Community Council
of the Royal Burgh of Peebles & District
Community Council
of the Royal Burgh of Peebles & District
Articles
Click the headlines to expand each article.
Live Borders (LB) continues to concern many people in Peebles and across the Borders and your community council still engage with Scottish Borders Council (SBC) over it. A recent exchange highlighted to us the difficult and complex tasks they, SBC have to face and the lack of resource that they have to manage with. I would not disagree with any of this and indeed some of what SBC do, they do very well indeed. However, in my view and that of many of my contacts, LB is more a self-inflicted injury than an accident of circumstance, and SBC appear to be doing all they can to avoid acknowledgement of this.
SBC say that the situation is urgent. It is, it was urgent in 2023 when
Government, whether central or local is required to provide the services, that we as individuals are unable to provide for ourselves and that cannot be provided as commercial services. The law requires that a local authority ensures that there is adequate provision of facilities for recreational, sporting, cultural and social activities. The Leader of the Council, Councillor Euan Jardine appears to agree with this requirement, at least where sport is concerned. To quote him from his recent article in the Herald: “Sport and physical activity are not luxuries”, We need to invest more directly in sports clubs”, “we should be removing barriers, not creating more of them”, and “If many Scots value sport, why are we making it more difficult to access”? Why indeed! Perhaps the Leader of the Council should study our research and take this up internally.
Peebles and District Community Council has shared our Peebles Life and Peeblesshire News articles with SBC; the reaction shows a level of discomfort and a repetition of the same tired arguments; we’re not to blame, it was Live Borders, it was Covid, it’s urgent. [Why now? Why not earlier?] However, to repeat, SBC’s own commissioned report includes a serious indictment! “a lack of strong leadership and governance, the absence of a senior leadership team, unclear strategic direction, limited accountability, weak oversight of financial and operational performance, poor data utilisation, lack of performance driven culture, Inefficient resource allocation and suboptimal service planning. Surely, it did not take a consultant to identify this. Where was the SBC oversight? Perhaps no one was responsible, that is the modern way isn’t it! However, to end, last week I met the new Chief Executive of Live Borders. Time will tell how well she succeeds in her task. It will not be easy. However, without adequate support from SBC, her task will be impossible.
Peter Maudsley
Chair,
Peebles and District Community Council
As always: support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC)
A Peebles community faces another application to build on their play area. Despite protections in their title deeds and planning conditions preventing building, this is the seventh application to build on this green space faced by residents in Ballantyne Place. If it can happen to them, it could happen to anyone.
Permission for 28 homes at Ballantyne Place, on the site of the former March Street Mills, was granted by SBC in 2005. The play area was intended to help support community for adults and children alike. Approved plans for 71 homes on the remaining March Street Mill site next door show a generous multitude of public green space and landscaping. These features and the allotments are protected by conditions in the planning approval granted in January.
But are green spaces and play areas like these safe from development in the Borders? Applications from developers to build on the residents’ play area in Ballantyne Place began in 2011. Five applications were made, between 2011, and 2019 before being withdrawn. Planners recommended a sixth application in 2020 for approval, saying “There would be no unacceptable adverse impacts on residential amenity.” Sensibly SBC’s Planning Committee disagreed, refusing the application and finding that removal of the play area violated SBC’s protection of Greenspace policy and was overdevelopment. The applicant appealed to the Scottish Government, who dismissed the appeal in June 2021. That process took a year – a very stressful time for residents.
An objection to the current proposal describes what happened next:
“In a spiteful act of vandalism, in October 2021 the owner arranged for a bulldozer which proceeded to destroy all the work that residents had put into creating a welcoming, safe gathering space. This was witnessed by parents and young children alike. The resultant piles of broken tarmac and paving slabs, rubble and smashed wooden seating were strewn across the area. This presented a significant risk of physical injury to children who continued to play there, as well as appearing extremely unsightly. The matter was featured in the Peeblesshire News on 27th October 2021.”
Ownership of the land changed again recently with the new, seventh application to build on this play area. Residents, Peebles Civic Society and PCC have written detailed objections opposing the development. However, we are also asking why, after a refusal by SBC’s Planning Committee and a dismissal of appeal by the Reporter, must the community in Ballantyne Place go through this again?
PCC help the public in supporting or objecting to applications with reference to lawfulness and policy. We looked closely at what the Planning Act and Regulations had to say about the legality of this latest application and consulted, Planning Aid Scotland and Citizens Advice Bureau (not formal legal advice – we have no budget). On a reading of the Planning Act (to our non-legally trained eyes) we don’t believe local authorities have the power to materially change planning permissions once developments have been completed – and without that power, the Ballantyne Place application should be rejected. Apparently, it is normal practice for SBC to change completed permissions.
Given this potentially affects green spaces and play areas across the Borders we wrote to SBC setting out our concerns (available in full on the planning portal). SBC have promised a reply from their legal department but have refused to extend the deadlines for comment. Once we receive SBC’s reply and explanation, we will continue to support the residents. Pro bono legal advice would assist us greatly.
Dr Michael Marshall
Planning Convenor
Peebles & District Community Council
As always: support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC)
Only yesterday, I read a post on Facebook, that made several good points about SBC and Live Borders and once again it brought this sorry tale to the forefront of my thoughts. Before giving these on this particular subject, I should say that SBC have some excellent staff, working for good service departments and that my experience demonstrates that when SBC and the community work together, we can achieve effective results. Live Borders unfortunately, does not fall into this category.
SBC got themselves into this mess and it behoves them to get themselves out of it without penalising our communities. Several issues concern me. Firstly, the publication of the consultants’ report on Live Borders appeared hurried and without competent executive review. Many in our community agree that the report is full of holes and thin on facts and therefore seriously flawed. If I had published such a report in a previous life, it would have been career limiting.
Secondly, I have heard it said that; “we are where we are and that we should forget the past and move on”. So, are we to sweep the failings of the past under the carpet and then forget them? I think not. SBC would be in danger of repeating this mess all over again!
Thirdly, to my eyes, there appears an attempt to hold Live Borders 100% to blame. Sorry! SBC set up Live Borders, they effectively owned it and as such had responsibility for oversight. In my view SBC have 100% responsibility.
Fourthly, SBC are putting the onus on our communities to defend their own assets and services. This is grossly unfair, at least at this stage. A strong community council, or strong community management can fight a good corner. A weaker community may not be able to put up such a fight at all, regardless of the actual value of the asset to that community. Surely such a lottery is wrong.
SBC are servants of the community and not the other way around, we are the customers, and this customer service at Live Borders is poor, not because I say it is, but because SBC’s own report, commissioned by them says it on page 79. The report notes a lack of strong leadership and governance, the absence of a senior leadership team, unclear strategic direction, limited accountability, weak oversight of financial and operational performance, poor data utilisation, lack of performance driven culture, Inefficient resource allocation and finally suboptimal service planning. If ever there was an indictment of poor executive management and trusteeship, there it is. So, I say again, I do not believe that communities should be punished for management deficiencies that they themselves have no control over.
One last thought on this affair. Could it be that the failure to resurrect the Scottish Border Community Council Network and the recent abolition of the Area Partnerships is designed to weaken the voice of the community? Well, probably not intentioned, but it does have that effect. Therefore, so much for community empowerment!
Peter Maudsley
Chair,
Peebles and District Community Council
As always: support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC)
We are pleased to announce that on 4 February this year, Scottish Borders Council registered the Peebles Place Plan which sets out the aspirations and priorities of the people of Peebles. This feedback was collected in several consultations over the last three years. The majority of those contributing wished to see amongst other things a second road bridge, a flood defence scheme and a new business park – all of which are planned. If and when they come to pass, these will impact significantly on how the settlement functions and have the potential to lay the foundations of a more resilient and sustainable community.
