PCC Logo

Community Council

of the Royal Burgh of Peebles & District

PCC Logo

Community Council

of the Royal Burgh of Peebles & District

PCC Logo

Who we are

Peebles and District Community Council (PCC) is governed by our constitution and standing orders. PCC was established under the Scottish Borders Council (SBC) Scheme for Community Councils (which contains SBC's Code of Conduct for Community Councillors).

We are local people with an interest in our community. Our 18 members may serve for up to 3 years before standing for re-election. We regularly co-opt members for their skills and to fill vacancies.

The six elected Scottish Borders Councillors from East and West Tweeddale are `ex-officio' (non-voting) members who provide a valuable link to and from SBC.

When & where we meet

Ordinary Meetings of the Council are held on the Second Thursday of each month in the Burgh Hall, Peebles. These meetings normally start at 7:00pm and continue until approximately 9:00 pm.

Our meetings are publicised in the Peeblesshire News the week before the meeting with any changes to time and venue advertised.

Minutes and reports

Minutes and reports from the chair, planning convenor and police are available in Documents.

There is also a copy of the minutes and agenda displayed on the Community Council Noticeboard each month. The board is situated on the right of the archway leading to the Chambers Institution and Quadrangle. A further copy is located in the library. Please ask the librarian for the Community Council folder.

Next ordinary meeting

7pm Thursday 10 September 2026 – Agenda

Come along

All meetings are open to the public.

Each meeting allows 10 minutes for a Question and Answer session for members of the public to ask a question on any subject of relevance to the community council.

Grants

The RWE Bowbeat Wind Farm (Peebles & Eddleston) Community Fund is now open to applications for community projects benefiting those living in the Peebles & Eddleston Community Council areas.

PCC's micro grants scheme has £5000 per year for small grants (up to £400 for individuals or £1000 for groups) for small projects providing community benefit to the Council area which don't qualify for the main scheme. See guidance and download an application .pdf (or MS Word).

Citizen Space – Consultations

Contribute your views on open consultations and find out what changed in response to previous consultations for SBC Citizen Space and Scottish Government consultations. On each site you can scroll down to "see all open consultations".

According to the Woodland Trust, Ancient Woods in Scotland are areas of woodland that have persisted since 1750. Ancient Woodlands take hundreds of years to form; thus, they have been around long enough to develop rich and complex ecosystems, with undisturbed soils and diverse communities of plants, animals and fungi.

One of our richest and most biodiverse habitats, Ancient Woods are safe havens for our native wildlife, including many species not found elsewhere. Sadly, Ancient Woodlands cover less than 2.5% of the UK land mass, meaning that remaining fragments are priceless and irreplaceable.

What a wonderful surprise then that NatureScot’s expert on Ancient Woodland in the UK, Ms Jeanette Hall, recently confirmed the status of the woods at Kingsmeadows as Ancient Woodland. The evidence that led NatureScot to this conclusion is based on two key historic maps of Peebles (reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland).

1856 OS map for Peebles 1856 OS map for Peebles

The 1856 first edition Ordnance Survey (OS) Map shows the entire Kingsmeadows policy as mature woodland. Interestingly, the structure in the woods near Cavalry Park is labelled as the site of the Mercat Cross, which was transferred to these woods in 1807 before being moved to the Chambers Institute around 1857.

An earlier historic map from 1823 by renowned cartographer John Wood, provides evidence that the woodland at Kingsmeadows was mature well before the survey for the OS first edition took place.

1823 John Wood map for Peebles 1823 John Wood map for Peebles

The Roy Military maps of Scotland from around 1750 can normally be used to establish the presence of Ancient Woodland but, according to NatureScot, records of long-established woods in the Scottish Borders are very incomplete.

Furthermore, NatureScot confirms that records of many Ancient Woodland indicator species (e.g. dog's mercury, water aven, bluebells and holly, wild garlic) on site provide additional evidence of the quality of the woodland.

It is Scottish Government policy to prohibit building on Ancient Woodland and we continue to work to ensure that the woods at Kingsmeadows are preserved for future generations.

