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.

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.

Since the elections in May 2007, Ron has been much involved in a series of issues affecting the community at Craik and in the upper Borthwick valley. In the last few years, residents have faced the development of a large log cabin development at Craik, a planning application for a wind-farm at Langhope Rig between Blawearie and Ashkirk (which would have meant the use of the road from Martin’s Bridge to Alemoor by construction traffic), the shared headship of Roberton and Drumlanrig Primary Schools, a national pilot scheme to investigate sustainable flood prevention in the area between Eilrig and Craik, and continuing problems related to timber transport.

It has become very clear that some of these issues would have been negotiated more smoothly with better communication between the community and the Council in the early stages. Ron has set out to try to improve these links. Rebuilding trust will take a long time, but he has already promoted greater transparency and more frequent discussions.

He, with fellow Hawick & Hermitage councillor George Turnbull, sits on the Timber Transport Group, and he has also been building relationships with Tweed Forum and with SBC’s Technical Services officers who are involved with the flood prevention pilot.

This pilot has been the focus of much discontent. The original terms of reference were not clear to the community and so there has been ongoing suspicion. The aim is to investigate whether measures might be taken on the low-lying haughland which would slow down floodwater and so help protect communities downstream. This is an issue where very little scientific evidence, and few case studies, at present exist. Examples of measures include the reinstatement of old meanders across the haughland, planting of willow and similar species along the bankings on the edge of the floodplain, planting willows across the haughland etc.. The impact of such measures on the Borthwick’s flow will be assessed on a very local scale, trying to isolate the effect of each one as much as is possible.

Local residents have long held worries re the connection between clear felling of timber and flooding, but very recently assurances have been given that the effect of the former is very small. While clear felling such as currently taking place at Laird’s Hill near Howpasley looks massive, its impact is greatest in the headwater streams in that immediate area – with only a 5-15% increase in flow in the higher order river, i.e. in the Borthwick itself – as Laird’s Hill is only a small part of the whole Borthwick Water basin.