SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

MINUTE of MEETING of the SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, COUNCIL HEADQUARTERS, NEWTOWN ST. BOSWELLS on 24 January 2008 at 10:00 a.m.

------

Present:- Councillors A. H. Hutton (Convener), R. Smith, S. Aitchison, W. Archibald, C. Bhatia, J. Brown, N. Calvert, M. J. Cook, V. M. Davidson, Z. Elliot, J. A. Fullarton, G. H. T. Garvie, K. Gunn, B. Herd, J. B. Houston, J. Hume, T. Jones, F. K. J. Lackenby, G. Logan, S. Marshall, J. G. Mitchell, D. Moffat, A. J. Nicol, D. Parker, J. Paton-Day, D. Raw, F. Renton, C. Riddell-Carre, G. Turnbull, N. Watson, T. Weatherston, L. Wyse Apologies:- Councillors D. Paterson, S. Scott In Attendance:- Chief Executive, Director of Corporate Resources, Director of Education and Lifelong Learning, Director of Planning and Economic Development, Director of Technical Services, Head of Corporate Administration, Head of Legal Services, Head of Housing and Social Work Strategy. ------

CONGRATULATIONS 1. The Convener offered the Council’s congratulations to :-

(a) Eilidh Hunter, Glendinning Primary School for winning the Chinese New Year Dragon Festival Poster Competition and Callum McGuire of Balmoral Primary School and Kaitlin Borthwick of Drumlanrig St. Cuthberts Primary School who were second and third respectively ; (b) the Social Care and Health Section of Social Work for achieving Investors in People; and (c) Michelle Ballantyne, Fiona Nicholson and Jean Robertson for the award of £524,066 from the Big Lottery to support teenagers in the Borders with drug misuse and alcohol problems.

DECISION AGREED that congratulations be passed to those concerned.

MINUTE 2. The Minute of the Meeting of 13 December 2007 was considered.

DECISION (a) NOTED that in Appendix II the reply to the second question from Councillor Moffat had been “yes” to part one and “no” to part two and that the reply contained in the Minute had been to a supplementary question.

(b) APPROVED and signed by the Convener.

COMMITTEE MINUTES 3. The Minutes of the following Committees had been circulated:-

Eildon Area 19 November 2007 Teviot & Liddesdale Area 20 November 2007 Teviot & Liddesdale Area 3 December 2007 Education Executive 4 December 2007 Executive 4 December 2007 Scrutiny 6 December 2007 Planning and Building Standards 10 December 2007 Audit 17 December 2007 Eildon Area 17 December 2007 Tweeddale Area 17 December 2007 Executive 18 December 2007 Scrutiny 20 December 2007

DECISION APPROVED the Minutes and the recommendations contained therein.

OPEN QUESTIONS 4. The questions submitted by Councillors Brown, Gunn and Watson were answered

DECISION NOTED the replies as detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC STRATEGY 5. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Director of Planning and Economic Development outlining the key elements of the recently published Government Economic Strategy and how these might affect Scottish Borders Council. With reference to this and the two subsequent reports on the Agenda, the Chief Executive emphasised that economic development was a corporate issue for the whole Council, rather than for Planning and Economic Development alone. The report explained that the Strategy was a major policy statement from the new Scottish Government which made sustainable economic growth the central purpose of all public sector activity. It recognised the importance of a wide range of government activities in supporting economic development and made it clear that local authorities were to take forward economic development at a local level.

DECISION AGREED:-

(a) to note the publication of the Government Economic Strategy; and

(b) that further consideration be given on how to reflect the Government’s purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth in appropriate Council plans and programmes.