Dr Michael Marshall
Planning Convenor
Peebles & District Community Council

As always: support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC)

Articles/20260900.html

Our newly elected MSP for the Borders, Calum Kerr MSP, has been invited to our September Community Council meeting to discuss the future of renewable energy and the impact of energy infrastructure to his constituents in the Borders.

He has kindly agreed to join us on Thu 10 Sep in the Burgh Hall, – though as it is a sitting day in Parliament, he may struggle to arrive in time for the 7pm start (depending on votes).

He said

"Ahead of the meeting, it would help to know whether there are particular projects or issues the community council wants to focus on. I look forward to hearing the community council's views on what is happening locally."

We intend to discuss:

  • Net zero and the large number of renewable projects locally
  • Community benefits – not keeping pace with inflation
  • Infrastructure and the need to bury transmission lines
  • Data centres – who profits other than Duke of Roxburgh and tech billionnaires?
  • SBC blame SG for budget pressures – possible closures of community institutions such as the Drill Hall
  • Access to first aid & lack of Minor Injuries Unit – confusion between Hay Lodge Health Centre and Hay Lodge Hospital
  • Patient transport to the BGH – particularly for those with mobility issues
  • State of Peebles roads

If we missed any big issues, please drop us an email secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk

Please join us in person

  • Burgh Hall
  • 7pm Thu 10 Sep 2026

News/20260831.html

Thank you to the member of the public who emailed us on 27 May 2026 telling us they were asked to leave Kingsmeadows House and saying that they have been receiving very conflicting advice about:

  1. whether it is private property,
  2. if it belongs to the residents or the developers,
  3. the right to roam in Scotland [as applies at Kingsmeadows]

and asking Peebles Community Council to clarify. PCC has been working to protect the woodlands and public access at Kingsmeadows for over a decade and we believe it would be in the public interest for us to share our opinion, set out below.

Overview

As we understand it today, the short answers to your questions are:

  1. All of the land behind the wall at Kingsmeadows is private property.
  2. All of the land behind the wall at Kingsmeadows (except for The Lodge House) is owned by Granton Homes Ltd SC477370 on title PBL5914 (and PBL6298).
  3. The public have the right to roam in the East and West Woods, but not elsewhere.

Map of Kingsmeadows with approximate boundaries of East and West woods indicated in blue Map of Kingsmeadows with approximate boundaries of East and West woods indicated in blue. Copies of PBL5914 (with relevant maps) can be purchased from the Land Information Service for £3.60. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Current visitors will see that Granton have closed the woodlands (without explanation[1]). While the woodlands are temporarily closed, there is no public access at Kingsmeadows.

Why can’t I walk in the gardens or along the riverfront?

In January 2016, before Granton sold homes in Kingsmeadows to residents for £3.7m, they added legally binding assurances to the property titles that defined most of the middle third of the estate as a private garden. Private gardens are exempt from the right to roam under Section 6 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act (the Act).

Peebles Community Council / Trust and Access Officers requested in 2015 and 2019 that a public path be established along the riverbank in front of Kingsmeadows House – but that did not happen (and only received one public comment of support). A barbed wire fence was also added along the Eastern boundary, blocking access between Kingsmeadows and Cavalry Park (possibly around 2018).

Discussions with the Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society (ScotWays) in 2022 and Access Officers in 2022 and 2024 about the middle-third of the estate showed no records of public paths and indicated that the right to roam didn’t apply.

PCC is double-checking with ScotWays and Access Officers

We are aware of recent discussions on Facebook and PCC is again taking advice from ScotWays and Access Officers to double-check:

  • Whether the right to roam applies to any of the middle third of the estate;
  • Whether anything can be done about the barbed wire fence; and
  • Whether necessary consents can be gained to establish a public path on the river.

As always, we encourage members of the public to share relevant information with SBC Access Officers. You can also tell PCC your views in person at the Burgh Hall, 7pm on the 2nd Thursday of each month or via email secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk.

Granton originally implied the public would be locked out of the entire estate

On 14 Sep 2015 Peebles Community Council / Trust objected to Granton Homes’ plans and the implication the entire Kingsmeadows estate would become a gated community:

"The sales particulars for the apartments and flats imply that the grounds would be maintained for the sole use of the residents: 'Outside all residents will have access to the private grounds. The main gates will be automated and the entrance to the grounds and mansion house will be controlled by an entry system."