There are also ambitious projects for active travel, the Chambers Institution, School Brae Hub, Victoria Park Day Centre, Greener Peebles, the Baptist Church and for strengthening the Eastgate Theatre. Some of these are in-flight while others may be years away, but all of them will progress only with the hard work of those carrying on Peebles’ long tradition of volunteering and community initiative.
The formation of the Peebles Community Trust (PCT) was a community initiative designed to deliver and co-ordinate such projects. Drafting and successful implementation of the Peebles Town Action Plan 2016–2021 provided initial strategic direction. The current iteration of the Place Plan was developed by a broader team including PCT, PCC and the Peebles Civic Society, supported by generous funding from SBC. This plan further develops and extends these efforts and signals how community projects work together to deepen sustainability, equality and resilience.
A Plan for Peebles and the Peebles Town Action Plan 2024–2034 provides an evidenced and argued statement of community ambitions, prioritisation and proposed sequencing of these aspirational projects and initiatives. The task now that the plan is registered is to work with Partners and Funding Bodies to secure support for the programme in the form of Memoranda of Understanding and the funding for individual projects and initiatives. Most importantly, the task is to do this together with the people running our community groups who are already driving some of these projects forward and those aspiring volunteers working quietly in the background.
We invite local community and business organisations to endorse the plan and to join the support group. We would then like to invite active members who are willing to take a whole town view (representing the interests of the community as a whole) to join the management board of the Peebles Town Team so that, together, we can contribute the skills, mentoring and strategic context needed to make the plan a success.
If you would like to endorse the plan, join our membership or express an interest in joining our board please contact us.
You can read the Peebles Place Plan in full, together with the more detailed Peebles Town Action Plan 2024–2034 and our draft views on Peebles Placemaking Team evolution at https://place.ccrbpeebles.co.uk/.
Peebles Placemaking Team
Dr Michael Marshall
Planning Convenor
Peebles & District Community Council
As always: support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC)
Our February community council meeting which always has a full agenda, was busier than usual as we discussed the problems the Eastgate Theatre faces, the workings of the SBC Planning Committee and the demise of the SBCAT.
Police Scotland and SBC set up the CAT in 2018 as it was presumably thought that the cover provided by Police Scotland was inadequate. The cost for two seven-man teams was around £1/2M. A year ago, one team was disbanded and now the other team is going too. So, is Police Scotland now more adequately provisioned? No of course not!
It is true that many in PCC felt it was wrong that SBC funded the CAT teams. It is perceived as double taxation. We pay taxes to the state to fund our police and pay again to top it up from local taxes. However, setting this aside. We know, and this was confirmed at our meeting that local police are stretched thin indeed. At the Christmas lights switch on with its attendant large crowd, the nearest police were in Gala. Is that acceptable? I don’t think so.
We have been told that members of the CAT will be reallocated. I guess we will be lucky to have one allocated for the whole region. Of course, to quote (Peeblesshire News) Councillor Robson
“A lot can be done without needing a CAT team. For example, littering is a big problem. An awful lot of money can be saved by people taking their litter home with them”.
Personally, I despair! [Self-censored text]. Is that what the police do? Police litterers? In my 70+ years have litterers ever taken notice of anyone, let alone Councillor Robson?
I have analysed our police reports over 10 months. Over an average month the CAT dealt with around 10 traffic offenses, issues 80 parking tickets, makes 12 arrests or cautions, deals with assault, domestics, drug offences, house breakings and thefts, etc. They do not police the dropping of rubbish.
Then we are told, the CAT doesn’t actually achieve very much. So, SBC have wasted a few millions of pounds on the CAT. Not so according to their own documentation, October 2022
(1) “These high visibility activities have not only led to the detection of various offences
(2) “The Community Action Teams have also executed a number of property search warrants recently, aimed at tackling
and April 2023
(3) “Key issues including rural acquisitive crime, drugs, antisocial behaviour [ASB] and speeding continue to be the main focus”.
I Sincerely hope that whilst SBC make savings, Police Scotland step up to the mark and replace the CAT, number for number or the savings made may be absorbed by more crime and ASB. Has anyone actually studied cause and effect? I have seen savings of £380,000 projected. However, other initiatives are being constructed, they will have a cost, does the projected figure take these into account? I suspect that we will all pay in the long run for this decision.
Peter Maudsley
Chair,
Peebles and District Community Council
As always: support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC)
I have been a member of the community council since 2019 and in all that time the subject of public toilets has been raised time and time again. Adequate public toilets are not just a convenience, they are a necessity. This isn’t something newly discovered.
The earliest public toilets known were created in Pakistan in around 2800 BCE. The Romans a couple of thousand years later provided public lavatories and they didn’t build them out of kindness, they built them out of necessity. We of course forgot that lesson until Victorian times when cholera forced a rethink over sanitation. We are undoubtedly forgetting these lessons again today.
SBC, we are told, have a policy of only one convenience per location. This disregards size, tourist visits and layout. Peebles has a population of around 9000 and a high level of tourism all year round. With the (probable) permanent closure of the Eastgate toilets, there are no public facilities near the town centre.
The Common Good provide a seasonal toilet at Haylodge Park and another at Kingsmeadows carpark. The latter is the nearest provision for Victoria Park and its playground. We have reports of desperate parents asking nearby householders if their children can use their loo. Surely this is unacceptable.
Orkney Islands Council provide 43 public toilets for their circa 22,000 inhabitants. Around 18 times as many as the Common Good provide for us, not SBC. Even West Linton has a bigger ratio than Peebles, not to mention most of Europe, some of whose tourists consider us third world, at least in this respect!
Most people understand the financial difficulties facing our council and others like it. However, these cuts are not the way to impress our tourists and encourage a return to spend their money in our Highstreet. A civilised society does not force people to go behind trees in a park, or some to have an accident, or others to knock on peoples’ doors for help. Many people have IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome), many have diabetes, and many men have prostate problems and when these need to go, it’s not in 10 minutes, its NOW! What does a wheelchair user do?
Public health experts refer to some of these people as being on the “Loo Leash”, afraid to go too far away from home. Easy for bureaucrats who don’t suffer such a problem to balance their budget by cutting our conveniences.
The Common Good doesn’t exist to solve SBC’s problems, it adds value to the town, in this case by providing extra facilities. We do understand the problems of vandalism and ASB (Antisocial Behaviour) which increase cost. However, other authorities seem to manage this better. Why can’t SBC? There is best practice out there, SBC should go and find it. Also, we seem to charge less than 50p to spend a penny. That charge, the Victorians’ penny should be £1 if the charge had kept pace with inflation. Better that than to close the facility and shout “Garde Loo!!!”
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
As always: support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC)
In the not-too-distant future, I, as Chair of the Community Council (PCC), will be asked to add my signature to this document. As will representatives of the other town organisations that have made up the team led by Crick Carleton of the Peebles Community Trust (PCT).
Should I be signing, it will be at the direction of the democratic majority of the members of the PCC. They will in turn be acting on your behalf, the population of Peebles. Local democracy, in my personal view, is not very satisfactory and I have written about this before. However, it is what it is, and we must work with it. There is no other mechanism available.
In the past, the Town Council managed locally on our behalf. Today, we are managed from afar by a body, SBC, that has far too much to do, over too large an area and with too limited resources. Local councillors represent the community, but they don’t manage, that is for council officers and SBC do not provide town managers.
The Scottish Government came up with the idea of local communities, usually through the good offices of community councils, creating "Place Plans”. Councils are required to consider these Place Plans when developing their own development plans.