STRATEGIC CHANGES TO SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE AND VISITSCOTLAND 6. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Director of Planning and Economic Development on the recently announced strategic changes to the Scottish Enterprise Network and VisitScotland. The report explained that the Scottish Government had announced that both bodies would be reorganised on a regional basis from 1 April 2008. The current 13 Local Enterprise Company areas were to be replaced by 5 regions, with the Scottish Borders being part of the South of Scotland Region along with Dumfries and Galloway Council area, and Scottish Enterprise would be represented locally by a Regional Office rather than the LEC. The report outlined the key changes in terms of the provision of services, some of which would become the responsibility of the Council, and the issues involved. However, it was unclear at present what exactly would transfer from Scottish Enterprise, as the details were still being negotiated at a national level, with local authorities being represented by COSLA. VisitScotland was also to be reorganised on a similar basis. The report concluded that these changes would result in the loss of two key Scottish Borders entities that had played a significant role in developing and supporting the local economy, and would lead to a reduction in support for economic development in the area and a diminished profile for the Scottish Borders. It was crucial that adequate resources were transferred, as well as responsibilities, if the Council’s existing services were not to be adversely affected. It was noted in particular that these changes would make local authorities responsible for local economic development.

VOTE Councillor Davidson, seconded by Councillor Riddell-Carre, moved that the recommendations contained in the report be approved.

Councillor Mitchell, seconded by Councillor Brown, moved as an amendment that recommendation (b) “that the Council record its concern over the poor communication and lack of clarity following the ‘change’ announcement” be deleted. On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- MOTION - 26 AMENDMENT - 6 The Motion was accordingly carried.

DECISION DECIDED:-

(a) to note the proposed changes in relation to Scottish Enterprise and VisitScotland and make strong representations to the Scottish Government in relation to the impact on the economy of the Scottish Borders;

(b) that the Council record its concern over the poor communication and lack of clarity following the ‘change’ announcement;

(c) to note the requirement for the Council to take on new responsibilities and that a further report would be presented once the details of the new responsibilities and financial implications were available; and

(d) that a report be prepared on the future strategic options for the Council.

CORPORATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 7. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Chief Executive on the proposed establishment of a Scottish Borders Council Economic Development Programme in response to the Government Economic Strategy and the strategic changes to the Scottish Enterprise Network and VisitScotland. The report explained that in light of the significant changes that were taking place in relation to economic development in the Scottish Borders, the preparation of a formal Economic Development Programme would leave the Council in a better position to deal with the challenges this presented. The appendix to the report set out how the Programme Board would operate and its scope. The Chief Executive again emphasised the importance of economic development being dealt with on a corporate basis by all departments.

VOTE Councillor Davidson, seconded by Councillor Riddell-Carre moved that the recommendations in the report be approved and that membership of the Member/Officer Group be restricted in the first instance to members of the Administration.

Councillor Watson, seconded by Councillor Moffat, moved as an amendment that membership of the Group should be from all parties.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- MOTION - 24 AMENDMENT - 8 The Motion was accordingly carried. DECISION DECIDED:-

(a) to establish a corporate Economic Development Programme;

(b) to establish a Member/Officer Working Group to facilitate strategic input from elected Members into the proposed programme;

(c) that this Group be chaired by Councillor Davidson with Councillor Riddell-Carre as Vice-Chairman, with the remaining members being drawn from the Administration in the first instance.

MOTIONS BY COUNCILLOR MOFFAT 8. The first Motion lodged by Councillor Moffat and detailed on the agenda in the following terms was moved by Councillor Moffat and seconded by Councillor Herd:-

“This Council believes that with Gas and Electricity Prices set to rise by 27% and Scottish Borders Council being at the forefront of promoting health and wellbeing in the Borders, that this Council should give a commitment to Support B.R.E.S.T. in Duns, Berwickshire in providing a first-class service to our community, and that Scottish Borders Council give B.R.E.S.T. funding for the coming financial year totalling £40,000. This increase of £15,000 would give the Trust stability required to continue providing a valued service.”

Councillor Moffat spoke in support of his motion. Councillor Garvie, seconded by Councillor Calvert, moved as an amendment that this matter be continued until the meeting of the Council on 14 February 2008 when all budgetary matters would be discussed.

