take time to carefully review the response by HES but believe that the design of the project appropriately balances the protection of the local cultural heritage assets with the need for low cost, renewable electricity and action to tackle the climate emergency. 

"Additionally, the wind farm could generate approximately £65 million in business rates to Scottish Borders Council over its operational lifetime, supporting vital local services and provide a tailored community benefit package worth £627,000 each year."

 

 

Eight Borders council executives on "Town Hall Rich List"

by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDITOR

An extensive 'Town Hall Rich List' of local authority officials receiving salaries and pension contributions above £100,000 per annum published yesterday by the Taxpayers' Alliance [TA] includes the names of eight senior staff at Scottish Borders Council.

Key findings from the Alliance's research, covering every local council in the UK showed that at least 3,106 people employed in local authorities in 2022-23 received total remuneration in excess of six figures.

According to today's report: "This is an increase of 347 on 2021-22. Of these 829 received at least £150,000, 108 more than the previous year. This is the largest number of people in receipt of at least £150,000 since the Town Hall Rich List began in 2007. In 2022-23, at least 175 council employees received more than £200,00 in total remuneration.

The TA states on its website: "You know how to spend your money better than the government. Your money shouldn’t be wasted by those in charge. And you deserve a simple tax system and the best public services available. Our vision is a prosperous United Kingdom with lower, simpler taxes funding better, more efficient public services."

In its last set of annual accounts up to March 2023 the Borders local authority revealed that the number of employees whose remuneration was more than £50,000 had increased from 287 in 2022 to 361, up by more than 25 per cent. But the data did not include employers' pension and National Insurance contributions in the calculations. The TA statistics take those add-ons into account

So far as neighbouring councils are concerned, East Lothian Council had 14 people in the over £100,000 bracket, Dumfries and Galloway Council, eight; Midlothian, four; and Northumberland, 22. The Alliance notes that Daljit Lally, former chief executive and head of paid service at Northumberland Council received £359,000 compensation during 2022/23 for loss of office.

In Scotland there are a total of 311 individuals on the TA list.

The following details of the eight SBC top administrators on the 2023 'Rich List' as published by the Alliance are:

David Robertson, Director Finance and Corporate Governance until July 2022, acting Chief Executive from July 2022 to January 2023, Chief Executive from January 2023 - salary £123,117; expenses £47; pension contribution £22,133; Total remuneration £145,297.

Jen Holland, Director Strategic Commissions & Partnerships - salary £103,523; expenses £36; pension contribution £18,634; Total remuneration £122,193.

Stuart Easingwood, Director Social Work & Practice - salary £99,125; pension contribution £17,182; Total remuneration £116,307.

Clair Hepburn, Director People, Performance & Change - salary £97,840; pension contribution £17,182; Total remuneration £115,022.

Lesley Munro, Director Education & Lifelong Learning - salary £97,359; pension contribution £16,930; Total remuneration £114,289.

Jenni Craig, Director Resilient Communities - salary £96,267; pension contribution £17,182; Total remuneration £113,449.

John Curry, Director Infrastructure & Environment - salary £93,413; expenses £29; pension contribution £16,814; Total remuneration £110,256.

Ewan Jackson, Chief Executive Officer, Live Borders - salary £87,917; pension contribution £16,814; Total remuneration £103,742.