Over the last few years, your local team has engaged with the public to the best of its ability, including 20 public consultations. Not easy, given that the team is made up of volunteers, who must balance their volunteering with their own lives and families. This engagement generated more than 1,000 comments and ideas from around 400 people. However, people are busy, and the team couldn’t reach out to everyone.
Given how positive the feedback we received was, we assume that the silent majority support the plan too. Still, we recognise that not everyone will agree with everything, that would be impossible. It is though, the only plan there is, there is no other and if it is not endorsed, there is unlikely to be a replacement.
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
South of Scotland communities have benefitted from £30.9 million funding from onshore wind farms since 1996. That figure could triple to almost £900 million by 2058 if the South’s share remains at the current level of 21% of Scotland’s onshore wind generation capacity [SOSE, pp 1-2].
Those community benefits payments are made to local communities hosting wind farm and electricity generation networks and are paid in various forms. Community benefit funds are generally fixed annual amounts paid to communities who then allocate funding to local projects. However, shared ownership or in-kind benefits, such as electricity bill discounts to residents or direct funding of larger community projects, can also be offered.
Expectations were set in 2014 that onshore wind farms should contribute to local economies:
“Scottish Government recommends a community benefit package for onshore wind developments with a value to the equivalent of at least £5,000 per installed megawatt per annum,
Sadly, the
Crossdykes Wind Farm near Lockerbie is hailed as industry leading after committing to £7000 per MW per year.
After
Of the 21 proposed new wind farm projects for the South of Scotland that are likely to proceed, the average value of community benefits funds is estimated at £3986 per MW per year. While this is substantially higher than the current average benefits paid by existing wind farms of £2537 per MW per year, this is still less than 60% of the Crossdykes figure and the guidance [SOSE, page 23].
The Scottish Government introduced guidance on community benefits rather than legislation because of the UK parliament’s decision to reserve energy policy. In December 2023, Scottish Minister for Energy & Environment Gillian Martin wrote to UK Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Claire Coutinho:
“The Cabinet Secretary and I have consistently called on the UK Government to explore mandating community benefits for onshore energy developments. I am writing to reiterate that call.” [HoCL, pg 7]
Rt Hon Mr Angus MacDonald in his maiden speech at Westminster 5 Sep 2024 said:
“What was a beautiful view of the mountains is now rows of 200-metre-high whirling turbines, and large new pylons marching across the country to the cities, where the demand is. Secondly, what is in it for the locals? The turbines and generators are manufactured overseas, the developer and utilities firms are from outwith the UK, and the workers are shipped in. Last year, our total community benefit from that multibillion-pound industry was an estimated £9.1 million in the highlands, and £26.4 million across Scotland as a whole. It should be a multiple of those figures. ...
What can be done about this? I propose that 5% of revenue from all newly consented renewable energy generated both onshore and offshore should be paid to community benefit funds. For onshore projects, two thirds of that should be paid to the affected council ward, with one third paid to a council infrastructure fund. ...
The Norwegians handled the revenue from the North sea oil boom well, and their sovereign wealth fund is now valued at $1.7 trillion. Britain saved nothing, and we are in real danger of repeating that mistake with the renewables bonanza.” [Hansard. Note Follow-on debate 15 Oct 2024]
Bowbeat Wind Farm (pictured, in the north of the Peebles and Innerleithen District Community Council areas) recently had its lifetime extended by SBC by 5 years.
If you have any thoughts on community benefits from this or other wind farms, please contact Anne Snoddy (Secretary) secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk
Dr Michael Marshall
Planning Convenor
Peebles and District Community Council
In our September meeting one of the subjects discussed was how support for young people is being eroded.
Yes, we have had successes, the shelter in Victoria Park hasn’t generated any adverse comments that we know of, and it hasn’t been trashed as some doubters forecast. Another success is the introduction of Street Pastors who provide support to young people on Friday and Saturday nights twice a month. These patrols undoubtedly reduce some potential for mischief. We, the PCC strongly thank the organisers and volunteers who make this happen.
We had other successes too, such as the young peoples’ film nights, etc. We think it has made a difference, but now there is a perfect storm. Funding is being reduced or stopped altogether, coordinators and volunteers are retiring or taking a step back and no one is coming forward to lend a hand.
Just two recent examples – “Oor Space Youthy” has cancelled OSY Juniors (Friday), OSY Seniors (Saturday) and the youth Café (Monday and Thursday) and “Peebles Youth Voice” has been wound up. Will we now see a deterioration in behaviour? Probably.
Society has changed, youngsters are subject to different pressures, particularly with social media, and schools often seem to concentrate on high academic achievement as the be all and end all for youngsters to succeed. In the past this pressure was offset by technical subjects for the practical kids who weren’t academic and by lauding sporting achievement. Social media and electronic games also have an effect by reducing actual face to face communication with peers and parents alike, at least for some people.
Youth groups provide a forum in which real communication can take place, where some can find support or words of comfort and advice which aren’t available elsewhere or where youngsters are reluctant to look for it. Not everyone can be academic. In my case I had a great career after initially being a failure at school. Perhaps a slow developer. Again, I have a friend who being highly dyslexic, still can’t read and write very well. At school he was told he would never amount to anything, but like me, he had a very successful business career and even flies his own plane. We need to provide support and to help every youngster to be a success; and by doing so reduce some of the potential for poor behaviour. Neither should we forget that only a very small minority cause problems and support from society can often help them.
Recently, I came across a company that to me at any rate stands out for best practice in developing youth. P&M Sinclair (who are builders) have 20 trade apprentices who make up roughly a quarter of the workforce. Edinburgh College and CITB (Construction Industry Training Board) provide the foundation for their modern apprenticeships. The company deliver employability sessions at local high schools and have previously hosted work placements for local S5 pupils undertaking a foundation apprenticeship in business skills.
As if this was not enough, in January every year they support the Future Pathways event at Penicuik School, helping with mock interviews amongst other things. Further, they attended an event in Midlothian for circa 100 S3 students to consider work in the built environment by giving youngsters the opportunity to experience hands on sessions with real employers. Unfortunately, this article can only sample a little of what this company does so well. Perhaps others can learn from this. Apart from anything else, the company consider that it provides them with a stronger skills base than would standard recruitment practices.
At our PCC meeting it was expressed that people suffer from an inertia when it comes to volunteering. However, with something so important as our children, can we stand back and fail them through our inertia and lack of interest?
If you would like to help, please contact Anne Snoddy (Secretary) secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
As many will know, Peebles and District Community Council (PCC) organised the local hustings for the Westminster elections. I was nervous, having never been involved in anything similar before and not knowing how it would turn out. However, my concerns weren’t justified. The Burgh Hall was packed, there was only a little barracking of the seven candidates, the audience were generally well behaved and so too were our politicians. A far better example of democratic principles than exhibited in some of the televised public debates. Perhaps Peebles can provide a lesson for all the others!
Only one criticism has fed back to me and that was there were no questions on local issues, but of course local issues were not what this election was all about. We were also lucky to have an excellent Chair in Father Tony Lappin and he deserves much of the credit for a successful evening.
Now that the general election is out of the way we can return to local issues. Just how healthy is our local democracy? On the surface it appears satisfactory, I believe your community council work well with the elected councillors and indeed the elected councillors regardless of party seem to work well together and they do work hard for the community they serve. PCC is represented on the community hospitals working group, NHS Borders recently gave invites to the public to allow scrutiny of its future direction and SBC continuously issue questionnaires to collect public views on a range of subjects.
It all looks good, but how effective is this local democracy? I would suggest not very. There is a general perception that much of this interaction with the public, by public services is window dressing. I am certainly coming to believe that. The Scottish Borders Community Council Network died off, partly due to a lack of volunteers, but mostly, because the way it was originally organised by SBC could never work effectively.
