Over the past year, I’ve been trying to promote changes to Drumlanrig Square and to the upper part of Beaconsfield Terrace, for safety reasons. These are described earlier on this blog. Progress has however been slow! At Beaconsfield Terrace, more signage has been erected, and has been refreshed on the road surface, to highlight the 20 mph speed limit. Initially it had been hoped to extend the pedestrian barrier futher down the hill to restrict casual crossing at the wide junction , but this was said by locals to have the potential for creating problems, especially on the days when refuse or recyclates were to be uplifted. Comments more recently seem to suggest that greater police involvement is needed at this point, as it is the speed and style of driving which is being highlighted, as well as the number of drivers using mobile phones. Speed bumps are also being looked for but the advice from Roads officials is that these would be unacceptable at this particular location, as they create noise problems for adjacent residents but also because drivers in turning the corner would be crossing them at an angle and therefore four wheels would be individually bumping across them rather than two sets, again adding to the noise disturbance.

At Drumlanrig Square, the road layout plans are pretty well finalised and it is the parking situation which is causing the delay. Residents and business proprietors have made clear that they do not want any less parking than was previously available. On the east side of the Square, two scenarios are possible and these are being examined to decide which would allow maximum parking while allowing deliveries to businesses and the free movement of buses. I feel it is better to take longer to study the scheme than to make mistakes and have to go back to the drawing board!

So what’s been happening? It’s been a bit quieter recently as Council has had a summer recess, and therefore there has been no need to go across to Newtown St Boswells several times each week. That’s allowed me to catch up in several ways with outstanding business and other things. Much appreciated as I don’t like to feel I’m always running to catch up!

Two ongoing issues have been noticeable: flooding and planning.

There have been several scares over flooding – once in Hawick itself but the others in Newcastleton, along the B6357 between Hewisbridge and Saughtree, and in the Teviothead – Carlenrig area. The reasons for the incidents have been quite varied – heavy rainfall, blocked drains, felled trees washed down and blocking bridges – but the outcomes of immediate distress and ongoing anxiety are identical. Plans are progressing quite quickly for action on the drains and intervening ditches in Newcastleton, but the division of costs has still to be finalised. Plans in the Hawick area focus on lower Mansfield and include the removal of the remains of Weensland Cauld, as well as progressing flood alleviation channels, higher level routes between bunds, to catch floodwater and send it further downstream instead of spilling over surrounding land. Where rivers go through farmland, responsibility for protection lies with the landowner, although SEPA is likely to have a view! Discussions I’ve attended recently seem to be reopening the possibility of upstream action on floods, catching the water in land which can safely be flooded, to reduce the peaks arriving in towns and villages.

Planning matters are also varied. Permissions have already been granted for many blocks of housing in the Hawick area, but others arrive in the system every week. Naturally neighbours of the sites are usually very concerned at the potential changes to their situation. If an application meets the requirements of planning policies there can be little scope for withholding permission, as this would just be overturned later on appeal. The most common grounds for refusal are loss of amenity for neighbours, overdevelopment of a site, or parking and access problems. Possibly the most frequent issue is an application for new housing in the countryside, where very specific rules apply. Recently a Reporter appointed to handle an appeal against refusal of permission to develop an eight-apartment block in Oliver Crescent made points very strongly against the (in)appropriateness of the planned building which would be in a Conservation Area, commenting also on the parking problems. The strength of his opposition to the proposal might provide a precedent which would support Councillors in turning down schemes which they might consider unacceptable. Approval by SBC’s Planning Committee of the Sports & Leisure Club building conversion to ten flats has made front page news, but here different policies apply in that conversion of existing town centre buildings is favoured (compared to demolition and new build). No parking will be provided however and that will threaten to put pressure on nearby on-street spaces. I tried to engineer a condition of approval which would state that advertising of the flats must emphasise that parking was not available so that buyers were fully aware of the situation.