Ron was mentioned recently at Holyrood, when John Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Finance & Sustainable Growth was answering a question related to the reduction in business rates. He stated: ‘In the Hawick News . . . I read that the announcement of the small business bonus scheme was welcomed as ‘great news’ by Hawick & Hermitage councillor Ron Smith, who is – I happen to have heard – a Liberal Democrat.’ Conservative John Lamont tried to score points later by commenting that ‘the fact that the Lib Dems in the Borders warmly welcomed a move so strongly opposed by their parliamentary colleagues shows how confused and out of touch they are’.

Well, John (both of them). I don’t feel out of touch. I know that shopkeepers in my area welcome any move which helps them stay viable businesses. I know that the cut in business rates will help. I also know that the extra parking allowed by the One Way High Street and the extra traffic to the town generated by the Heart of Hawick project, the Reivers Festival, the farmers market etc. will also help. We have to make the High Street environment welcoming to the business community, to visitors to the town, and to our own townspeople so that they feel less need to travel elsewhere to shop.

I do have one gripe however and that is that many of our shops and businesses will not qualify for rates relief. It’s unfortunate that all premises operated by a firm, regardless of where in Scotland they are and what nature they are (as this includes storage premises), have to be added together when calculating rateable value, as it means that businesses which I would assess as small in Scottish terms are raised to a level where they gain only minimal benefit. The bands are set too low!

Recently, the ongoing problem has been wheeliebins! Not much can go wrong there you would think? However I’ve received comments recently from residents about problems with the wheeliebins.

These are being left out on the street all week round and so the pavement is congested, making it difficult for passers by, prams, etc., and just adding to an unattractive approach to the entries of tenements in particular.

In addition, difficulties are being noticed by the refuse collectors in that bags of all sorts are being mixed up in these bins, making it hard for them to identify what is to be cleared on the appropriate collection day.

Normal household waste in much of Hawick is collected on Tuesdays. The clear recycling bags for cans and plastic bottles etc., and the lilac bags for paper and cardboard are collected on Thursdays. Lilac bags, just for example, won’t ever be collected on Tuesdays! However if left out early they’ll be at risk of blowing about, or of being torn open.

It would be helpful if neighbours would only put out a bin or bags the night before they’re due to be collected, at the earliest. (It’s also a help if the bags are left separately – not within wheeliebins). If bins are then taken in again to the back court afterwards, the whole place will look better.

Unless this is tackled, the situation is going to become even more complicated from 31^st March when the garden refuse collections start again for the year!

I hope you will consider how you can help. I’ve delivered a letter seeking co-operation around one of the streets in the town and it’ll be interesting to see if anything changes! We’re all looking forward to seeing the town, and the street, look better as spring and summer arrive.

Scottish Borders Council recently agreed to establish a Flood Advisory Group, consisting of one member of the Council’s Administration from each of the five Area Committees, plus one SNP member who might be able to provide liaison with the Scottish Government. The five Councillors are Gavin Logan (Tweeddale), Vicky Davidson (Eildon), Len Wyse (Cheviot), Jim Fullarton (Berwickshire), and Ron Smith (Teviot & Liddesdale). The SNP representative is Kenneth Gunn, also from the Eildon Area Committee. Jim Fullarton as Executive member for Technical Services will chair the group. This group gives an opportunity for putting the case for rapid and effective action to safeguard Hawick. There has been major change in the approach to flood protection since the Council’s Flood Prevention report came out in September 2007, with much more willingness now to consider smaller schemes which can be progressed more quickly. Work will continue in preparing a case for one or two of the earlier and more expensive projects, but these are more likely to lie then on the table pending a signal from Holyrood that policies have again changed and funds might be made available for them. The F.A.G. meantime will balance cash and the prioritisation of the smaller local schemes so that residents will be able to see progress in their own areas much earlier.

[The Group has now met once and indications are that this new approach will indeed benefit Hawick and Newcastleton earlier.]

It seems at times as if instances of a particular problem come along in a sequence. Recently the sequence has focused on ‘defective buildings’, and enforcement notices, when Council staff have identified a problem with a building, or it has been referred by householders or contractors. That issue usually relates to a need for roof repairs – a cracked chimney stack, loose masonry, defective guttering etc. – and on a building in multiple ownership, such as a tenement. It can be harder to get neighbours to agree on how the work is to be done, and contractors prefer also to deal with one person who will take responsibility for paying their bill. In these circumstances, SBC’s Building Control department will first notify owners that a problem has been found and must be repaired (because of course it would be dangerous for pieces to fall off a building and cause injury, or further damage). The owners are given the chance to organise repairs by a certain deadline. If this is not done, the Council arranges an enforcement order which means they will get quotes for the job, choose one of them, instruct the work to be done, and then bill the separate owners for their share, adding a 20% administration fee.

Ron thoroughly supports this process, but, as every situation is different, there are sometimes hiccups in the procedure.

He is looking for a publicity campaign to encourage property owners to take an interest in the health of their buildings. It’s important not to turn a blind eye to cracks or to missing slates etc. as the problem will only grow. However he recognises that it is often quite impractical for any owner, but especially the elderly, to check a roof.

If a problem has been identified, by a workman or by a Council official for example, and the Council has notified owners of that problem, those owners need to be very strongly encouraged to organise the repairs themselves. They will then have greater awareness of, and control of, prices.

One particular problem however is in finding three or four contractors who will provide quotations for the job. It appears that work is plentiful and contractors can afford to be choosey about the projects they take on. Approaching more than one contractor will help to ensure the keenest price is obtained, and will also mean that more than one pair of eyes has assessed the scale of the job, reducing the possibility of nasty surprises when the invoice is presented, after a contractor comes across an additional problem! Remember that a contractor will most likely prefer to deal only with one party, and this is why the Council sometimes has more ability to get the job organised. Note that the Council does not pay VAT on the building work involved so it might be for that reason cheaper, but VAT is chargeable on the administration fee. It is also debatable as to whether the prices charged by contractors to the Council will be the keenest available.

Grants can be available for such work to be done, but they must be organised in advance of the start date. They will not be granted retrospectively, are dependent on money being in the fund at the time, and require the applicant to be over 60 years of age. The first letters from Building Standards, which advise owners of the problem, and then state that enforcement measures are being brought in, recommend owners to contact Borders Care & Repair. This is very, very important. Don’t wait until an estimate has been received. Care & Repair will discuss the situation with owners, will offer advice, and help to complete an application form. The outcome may be that an agreement may be made to make a grant of a certain percentage of the cost, and this will be maintained even if the final invoice is greater than the estimate.

The sequence of problems recently looked into by Ron has shown that communication is important. As a result of his discussions with officials, the Planning & Building Control Department has suggested organising a presentation to councillors on the issues involved, and Ron has welcomed this. Greater publicity will help to reduce some of the frustrations felt by owners, although unique problems may appear in individual cases.