Local groups including the PCC are understaffed and almost always underfunded. People demand services, want events like Peebles in Bloom, the Beltane and the Christmas Lights and they ask PCC for help when they have a problem. However, most folk consider themselves far too busy to get involved with helping and when it all falls apart, they cry about how awful it is and so sad that no one provides these things anymore. Volunteer groups all need more people to give back to the community and not just to take from it.
In England, parish and burgh councils have an average annual budget of £1m and can make local decisions on what benefits the community. Community councils in the Scottish borders have just £60,000 between them and almost no local autonomy. Scotland’s regional councils are the largest in the developed world with an average population of 175,000. Across Europe the average is 10,000. Norway, long held up as an example to us with a similar population to Scotland has nearly 400 small but powerful councils compared to our 32 overblown edifices.
Effective local democracy? I don’t think so!
As always: support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC) secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
This is the writer’s second AGM and covers a full year from May 2023.The report includes a lot of detail, probably more than an AGM usually requires. However, it is included to make two important points.
Firstly, on occasion we, that is the PCC has been accused of doing nothing worthwhile. This form of comment is always via social media and although it says more about the poster than it does about the PCC, it does cause some angst amongst our members. The detail here surely buries those comments stone dead. Allied to these comments is the occasional complaint that we haven’t taken a particular action that the poster would have liked to see. Assuming that the poster is eligible to be a member of the PCC, they are welcome to join us and work free for the community. We should take heart from all the supportive verbal feedback that we hear day in and day out.
The second point relates to the community council system itself. Peebles CC receives £1,501 per annum, with only Galashiels and Hawick receiving more at nearly £2,000. Communities such as Walkerburn receive just short of £700, which the writer would argue is still too little by a long way. Our population is approaching 10,000 and Walkerburn is a tenth of our size but receives 50% of our funding. Our funding has deteriorated year on year from an equivalent today of around £2,100. If the reader considers the size and complexity of Peebles, and that de-facto our community council is a poor replacement for a town council, then the support we have is pathetic. The average cost of a secretary today in Scotland is £28K per annum. Our secretary works three days a week for an honorarium of a few hundred pounds. If we don’t have a volunteer, we don’t have a secretary and then we don’t have a community council. Someone in government, local and national wants to think about this and with some urgency.
It is impossible for this writer not to follow a trail. How much does local democracy cost in the Borders and how much in the country for a year? A little rounded up research gave less than £60,000. There are 68 community councils. Applied to the 1,200 in Scotland this gives a rough estimate of less than a million pounds for the year. Of course, we are a low population here and the average may not be very accurate. However, it’s almost certainly less than three million. So much for local democracy! Did those councillors who made the recommendations to SBC for another 10% fixed for three years after a hiatus since 2009 actually discuss anything of substance, or did they just decide 10% sounded like a nice round figure? Councillors should be on our side, the side of the voters, and although they have difficult decisions to make can they really defend such a position?
Read the chairman's full report
As always: support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC) secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
As many will be aware, your Community Council was represented on an NHS working group that was looking into the organisation of the community hospitals of which there are four in the Borders. Our community hospital being Haylodge. We took comment from the community and fed back into the process. How much notice will be taken of this feedback is debatable.
It was specifically said at the outset of the process, that the treatment of minor injuries was not up for discussion. However, having had previous feedback from the public, We asked why “minor Injuries” was out with the scope of the exercise? The answer was provided that the decision resulted from previous work considering this issue alone. The deciding factor apparently being that wider training is required as to whether a particular injury can be dealt with on site or would need referral to A&E (e.g., if a head injury was involved).
The writer wasn’t convinced then and isn’t convinced now. Do all minor injuries amongst community hospital patients require referral? If not, then surely if staff are qualified to take appropriate action on site, then they should be able to place butterflies on a cut and bandage it and yes, if necessary, send the person to BGH? After all, we are talking only of first aid.
Setting the foregoing aside, we asked our community to comment and more than one ex doctor, ex nurse and administrator “saw no reason why minor injuries should not be treated at a community hospital".
The question keeps coming back; directly to us at PCC and on Facebook as per this example "Anyone know what happened to minor injuries at Haylodge? No-one would look at my four-year-old’s split chin and so now he had to go to A&E which isn’t the right place obviously, but what choice is there?"
Well, if you consult the website it says, "Hay Lodge Hospital … The hospital staff provide a 24-hour minor injuries services". It is now nearly six months since this writer first flagged up this error to NHS management.
Recovering from a recent operation myself, I wasn’t going to write an article this month until I was informed yet again of this issue. This time an accident of a pensioner on the Haylodge Site was, I am told refused first aid. Firstly, this goes in the face of natural decency. As a one time advanced first aider myself, I couldn’t turn away a person needing help. What is the world coming to? It goes against the information laid out in the NHS, Haylodge website.
A quote from a member of the public was "If they didn’t want to help others why did they enter the profession?" Why indeed? But this isn’t fair, the staff are only following orders from management and staff have no legal requirement to do otherwise. Under GMC Guidelines "Doctors must offer help in an emergency". It is only guidelines, but it says "must", not "may" or "should". It is in effect an ethical duty. We don’t see the RNLI ever refuse a callout and we should not see a refusal to help here either.
As always: support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC) secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
As Chair of the community council, I find myself engaging with numerous groups and many different subjects. Regular readers of our column will have a fair understanding of the work we do and the activities that we get involved with. However, unless you are involved, as we are, you can’t get a real appreciation of the issues that affect us all.
What has become clear to me is that the management of our town is fragmented, and I don’t think this will be restricted to us. I would bet that all Border towns are fragmented to a greater or lesser extent. Different Scottish Border Council (SBC) departments provide our complex mix of services, such as education, waste collection, roads, etc. Other SBC departments seek to support us in a myriad of other ways such as “Place Making” and Town Action Plan team, the “Common Good”, senior citizens, general maintenance, and so on. The list is endless.
In the voluntary sector, there is us (the PCC), Oorspace Youthy, Christmas Lights, Dementia Friendly Peebles, the Beltane Committee, the Drill Hall Committee, the Gutterbluids, etc. etc. Not to mention the clubs, the Traders Association, agencies, churches, U3A, Eastgate Theatre, Community Trust, and again, many more. My apologies for those I have missed.
So, fragmented. How? If we were a company, there would be a Managing Director. A council has a leader. The NHS has a Chief Operating Officer, A school has a head. What do we in Peebles have? Nothing. An action taken by any one organisation can affect one or more of the others, but there is no coordination. For example, if the Chambers Institution thought opening a café was a good idea, then that would affect sales across the High Street and be possibly detrimental to the Eastgate, and the Eastgate is, as we know under pressure. Peebles Community Trust will need to close the re-use hub sometime so that they may do maintenance in the hall. Where could it go? At Christmas I visited the Leckie Church, and it was full. I also visited the Old Parish Church, and it was fairly-well empty. Perhaps one or the other will close, if so, what would happen to it? And more to the point what would the knock-on effect be?
Personally, I believe SBC need to appoint one senior person to be responsible for coordination in Peebles, another for Hawick, another for a group of villages perhaps, etc. They cannot be volunteers; the job is too big. Perhaps they could be realigned from existing resource and share duties with another function. As the town would be more efficient, there is every chance that it would save money and thus pay for itself. Regardless, we would all benefit.
As always: support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC) secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
First, your Community Council hope that you have had a MERRY CHRISTMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR. And now this is probably a good opportunity for us to look at all the activities of the Peebles and District Community Council (PCC) over 2023. It was a busy year.
The highlight as always was our Peebles in Bloom competition which once more showcased some of our truly excellent gardens and gardeners. We would all be the poorer without them. Once more I thank our team who did such a terrific job in organising it.