"We wish to draw attention to the contents of "Scottish Outdoor Access Code - Public access to Scotland's outdoors, 2005, which clearly states that such wooded policies of houses must be accessible for the enjoyment of all members of the public. Since these woodlands are well outwith the curtilage of the residences we would contend that they cannot be kept as private grounds."

These comments (and stronger comments from Access Officers) met with success, with the gates at Kingsmeadows remaining open for access to the West woods to this day.

In our opinion, to preserve access, we need to protect the woodland from development

If woodland is lost for housing, that woodland won’t exist for the public to access any more.

Despite publicly stating that they had no plans to build on the woodland (e.g. Peeblesshire News 27 Nov 2014 and 18 July 2015) in 2020 Granton Homes applied to build seven, 5-bedroom homes on the East Woods. After 40 objections, including from Peebles Community Council, Granton withdrew their application after planners advised:

"The proposed development would see a significant number of trees removed from the site, the removal of which has not been justified … The proposal has significant issues which means that it cannot be supported."

Since then, Granton Homes has had three further planning applications refused because of unacceptable impact on the woodlands at Kingsmeadows:

  • 2022 refusal by SBC because “the proposal would result in the loss of trees over and above what was accepted in the planning permission in principle.”
  • 2024 refusal by SBC because “the proposed development would result in loss of an existing woodland resource.”
  • 2025 refusal by SBC because the proposal “would have an adverse impact on the woodland setting of Kingsmeadows House.”

Granton still have one planning application for Kingsmeadows yet to be decided by SBC.

We urge everyone to unite behind the campaign to bring the Kingsmeadows woodlands into community ownership so they can be preserved, for all to enjoy, in perpetuity.

Article feedback secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk

[1] There appears to be no public statement of why the woodlands are closed, though likely it follows postponement of tree works Granton had planned for 1–5 June 2026 until after nesting season.

"I have been in touch with Kingsmeadows today; the proposed work is the controlled removal of windthrown trees and in the interests of safety. Therefore, as dangerous and/or dead exempt from application. However, I also discussed this type of tree work with ecological considerations and timings, following the contact they have agreed not undertake the work week commencing 1st June nor within the current nesting season."

"Nesting season is end of August, any work out with that date. [SBC]

PCC has raised a freedom of information request to obtain information on the proposed works.

News/20260606.html

Peebles

With flooding and wind farms in the news, we're sharing the latest climate and biodiversity updates.

SEPA's latest climate change allowances for flood risk assessment land use planning sets 59% as the climate change allowance for Flood Risk Assessments for developments on the Tweed Catchment. New developments must be outwith the flood area not just of the largest flood on record, but outwith the flood area modelling an additional 59% flow on top of the historic peak.

SEPA's guidance is based on the latest Climate change trends and projections from Adaptation Scotland, using climate modelling from the Met Office and others.

Met office prediction for warming in Peebles 1. Peebles warming (Met Office)

UK Climate Projections (UKCP) for Peebles are shown in fig 1.

UKCP data are relative to 1990, so if we want to compare Met Office predictions against the 2015 Paris Agreement ambition to hold global warming within 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, we need to add around 0.6°C (Paris Agreement FAQ pg 8)

Paris Agreement FAQ How close are we to 1.5°C 2. Paris Agreement FAQ How close are we to 1.5°C?

United Kingdom

UK facts & figures

The UK emits 0.83% of global energy related CO2 emmissions, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

"On a historical scale, the UK is in the top ten for cumulative emissions since the nineteenth century, reflecting its early industrialisation." [Carbon Copy]

13.58% of the UK's final energy consumption comes from modern renewables, ranking the UK 75th globally – behind countries such as Congo, Tanzania, Honduras, El Salvador, Mozambique, Ecuador, Peru, India, Bulgaria, Sudan and Eswatini [source IEA].

"In 2024 alone, China added 277 GW of solar power and 80 GW of wind, in contrast to 2.7 GW of total renewable capacity added in the UK" [Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies].