Councillor Bhatia, seconded by Councillor Cook, moved “that the question be now put”. This was unanimously approved and the debate was then closed. . VOTE It was agreed that the vote be taken by roll call

Motion by Councillor Moffat Amendment by Councillor Garvie Councillor Aitchison Councillor Bhatia Councillor Archibald Councillor Calvert Councillor Brown Councillor Cook Councillor Gunn Councillor Davidson Councillor Herd Councillor Elliot Councillor Mitchell Councillor Fullarton Councillor Moffat Councillor Garvie Councillor Houston Councillor Hume Councillor Hutton Councillor Jones Councillor Lackenby Councillor Logan Councillor Marshall Councillor Nicol Councillor Parker Councillor Paton-Day Councillor Raw Councillor Renton Councillor Riddell-Carre Councillor Smith Councillor Turnbull Councillor Watson Councillor Weatherston Councillor Wyse

The amendment was accordingly carried.

DECISION DECIDED that this matter should be continued until the Special Meeting of the Council on 14 February 2008 when all budgetary matters would be discussed.

9. The second Motion lodged by Councillor Moffat and detailed on the agenda in the following terms was moved by Councillor Moffat and seconded by Councillor Turnbull:-

“That Scottish Borders Council, in the interests of open debate and being seen to be democratic by the public we serve, replace the Executive/Scrutiny structure with a Committee system featuring the best elements of Scrutiny.”

Councillor Moffat spoke in support of his motion. Members discussed the pros and cons of reverting to a committee system. In the course of the discussion, it was highlighted that the Council’s current Executive/Scrutiny system had been identified as a model of good practice for other local authorities, although it was acknowledged that communication for back bench Councillors could sometimes be improved. Councillor Garvie, seconded by Councillor Nicol, moved as an amendment that no action be taken in respect of this motion.

VOTE On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- MOTION - 9 AMENDMENT - 23 The Amendment was accordingly carried.

DECISION DECIDED that no action be taken in respect of this motion.

MEMBERS Councillors Hume and Marshall left the meeting.

PRIVATE BUSINESS 9. DECISION AGREED under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of the business detailed in Appendix II to this Minute on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1, 8 and 9 of Part I of Schedule 7A to the Act.

SUMMARY OF PRIVATE BUSINESS

Minute 1. The private section of the Council Minute of 13 December 2007 was approved.

Committee Minute 2. The private sections of the Audit Committee Minute of 17 December and the Executive Minute of 18 December 2007 were approved. Urgent Business

SBHA Claim 3. Members were advised of the current position in respect of the claim by SBHA against the Council.

The meeting concluded at 12.15 p.m. SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 24 JANUARY 2008 APPENDIX I OPEN QUESTIONS

Questions from Councillor Brown

1. To the Leader Can the member confirm that the practice of placing personal details, in particular signatures and “e” mail addresses, of objectors to planning applications in the borders, on the Council’s Website, are made as secure as possible, while still leaving them in compliance with the freedom of information legislation.

Reply from Councillor Parker COSLA has recently announced that an agreement has been reached between the Scottish Government and the Information Commissioner on central guidance. This is expected to be issued to all local authorities in early March.

In advance of that guidance training sessions have been arranged for all PED staff involved in the scanning, and publication on our web site, of planning documents. These sessions will cover the use of the Redaction Tool to block sensitive information. I anticipate that new procedures and operating arrangements will be in place to coincide with the issuing of national guidance.

2. To the Executive Members for Planning and Environment and Economic Development Can I rely on the support of the members and their department in setting up a cross party working group. This group would be charged with looking into ways of attracting more tourists to “stop and shop” in Jedburgh also help seek and secure funding similar to that found for Kelso and aimed at a major “STREETSCAPE” scheme to improve the Jedburgh High Street.

Reply from Councillor Davidson The best way for the Council to address these issues would be for them to be included as part of the new Economic Development Programme that has been highlighted in one of the reports to today’s Council meeting. Support for local retailers and for the tourist industry will be key parts of this Programme. Public realm works in the High Street could also be considered in this way. However, we have to be realistic and acknowledge that the level, and geographic spread, of all of these activities will depend on the availability of resources.

The Jedburgh Councillors may also wish to get together to look at how the Future Kelso group worked up their plans for the town and how other organisations like the Peebles Retailers Association are working together to promote the town and have been successful in drawing down funding, including Challenge Funding, from VisitScotland. I am sure that Jedburgh will be one of the business communities that will also want to work together in this way.