We also need to highlight the town’s success in being selected for more than £4M of levelling up funding from West- minster for our Chambers Institution. For this success we thank our present team of SBC elected councillors & David Mundell MP. Already we can see what can be achieved. The Burgh Hall is magnificent now that it has had the suspended ceiling removed and has been redecorated. Peebles Community Council was the catalyst that kept William Chambers aspirations alive by pushing for change and our present SBC councillors who are the Trustees took up the challenge with enthusiasm. We now have a Beneficiary’s Group, led by SBC Councillor Robin Tatler and a management group led by SBC Cllr Julie Pirone and representation from several interested parties including PCC and the Peebles Civic Society.
The PCC was involved with the victims of the flooding in Walkershaugh and Tweed Avenue and is now closely allied with the Paul Spence’s Resilience Group.
We are also working with Colin Kerr of Walkerburn and the Tweeddale Area Committee Flood Advisory Subgroup. When we consider how badly affected Brechin was in the recent storms and how it could so easily have been us, it gives serious pause for thought. We need to help ourselves and keep pressure on SBC and SEPA likewise to help us.
We are represented on the NHS working group considering the community hospitals including Haylodge and have held meetings with NHS senior management and with the Chief Executive of NHS Borders. Any feedback from the community is encouraged and is being passed on.
Unfortunately, I am now restricted to circa 450 words in these articles, so a quick overview. In November last I had 18 meetings with 13 in October. Over the year these activities have included the Baptist Church building, the Victoria Park Centre, Victoria Park Lighting, meetings with residents, the Tweeddale Area Partnership, the future of the Community Councils Network with SBC, parking meetings, the High School, Peebles Youth Voice and much, much more. We make a difference. You too could help to make a difference, so contact Anne Snoddy, our secretary on secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk, or just attend our meetings as a member of the public on the second Thursday of each month.
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
First, A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR to all the readers. This is probably a good opportunity for us to look at all the activities of the Peebles and District Community Council (PCC) over the last year. It has been a busy year.
The highlight as always is our Peebles in Bloom competition which once more showcased some of our truly excellent gardens and gardeners. We would all be the poorer without them. Once more I thank our team who did such a terrific job in organising it.
We also need to highlight the town’s success in being selected for more than £4M of levelling up funding from Westminster for our Chambers Institution. For this success we thank our present team of SBC elected councillors and David Mundell MP. Already we can see what can be achieved. The Burgh Hall is magnificent now that it has had the suspended ceiling removed and been redecorated. Peebles Community Council was the catalyst that kept William Chambers aspirations alive over the last few years by pushing for change and our present SBC councillors who are the Trustees took up the challenge with enthusiasm. We now have a Beneficiary’s Group, led by SBC Councillor Robin Tatler and a management group led by SBC Councillor Julie Pirone and representation from several interested parties including PCC and the Peebles Civic Society.
The PCC has been involved with the victims of flooding in Walkershaugh and Tweed Avenue and is now closely allied with the Paul Spence’s Resilience Group. We are also working with Colin Kerr of Walkerburn and the Tweeddale Area Committee Flood Advisory Subgroup. When we consider how badly affected Brechin was in the recent storms and how it could so easily have been us, it gives serious pause for thought. We need to help ourselves and keep pressure on SBC and SEPA likewise to help us.
We are represented on the NHS working group considering the community hospitals including Haylodge and have held meetings with NHS senior management and with the Chief Executive of NHS Borders. Any feedback from the community is encouraged and is being passed on.
Unfortunately, I’m now restricted to circa 450 words in these articles, so a quick overview. In November I had 18 meetings with 13 in October. Over the year these have included the Baptist Church building, the Victoria Park Centre, Victoria Park Lighting, meetings with residents, the Tweeddale Area Partnership, the future of the Community Councils Network with SBC, parking meetings, the High School, Peebles Youth Voice and much, much more. We make a difference. You too could help to make a difference, so contact Anne Snoddy, our secretary on secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
Schools often encourage students to form student councils. The elected few liaise with the teaching staff to communicate ideas for improvements to student life. Items raised by pupils themselves are often real day to day things that make a difference to the young people’s school life. One primary school student councillor recently said that one topic on the agenda was that there should be more cake on the lunchtime menu, and it was hotly debated at several meetings.
One might draw comparisons between student councils and community councils, where community councils liaise with the local authority and other organisations on behalf of the community over items that often may make a real difference to their everyday lives.
Community councillors play a vital role in shaping our neighbourhoods, they represent the interests and concerns of residents, working together to improve the communities. They try to influence decisions on local issues like planning, infrastructure, and community events. Community councillors are passionate about making a positive impact and fostering a sense of belonging. The community council works hard to be the representative voice of the people, advocating for their needs and aspirations.
A good community councillor is someone who listens attentively to the concerns and ideas of their fellow residents. A community councillor is approachable, empathetic, and open-minded. They strive to understand and balance the diverse perspectives within the community, and they work collaboratively to find solutions that the majority can agree with. A good community councillor is also proactive, taking the initiative wherever possible to engage with residents, attend meetings, and stay informed about local issues. They are committed to transparency, accountability, and representing the best interests of the community.
Do you have some, or all, of these qualities? Are you a retired professional looking for an outlet to share your vast experience and skills? Are you new to the community and interested in learning about the infrastructure of Peebles? Are you a young person who is keen to have a say on the long-term future of your community? Are you someone who would simply like to increase their circle of friends and acquaintances whilst helping make a difference? Peebles Community Council would like to hear from you. There is a meeting held once a month on the second Thursday and you are very welcome to come along to watch and listen with no obligation whatsoever. Alternatively, you can contact the Secretary on secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk with any questions or, if you would prefer, to arrange an informal chat.
Community councillors are passionate about helping you and your community. However, do they have a recurring request for more cake on their agenda? No, but they might be able to ask for more parking spaces outside the bakery. So next time you see a community councillor, give them a thumbs up for their dedication!
Fiona Richardson
Minute Secretary
Peebles and District Community Council
There is currently what is called “A national conversation on local democracy and community power” being conducted by the Scottish Government under the heading “Democracy Matters – Your Community, Your Ideas, Your Future”. It sounds good, we can all identify with it can’t we? Perhaps, if the initiative leads to regional councils not only listening to communities more, but more importantly demonstrating this by their actions, then it will have been worthwhile. This, we are told is to empower us to shape our own futures.
In a previous article, I described how the Community Trust (PCT) and the Community Council (PCC), and others are sounding out the community and drafting a Community Action Plan and Place Plan. We are doing our bit. It remains to be seen how well Scottish Borders Council (SBC) buy in to it. Although we do see more engagement than before it will still mark a major change if we are finally seen to work closely together for the community good.
One problem that we have, is that few in the community appear interested in joining with PCC, or PCT, or indeed many voluntary organisations. Not just in Peebles, but anywhere. Community spirit is waning, insularity is growing, and engagement is weak. We in the PCC often hear, when in casual conversation, how we are making a positive contribution to the town. We are contacted numerous times each month to help support planning applications or to join in objecting to them. We are asked to help intercede with SBC if someone has a problem or to lend support to an issue such as putting pressure on policing, asking for changes to the High School design, keeping the problem of flooding alive, or getting the streets tidied up. The list is endless. However, when it came to asking for views on the draft Community Action and Place Plans in the article mentioned, there were no responses to our request for feedback and our efforts to publicise them. This makes it difficult for PCC to truly represent your views. We receive very few complaints, but when we do, often the accusation is of a lack of democracy. However, without engagement there is no democracy!