DEFRA's warning

On 20 Jan 2026, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs published their National security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security.

The report makes sobering reading, offering 7 key judgments:

1. Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity (high confidence).

2. Cascading risks of ecosystem degradation are likely to include geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict, migration and increased inter-state competition for resources (moderate confidence).

3. Critical ecosystems that support major global food production areas and impact global climate, water and weather cycles are the most important for UK national security (high confidence).

4. Ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions. Every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse (high confidence).

5. There is a realistic possibility that some ecosystems (such as coral reefs in South East Asia and boreal forests) start to collapse from 2030, and others (rainforests and mangroves) start to collapse from 2050 (low confidence).

6. All countries are exposed to the risks of ecosystem collapse within and beyond their borders (moderate confidence).

7. Without significant increases in UK food system and supply chain resilience, it is unlikely the UK would be able to maintain food security if ecosystem collapse drives geopolitical competition for food (moderate confidence).

Read DEFRA's full National security assessment

Global

"WMO’s State of the Global Climate report 2025 confirms that 2015-2025 are the hottest 11-years on record, and that 2025 was the second or third hottest year on record, at about 1.43 °C above the 1850-1900 average." World Meteorological Organization State of the Global Climate 2025 23 Mar 2026.

Is it too late to keep global warming below 1.5°C? The challenge in 7 charts

Nature, 21 Nov 2023.

This immersive special feature visually explains the current state of the climate crisis.

"Chances are rapidly disappearing to limit Earth’s temperature rise to the globally agreed mark, but researchers say there are some positive signs of progress."

"At first glance, it seems that nations have no chance of meeting the Paris agreement’s headline goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. The rate of warming has picked up over the past decade, and the average global temperature for 2023 is likely to be 1.4°C above the average for 1850–1900."

Exceptional Warming Spike in 2023–24, source Berkeley Earth 1. Exceptional Warming Spike in 2023–24 (Berkeley Earth)

Read Nature's full Article and this Feb 2026 article on renewables

Exceeding 1.5°C requires rethinking accountability in climate policy

Nature comment, 26 Jan 2026.

"In 2024, global average temperatures exceeded 1.5°C for the first time. Going above 1.5°C in one year does not mean that the Paris threshold itself is technically breached — it is defined as an average over at least 20 years to account for year-to-year variations — but it indicates that the world is on track to pass it in a decade or less.

In July, an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice firmly anchored 1.5°C as the primary limit of the Paris agreement, reducing ambiguity over its aim. Although severe negative effects of climate change materialize below 1.5°C, this limit demarcates the minimum threshold of dangerous human interference that governments agreed as unacceptable.

In an ‘overshoot’ world – one in which global warming exceeds 1.5°C but is later brought back below this limit – countries’ obligations to meet this temperature limit remain. However, the pursuit of the 1.5°C limit from above poses further challenges.

Countries will need to commit not only to reach net-zero carbon dioxide emissions, but also to achieve and sustain net-negative emissions — by removing billions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere and durably storing it. They will need to confront the further loss and damage and the adaptation needs that arise as a result of exceeding the 1.5 °C limit. And governments need to ask why they failed to prevent dangerous human interference, and who is responsible."

Read Nature's full Article

Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy

Nature, 10 Sep 2020.

statistics:The next 30 years will prove pivotal for Earth’s biodiversity 2. DEFRA assessment figure pg 5

This article explains the image on page 5 of DEFRA's security assessment.

"Increased efforts are required to prevent further losses to terrestrial biodiversity and the ecosystem services that it provides. Ambitious targets have been proposed, such as reversing the declining trends in biodiversity; however, just feeding the growing human population will make this a challenge. Here we use an ensemble of land-use and biodiversity models to assess whether—and how—humanity can reverse the declines in terrestrial biodiversity caused by habitat conversion, which is a major threat to biodiversity."

Figure 1e shows estimates of "the global number of species not already extinct or committed to extinction (measured using the fraction of globally remaining species metric)."