It is always worth remembering too that we can all help our local shops by making sure that we ‘Shop Local’ as much as possible throughout the year, not just at Christmas.

The proposed Small Business Bonus Scheme will provide a measure of rates relief to small retailers across the Borders. It is based on the total rateable value of all properties in Scotland which the ratepayer owns, leases or is otherwise entitled to occupy. Question from Councillor Gunn

To the Executive Member for Roads and Infrastructure When many local authorities throughout Scotland have applied for funding to help with flood prevention and five, namely North Ayrshire, City of Edinburgh, Glasgow City, Moray and Falkirk have applied and been awarded over £20 million, why has this council not applied for one single penny of help? Why are homes and lives in Selkirk, Galashiels and Hawick, to name but three burghs, being put at risk and why is no-one from this council doing anything to help many of the people who have been flooded out once or twice already, from having to worry about facing a repeat performance at any time?

Reply from Councillor Fullarton I am surprised at how out of touch Cllr Gunn is. I simply don’t understand how he comes to the conclusion that “no-one is doing anything” about flooding.

On 4th September 2007 the Council’s Executive Committee considered 7 flooding reports for the settlements in the Borders most at risk. After reviewing the details the members agreed that it would be impossible to start all the proposed schemes immediately as this simply couldn’t be afforded. After a very careful debate, which included consideration of the merits of each scheme it was decided that proposals for Galashiels and Selkirk should go first, and the schemes for Stow, Jedburgh, Hawick, Peebles and Newcastleton would follow.

Council officers advised officials of the Scottish Government of this likely spending profile, and began the process of working up the schemes so that a formal bid for funding could be made.

But to our surprise, and without any warning, it seems that the Scottish Government have removed the Flooding Scheme Grant System as part of an overall change in the funding system for local authorities.

In short - the money’s not there to bid for any more. It seems that Flood Prevention Scheme funding is now being shared out between authorities and not allocated on the basis of need. If this is the case, the Council will find it virtually impossible to undertake any flood schemes as originally planned. We simply can’t afford them, without substantial government support.

Questions from Councillor Watson

To the Executive Member for Roads and Infrastructure 1. How much are the capital works on the Waverley Project which SBC is now considering funding, (stations, car parking etc.), likely to cost? Please supply a breakdown of these costs.

Reply from Councillor Fullarton SBC is not currently considering funding any of the capital works on the Waverley Project.

The Council has been approached by Transport Scotland to consider undertaking some of these works as a contractor once the project gets underway, but any work will be charged to the project, not to Council budgets.

2. Apart from the actual price being paid for land acquired, what are the approximate monthly costs to SBC of continuing with the Waverley Project, including the cost of help in kind? Please supply a break-down of these costs.

Reply from Councillor Fullarton The Waverley Railway scheme is a major national project and has been grant funded since Royal Assent in 2006.Therefore, there is no direct cost to the Council in continuing with the project. This also applies to the purchase costs for land and property.

3. In light of recent evidence is it accepted that a substantial portion of the Borders public opposes the Waverley Project and will the Promoter’s claims that there is overwhelming support for the project now be modified?

Reply from Councillor Fullarton I assume from the question that the “recent evidence” is a reference to the railway debate that was held last Wednesday evening in the village hall at St. Boswells

Unfortunately, no-one from the Waverley Railway Project was invited to attend or take part in the proceedings so it is difficult to comment on whether the vote was representative or not. Without access to the factual evidence and project expertise to support the debate I have some personal concerns about the robustness of the whole process.

Nevertheless that is perhaps not the point. What is important is that the future of a project of this magnitude should not be determined by just one meeting alone.

Evidence has been presented to Parliament which clearly indicates the extent of the Councils consultation processes. These were undertaken to ensure a truly representative view from the 200,000 people who live, work or have an interest along the route.

No fewer than 30 “road shows” and 628 separate meetings or consultations were held with interested parties prior to consideration by Parliament. This latest meeting (the 629th ?) cannot change the fact that this project has very broad public support 200 people may have voted against the railway in St Boswells last week, but 17,000 have signed a public petition in favour of it.

Consequently, I see no reason for the Council to change its position.