This takes us back to the National Conversation. Whilst we know that there are some community councils who would quite happily be directly responsible for say 10% of their councils’ services and where some third sector organisations have the infrastructure to take on more responsibilities, this is certainly not the case for all. We can only look at it from our own perspective. Our town Action Plan is down to one well qualified individual. Without him, it would not fly. PCC is made up of some retirees, but also working people with jobs, families, and commitments and retirees have their own responsibilities too. Taking on additional work is not an option and anyway taking on responsibilities for public money comes with serious accountability. There would be a need for offices and secretarial support, etc. In effect, we would have re-introduced Town Councils. How many would volunteer to work for nothing and be publicly accountable? If skills were needed to manage this new community power, how would they be recruited and managed? how efficient would it be? To this writer, for our own community it won’t work, at least, not for now.
We believe that community councils are necessary to provide a link between the service provider, SBC, and the community. SBC councillors are also part of this interface, but they are few, part time, and not well remunerated. They do their best.
PCC needs you; it needs your views and if you have skills, you think we can use please contact Anne Snoddy secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
The chances are that most readers will have given little or no thought to town planning. This was something that town councils did and generally we just accepted the results. However, town councils were abolished almost a century ago and since then the level of local control has become less with each passing year.
Parish and town councils became district councils and then later still became regional councils. Scottish Community Councils were created in 1973, many years after the abolition of the Parish Councils. Presumably, government recognised that a great deal of local direction had gone and that at the very least this was causing some concern.
However, it is effectively local democracy on the cheap and one gets what one pays for! Peebles Community Council receives a grant of £1,365 a year, set in 2009, and is made up of volunteers who have varying degrees of spare time. Expertise changes with each passing year and sometimes community councils just wither away. In the past, local authorities often paid lip service to the wants, needs and wishes of the local community. The community were not served well by these arrangements.
Feedback to the community council has always expressed concerns that Scottish Borders Council (SBC) doesn’t listen, that some services are not great, that some roads have traffic issues and others are not well maintained, that local health services are over stretched, and that the level of building and development outstrips the ability of local services to cope with demand and so it goes on.
Of course, it is human nature to raise complaints when they are felt to be justified and again human nature to give little credit where credit is due. There is a lot that SBC do well, and the writer acknowledges that they do a difficult and complex job without adequate money with which to do it.
However, Borders towns have no management oversight, and by that we mean a dedicated manager at SBC to fight our (Peebles) corner for us and to develop plans and to make actions happen. Councillors don’t fulfil this need as they have too wide a remit, are underfunded for the role they are tasked with, don’t have authority over officers and often don’t have the skill set necessary.
Peebles Community Trust (PCT) as a focal point for a group of Peebles organisations headed up, with the Peebles Community Council (PCC) and the Peebles Civic Society (PCS), the drafting of the original “Town Action Plan” in 2016, and similarly SBC produced a “Tweeddale Locality Action Plan” in circa 2019. SBC also, as required by law, produced a “Local Development Plan” (LDP) and LDP2 has just been approved by the Scottish Government and is back with SBC for finishing and then adoption.
The Town Action Plan attempted to find out what Peebles wanted and to document it and thus produce a way forward. The PCT actioned some things that it had control of but of course had little control of other items and there was no legal requirement for SBC to read the document let alone take actions from it. In any case, there was little or no joined up thinking between the town and SBC, and without this, problems are created and not resolved.
The PCT, supported by PCC and PCS has taken a lead over the last three years to seek out opinions from townsfolk as to what you like, what you don’t like and what you wish to see change. More than 1000 comments have been received and an immense amount of data collated. You may ask if it is all worth it if SBC will ignore it. However, local authorities are changing. In some respects, they are being forced to change by legislation that makes them involve communities more and partly we are seeing a willingness in SBC to be more responsive to local aspirations.
On the legislative side, “The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015” and “the Town and Country Planning (Local Place Plans) (Scotland) Regulations 2021” mean that the community voice must be heard. Early signs are that SBC is at least making the right noises.
So, what have you, the community, said you want to see? Again, to do a subject justice in 1200 words is not easy and the following headings need serious expansion. However, most agree that Peebles needs some things urgently and some things preferably, and that some projects can be done in months and that some will take years but should be planned for now. Many subjects overlap with each other.
Peebles regeneration – Ensuring that the physical assets are maintained properly and managed effectively, and that the town is a vibrant place to live, shop and for visitors to come to.Field sports infrastructure upgrade – Improving sports facilities throughout the town to benefit all who enjoy taking part in and watching local sport.Peebles active travel infrastructure improvement – Making all forms of active travel within Peebles easier – for bikes, pedestrians, wheelchairs, horses, etc.Hay Lodge Park / Riverside active travel – Removal of the hump and extension of hard path from the town to Fotheringham Bridge.South Peebles social and economic infrastructure – What does the southside of Peebles need to enhance life for residents? A satellite health centre? More shops, a meeting place? Etc.Review public / community indoor space provision – How do we ensure that our community spaces (PCT Hub, Drill Hall, Chambers Institution, Church Halls, etc.) can complement each other and be used to best effect without competing?A Safer Community – Address issues of vandalism and antisocial behaviour; and improve presence of police/community officers. and provide more support for young people.Strengthening community capacities – Increase resourcing of key community organisations including the PCC, PCT and Borders Community Action (previously The Bridge) and Citizens Advice Bureau.Adult and further education project – Looking at outreach from Borders College with teaching satellite hubs for modern apprentices, further education, adult education, etc.New business park / light industrial estate – You’ve said that Peebles needs more and better employment.Second bridge across the Tweed – Long term project to protect the south side crossing and reduce traffic flow across the existing bridge.Peebles “Open for Business” project – Selling Peebles to prospective employers as a good place to do business.Creative industries cluster project – Attracting hi-tech industry/business that feeds off itself and attracts other connected businesses.Peebles community hospital and improved health provision Green infrastructure and food security initiatives – Bringing more green space, including March St Mill allotments, under community management; improving local biodiversity and food production and reducing food poverty.Low cost, low rent housing – for lower income individuals, families, and first-time buyers.Reducing energy demand and increasing energy efficiency – Moving towards net zero, reducing household energy costs.20-year plan for development of Peebles – This can include a maximum capacity calculation that restricts or encourages certain types of development.Peebles flood defence project
There is a lot here and each of the above deserves its own page of explanation. However, they are all here because of your feedback and you can still feedback to us with your support or your objections using the PCC secretarial email address (secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk) and your views will be taken into account as they should be in any democracy.
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
In relation to crime and antisocial behaviour, the community council (PCC) seemed to be a lone voice until late 2022 and the frustration this caused with our members led to talk as to whether the effort, we made was worth it. Indeed, in November 2022, our chairman finally decided that enough was enough and resigned. The writer took up the reigns. To be fair, our past chairman, Les Turnbull supported by Malcolm Bruce was making progress. We were also fortunate to have the support of Iain Gibson who was experienced in young people’s charities and projects.
At the end of last year several parties, many of whom were already doing good work, including SBC, Police, Oorspaceyouthy, Peebles Youth Trust, Tweeddale Youth Action, and St Andrews Leckie Church. helped to create Peebles Youth Voice. Although early days, this has made a forum that pools knowledge and experience and includes a strong involvement of young people. Several initiatives are under way such as young peoples’ coffee evenings at Costa Coffee (suggested by constable Moody), Teen events at the Eastgate Theatre, part funded by the Common Good, and plans for a youth shelter in Victoria Park funded by SBC. Present councillors including “Youth Champion” Cllr Julie Pirone are very supportive.
Much work has also gone into the possibility of creating a Streetpastors group in Peebles. Streetpastors is a national organisation which has a proven track record. They are volunteers from different churches who care about their community. They are non-judgemental and do not push their religion. Street Pastors help, listen and by their presence reduce tensions and problem behaviour. A recent Peebles trial of Streetpastors was held and an internal report, looks very encouraging. To quote from the report: “We returned to Tweed Green and engaged with a different group at the old band stand. We noticed a large group heading towards the town when some sort of skirmish happened. This was very brief and over by the time we got there. However, a couple of youngsters spoke to us about it and appeared grateful that we were around”. The writer can see a real benefit from Street Pastors being implemented and the PCC is grateful to the local churches and their members for giving it consideration.