Read the full article courtesy of the International Institute for Sustainability

Or watch this Astrum Earth video

Article feedback secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk

News/20260130.html

26 Jan 2026

Belltown Power say their community offering is industry-leading

Belltown Power have written to the communities of Peebles, Eddleston and Innerleithen explaining why they rejected all three requests PCC put to Belltown Power in April 2025.

"Dear Community Councils,

As discussed in the latest meeting of the Leithenwater Wind Energy Hub Community Liaison Group, held on the 14th of January 2026, please find below a clarification of Belltown Power’s community offering. I hope this helps explain why we feel the community offering is industry-leading and represents a real benefit to the local community. Our FAQs on community benefit and community ownership are also provided to answer any broader questions.

Community Benefit

Belltown Power offers a community benefit fund of £5000 per MW of installed capacity per year in line with Scottish Government guidance as published in 2019[1]. With the current proposal of 13 turbines, assuming 6.6MW per turbine, the fund would be £420,000 per year. This figure is index-linked to CPI so it will increase with inflation. The base date of indexation will be the commercial operation date of Leithenwater Wind Energy Hub, i.e. the date of first generation[2]. This is how the standard guidance is generally employed by the wind industry in Scotland[3]. We are also highly motivated to get the project operating and subsequently get the community benefit payments flowing as soon as possible, since commercial operation will provide the first project revenues. In reality, since 2019, project economics have become more challenging due to significant rises in equipment cost. Despite this, we (along with most other developers) have retained our previously stated commitments to be at the suggested level of £5000 per MW per year.

Community Ownership

Belltown goes well above and beyond the industry benchmark through our generous community ownership offer, which donates 1% of the project to the community at no cost and offers a further 4% at cost once operational (which should be well below the true market value of the share at that point). The ultimate value of the 1% donation and the 4% at cost will depend on several inputs ranging from technical (wind speed, final turbine candidate, total capital expenditure) to financial influences (power price, inflation, CfD pricing, etc.). Indicatively, it could have a value of several thousand pounds per MW. Once the project is further developed, we will be able to share more detailed and accurate information regarding the community ownership offering. Belltown expect to support the community in sourcing and delivering the financing required to acquire the 4% cost if the community chooses to subscribe to that portion of the offer.

Yours sincerely,

Benjamin Thorne
Development Manager for Leithenwater Wind Energy Hub"

Read Belltown Power's letter

PCC Footnotes

[1] Page 5 of the guidance says:

"We will continue at a national level to promote community benefits of the value equivalent to £5000 per installed megawatt per annum, index linked for the operational lifetime of the project."

[2] Belltown Power do not expect Leithenwater to start generation before 2030. Legal advice to our three Community Councils says that accounting for the time period between 2019, and the first anniversary of commercial operation, it would be prudent to request that this £5,000 per MW figure be index linked using 2019 as the base date. Broadly speaking, this would allow for the £5,000 per MW to be adjusted for inflation between 2019 and the relevant date of payment (rather than solely adjusted for inflation between payment dates after the commercial operation date).

[3] Index linking (i.e. taking inflation into account) a payment of £5000 in Dec 2025 would only have been worth £3540 in May 2019. This is already a reduction of 30% – and the later Leithenwater wind farm starts, the less Belltown Power's offer is worth.

If this is standard practice within the wind industry, communities receive less money in real terms (after inflation) the later wind farms start.

Peebles Community Council's three requests in April 2025

On the 19th of April 2025, PCC wrote to Belltown Power responding to their community benefit offering. We asked for the following changes to the memorandum of understanding (MOU):

  1. In accordance with legal advice taken collectively by Eddleston, Innerleithen and Peebles Community Councils, we asked that the base date for inflation indexing specified in the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Benefits be specified as 8 May 2019 (the day the guidance was last issued).
  2. With Scottish government consultations in progress for Community benefits from net zero energy developments, and the Scottish Community Coalition on Energy calling for community benefits of 5% of revenue from on-shore wind farms with a minimum of £7300 per MW per annum – substantially above Belltown Power's offering – we asked that signing these MOUs now should not lock our communities into the current, lower rate, preventing us benefitting from any increases resulting from consultations (see News 13 Mar 2025).
  3. We asked for administrative costs to be paid by Belltown Power – not Community Benefit funds.