Unfortunately, almost during the same period that these initiatives were being taken, a small group has raised the problem from antisocial behaviour and mindless vandalism to downright criminality. This should not detract from the good work being done which is producing a foundation which we hope will have a positive effect. Recent events have generated a great deal of comment, directly to PCC and on social media. Some of this, is informed and reasoned and some not so.
It is not easy to write an article in just 1200 words that does justice to a very complex subject but let us lay one subject to rest. There is no room for vigilantism. It is criminal behaviour and quite rightly so. Many innocents have been hurt or worse by vigilantes. Ninety-eight percent of kids are well behaved and respectful, if a little noisy at times. We should not alienate them as this would only make matters worse.
Some feedback on the proposed youth shelter at Victoria Park suggest that the shelter will be vandalised, destroyed, create rubbish, and concentrate trouble. Therefore, one should do nothing. These views are understandable, and indeed there are reports of shelters being vandalised elsewhere in Britain. However, the Thames Valley Police publication “Youth Shelters and Sports Systems – a Good Practice Guide”. includes experience and advice about the problem of young people with nowhere to meet and socialise with their friends. The document notes that the police are often called to deal with congregating youngsters, but that moving youths on is not effective, as they merely move back as soon as police have left. This process frustrates everyone involved and conflicts can escalate resulting in more serious offences. Examples from councils where shelters have been properly considered demonstrate that at least in those areas there is a reduction in problem behaviour. A consultation event in Victoria Park attended by Tweeddale East councillors demonstrated that 78% of respondents agreed that it should be tried.
These initiatives will help with those young people, who are like me in my youth. I was naughty but not nasty and if we truly look back and are honest, most of us would fit into that category. The good kids of course aren’t a problem. For the very small percentage who can be trouble: then we need the police and the criminal justice system to work and around this there is great deal of public concern.
To succeed in life, we all need self-discipline and values that should “treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves”. Mostly self-discipline is learnt from parents who teach right from wrong and from discipline enforced in schools. Sadly, a minority of parents leave this to the schools and many in the community are concerned that school discipline is not what it once was. Authorities need to consider this and take appropriate action.
I’ve been asked to pose a question. Where did you go as a teenager growing up in Peebles? The Wimpy Bar which opened late? The cinema perhaps? There were discos as well. Apparently, there was quite a lot for young people to do and in this respect, there isn’t quite so much now. Perhaps something to think about?
Now to the police. We have two police officers allocated to Peebles, PCs Vivien Carsley and Serena Moody and it is up to us as a community to support them. Crimes that are unreported don’t exist and crimes reported but for which no one provides evidence go unpunished. We should make one thing clear. These officers are not sitting idle. They are pursuing initiatives, working with the High School, and supporting Peebles Youth Voice. However, the fact that Scottish Borders Council pay £560,000 a year to fund some community policing in the Borders via the Community Action Teams (CAT) means that Police Scotland is either underfunded or is short-changing the Borders community. In essence, we are subject to double taxation, firstly, through general taxation and then through our council tax. Also, front line police are often replacing back room civilian staff weakening the system even more. This article is not the place to debate the use of CAT teams, but it does need to be debated. Perhaps there is a better way to use them? The threat to the policing of events such as the Beltane surely means there are too few officers. Once upon a time, we apparently had a fully manned station in Peebles with up to 14 officers. Not so now. There is another issue. If an officer arrests a person, they can only be processed in Hawick, Edinburgh, or Dalkeith. In effect two officers must escort the person to one of these centres to book them. Immediately the town loses its police cover, probably for an entire shift. Not ideal we think.
We know that statistically, Peebles is not a high crime area. We also know that the growing trend of reported crime recently, is creating concern amongst the public. Two major fires and several recent assaults are deplorable and any further increase is clearly unacceptable.
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
It was in November 2019 that a fire destroyed a large section of Peebles High School and set the foundations for where we are today. Where we are is of great importance to all those in Peebles who have children or grandchildren destined to go to the new school over the next few years and indeed for generations to come. The new school after all will have a life of fifty plus years.
To give Scottish Borders Council (SBC) its due, there was no question of “make do and mend”. They allocated a budget of £50M plus to the project to build a brand-new school and advanced the work ahead of both Hawick and Selkirk schools. Unfortunately though, one cannot say that the planning was without some hiccups. A “Proposal of Application” Notice (PAN) was published in June 2021 and the public saw an outline of the proposals for the first time. Peebles Community Council (PCC) were contacted by a member of the public in October 2022 who had concerns about a consultation event that, to the respondent at least, had been seriously flawed. This consultation event generated a flood of adverse feedback from residents, especially parents and some teachers. PCC took the position that the Parent Council had the resource and a strong motive to lead on their concerns, but that PCC should provide support and a public forum. We know that SBC finally listened to us as they made substantial changes to the design, and it is virtually certain that these changes would not have been made without the pressure from the public. This writer’s files now hold more than 600 items which represent a lot of pressure.
Notwithstanding the promised changes, there are still concerns, and discussion between SBC and the Parent Council has apparently become limited. Consistently, SBC and its elected councillors have said that the high school will be better than the original and, in many ways, this is now agreed. However, the high school has always had an excellent reputation for music and drama and for that a hall of at least the same quality as the original is required. The original outline plans presented in 2021 contained a double height auditorium. However, the revised plans that were submitted for the full planning application were found to have been completely revised without further consultation, and surprisingly with the auditorium completely removed, and the only space remotely usable for larger musical groups being the single height space labelled “drama”, but completely unsuitable for performances such as traditional school concerts and shows. The planning statement promised that “A new community education campus would be provided which would enhance the existing educational, sport and leisure facilities available to the entire Peebles community” but this was not borne out in the detailed design of the proposed new music and drama department. The planning application also did not comply with SBC’s own strategic brief regarding the key requirement for a large assembly and event space (Schools Strategic Brief Guidance, April 2022).
Following increasing concerns during 2022 about the inadequate performance space, and the perceived lack of consultation with staff and the community, a revised layout was prepared that re-introduced a double height auditorium presented at the public engagement event in February this year. There were several positive improvements in this, which were welcomed, but concerns were raised about the restricted performance space, the lack of enclosure and the number of seats. The architects appeared very responsive to these comments and said that they would discuss possible improvements with SBC. However, the updated design that was published this May, disappointingly showed a reduced rather than enlarged performance space. Again, this reflects a reduction in standards and not an improvement.
We understand the difficulties that budgetary constraints have on planners but promises of a better school should be honoured; after all any damage done now will last for generations. The argument has been made that there are other suitable venues in the town that the high school could use for its performances. However, this is not an accurate representation of reality. The Eastgate Theatre, although a lovely venue, is too small for larger groups of performers, and is considered by some, too dry acoustically for music as it is designed as a theatre, while the Drill Hall on the other hand is far too resonant and too small. The newly refurbished Burgh Hall has poor acoustics, but the main problem here is that there are zero backstage facilities.
On an additional note, SBC has duties under the Equality Act 2010. These include a duty to produce an equality impact assessment (EIA) to consider how the needs of children with disabilities and other protected characteristics under the law will be met. Such a document should be written early in the planning process, and it should be a living document which informs the design. Sadly, SBC appear to have ignored this requirement.
At our last meeting, PCC made a plea to elected councillors to act as honest broker between the Parent Council and SBC. This request stands and we trust that once completed, the new Peebles High School will live up to the substantial claims made for it.