Belltown Power rejected all three proposed changes.

Read our 19 Apr 2025 letter

Please send your feedback on Belltown Power's offer to secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk or tell us in person at the PCC Meeting 7pm Thu 12 Feb

News/20260126.html

This is the Planning Convenor's report of – and personal opinions on – the issues raised at the Sat 17 Jan 2026 South of Scotland Community Council convention on wind farms, for consideration by PCC at its next meeting, 7pm Thu 12 Feb 2026.

For background on the convention, see this BBC article.

Key takeaways

CCs feel overloaded & outgunned

  • Some CC’s have had up to 10 applications for wind farms or batteries (BESS) in their area
  • The workload for a CC to deal with one application is substantial (many large reports, written by multiple consultants)
  • The workload to deal with multiple applications is unsustainable
  • The same applications keep coming back until approved

NPF4 policy 11 Energy gives green light to wind farms & batteries

  • Renewable energy proposals outside National Parks and National Scenic areas will be approved
  • Long list of negative impacts are listed, but developers only need say how they will mitigate those
  • Significant weight must be given to renewable energy generation and greenhouse gas targets

Current trajectory

  • Many wind farms and overhead lines across Borders
  • With only small concessions to protect landscape and biodiversity
  • Calls for increased community benefits (for an update on Leithenwater wind farm see News/20260126.html)

Key ask

Does PCC wish to sign the Unified Statement (changing “Highlands" to reflect wider geography) and join a Scotland-wide Community Council movement to push back against the impact of unplanned and disproportionate renewable energy infrastructure?

Read the 22 Jan 2026 summary from the convention organisers.

Read the 5 Feb 2026 Q&A between Peebles and the convention organisers.

Planning Convenor's comments

There was a call for a (non-binding) show of support and I indicated Peebles' likely support

  • Items 2 & 3 obviously needed
  • Moratorium (item 4) would only cause delay if much needed strategy is missing.
  • Item 1 is less clear. Wording is agreeable by all – but PCC must decide whether renewable energy rollout is "unjust and unnecessary industrialisation" in light of the climate and biodiversity emergencies.

See News/20260130.html for an update on the Government's latest warnings on climate and biodiversity.

There is a plan for renewable energy infrastructure rollout from the National Energy System Operator (NESO). Current plans show much more renewable energy being delivered than the UK needs – despite a recent review by NESO. This plan might be unstoppable given the cost, lead time and societal need to transition to renewable energy.

There have also been calls to use the convention to address the environmental damage done (and the money being funelled into private investors) by forestry, e.g. Stobo Hope and Todrig.

These problems can be seen as indicative of systemic inequality and wider failures of planning democracy.

Dr Michael Marshall
Planning Convenor

Please send your feedback to secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk or tell us in person at the PCC Meeting 7pm Thu 12 Feb 2026

News/20260122.html

Members of the public attending our 13 Nov meeting complained that SBC appeared not to be following important environmental regulations – potentially illegally – and asked us to raise a complaint with SBC.

This follows the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS) recently writing to SBC expressing their view that approval of the Kingsmeadows applications without appropriate environmental assessment – as planners said they were minded to do – would be grounds for judicial review arising from breach of Habitats Regulations.

SBC declined to publish the correspondence with ERCS on the planning portal, despite a request to do so. Members of the public also asked PCC to repeat the request to publish the correspondence with ERCS.

We complained that

  • SBC appears to be failing legal duties to safeguard European Protected Species (EPS)
  • Failures appear to stem from a misunderstanding of the law
  • Legal advice from ERCS appears to be being ignored
  • Legal concerns haven't been published on the planning portal and remain unanswered
  • Regulations require proof of no impact to EPS – beyond scientific doubt, based on data
  • Yet planners say they are minded to decide without appropriate environmental assessment

We ask SBC to immediately

  • Reject these applications
  • Or pause them while the legal complaints are investigated.

Read our complaint to SBC here.

Add your complaint

If you share our concerns, we ask that you complain to SBC as well.

Complaints can be made:

Article feedback secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk.

News/20251117.html

News archive