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
Summer is approaching and the gardeners amongst us are out and about, tidying and planting, and replacing the casualties from last winter’s heavy frosts. This brings us to Peebles in Bloom once again and your Community Council are keen to return this event to the prominence it held before Covid struck. We know that many in the town get great pleasure from their gardening and from seeing other gardens that are bursting with colour or that demonstrate great design. We love the hanging baskets and tubs in the High Street too. Many people like to have their efforts recognised and over the years the event has collected a series of cups and trophies worthy of the different garden styles they represent. Of course, there is more to flowers than just gardens and some of our businesses make a tremendous effort to brighten up the town and these also deserve recognition. Nor should we forget Bonnie Peebles and Bonnie Peebles Plus which do such great work with the floral displays around the town.
Volunteer members of the Community Council are managing the event again this year and I applaud their efforts as there is a lot to manage. Firstly, in July, Community Councillors are each delegated an area of the town to walk around, and they put forward those gardens and business premises whose displays impress them the most. This is a fair task on its own. Each member walking more than 10,000 steps to complete their area. Then there is a review to create a manageable short list and then independent judges make the final decisions by touring the town in August.
There are 10 categories:
Large garden Medium garden Small garden Courtyard garden Business premises Community garden Very small garden Best street All year-round garden Secret garden These are not easily seen from the road, so we depend on folk nominating their own or someone else’s garden (contact details for nominations to secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk)
So, if you see someone looking over your garden gate and making notes on a clipboard, it’s probably one of us and nothing to worry about!
This year there is also a sunflower competition for children aged 12 and under. Sunflowers are the national flower of Ukraine. Our thoughts are with the Ukrainians in our community, and we join them in hoping for a just peace and a swift return to normality in their homeland.
The tallest sunflower will win, and judging will take place during the second week in August so better get planting now!
Finally, all the trophies need to be collected from previous winners, trophies cleaned, and engraved. Runners’ up certificates printed, the Burgh Hall booked, the hall decorated, teas and coffees and a raffle organised, and invitations sent out to garden owners and businesses. A lot of work for our small group of volunteers.
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
A very quick two and a half years have passed since I joined the Community Council. Readers may remember, that before I was approached, I had never heard of a Community Council, nor had I any inclination to join one. Neither did I have any idea how a district council operated or what a Councillor really did; even though I voted at each election. I suspect many will be just as ignorant and have even less inclination to become involved. Am I glad that I did join; well yes and no! To be fair, there were aspects of my working life that I had missed on retirement and using my hard learnt skills to assist others in the community has filled this void. There is also a great deal of satisfaction to be gained by helping others in the community with their problems, which in my case are usually planning and development related, but not always. The other side of the coin has many facets. I am busier than I would like to be, once you put your head up above the parapet, other tasks tend to land in your lap. One can always say no of course. So, I have helped the Community Trust on odd occasions with their March Street Mill project, for two years I’ve been the link between Peebles Community Council (PCC) and the Scottish Borders Community Councils Network (SBCCN) and the link with the Peebles Civic Society (PCS), I have ended up on the odd committee and now it looks as though I may well be the representative for the PCC on the Common Good. Something else will have to go.
Where shall I start? Perhaps with the Network, the SBCCN. The network does very valuable work in trying to project the views of the wider group of Community Councils across the Scottish Borders, to Scottish Borders Council (SBC) on the widest range of subjects, some of which can be complex indeed. The idea of a network is common sense, but the task of making it work is difficult in the extreme. Ideally, the SBCCN Chair would have a rapport with all 69 Community Councils and information would feed both ways. All the CCs would be represented, and their joint opinions would count effectively. Of course, it doesn’t happen that way in practice. If the SBCCN was a company with 69 departments and paid full time staff it would be a hard task, with unpaid volunteers such a rapport is impossible. It does its best.
At the end of the day, it is our own area that concerns us, Tweeddale in which there are 12 Community Councils. Again, in an ideal world we should work closely to support each other but again identical problems exist to make this very difficult; if less difficult than with 69. You will have gathered, that I am at capacity, but so are my colleagues; if you are retired, you have certain amount of time you can devote to the work. If you are younger, working, and with a family, very much less. We all do what we can. There is a mechanism, run by SBC, the Tweeddale Area Partnership (TAP), that could provide a forum for us all to meet at, if briefly, but to date, the TAP has been seen to be failing in its reason for being, and attendance is patchy, few Community Councils are represented. Through the SBCCN, we know we are not alone in this. We need to see more of a partnership between SBC and its Counsellors and Community Councillors and less of the perceived dictat we feel we are subjected to.
A Community Council is a formal legally constituted body set up to consult with the people within its area and to represent their views with the various authorities including and especially, the district council. To that end our 18 Community Councillors gather feedback wherever possible and try and reflect the views of the society in which we all live. Planning issues take up much of our time and during my tenure we have objected to some developments such as for the 22 houses in the fields below Castle Venlaw at the back of Edinburgh Road and against the proposed two-house development on what should be a play park in Ballantyne Place. Both these planning applications went to appeal with the Scottish Government Reporter and our objections were upheld. However, we have also given support to DDL Care Services in having the SBCs objections to their proposals overturned and we supported Manse Interiors in their plans to rejuvenate the old Tatler café. There are always more threats out there to be countered, such as the allocation in the newly proposed Local Development Plan to build a new and extended village at Cardrona on the site of the agricultural showground. Such a development without the provision of a suitable alternative site would be a disaster for our town and for agriculture over a wide area.
A large amount of our time has been spent considering the overall management of the Chambers Institution and the board of Trustees tasked to oversee it. This is not the forum to describe the history of the institution, our views of the last five years management, or our views that appear to have a significant divergence from the views of the Trustees, who are all elected councillors. Some of this has been covered in some detail in previous issues of this journal, however, suffice it to say that we may give a much fuller account when we feel the time is right.
I have learned a great deal over the past couple of years and one of my biggest lessons is the vast complexity that a district council must manage. It is a seriously large undertaking that we all take for granted. From schools, healthcare, care in the community, waste management, roads, etc., the list is endless, and the juggling of budgets must be extremely difficult. Also, to have effective oversight, whether it be the senior officials, or the elected councillors requires an eclectic knowledge and wide skill set which may not always be present, after all we are all human. I certainly have difficulty getting my mind around some of it.
My perception is this. We vote for our elected Councillors probably more based upon their politics than on their skill sets, or maybe just because of their ability to charm us with their talk. Much like any politician really! However, we expect them to on the one hand represent us, their communities, our interests and on the other to maintain a degree of oversight of the council. On the latter issue, I had little previous understanding. Elected councillors seem to have a very limited oversight and certainly not the oversight that a company director would have. As for community interest, on numerous occasions councillors represent our interests to the council, some councillors performing better than others of course, but most fulfill their roles passing well. But not all the time. There are occasions when they are not good listeners and in aligning themselves with a particular course of action seem to become part of the problem, not part of the solution. We should, the PCC and our elected councillors be joined at the hip and work together for the benefit of the community at large. We are not, not even nearly. However, to be fair to our councillors, for all their perceived faults, who would want to volunteer themselves for hard work, long days, poor remuneration and often much criticism.
We need Local authorities to provide services. We need councillors as a link and as part of the decision-making process, and we would be the poorer if organisations such as the PCC, PCT, SBCCN, PCS, etc. didn’t exist to try and give some measure of feedback and oversight. If you think you can contribute, you shouldn’t hesitate, you should get in touch, and see what your skills can contribute. It can be very rewarding.
Support or comment to Anne Snoddy (Secretary PCC) secretary@ccrbpeebles.co.uk
Peter Maudsley
Chair
Peebles and District Community Council
It’s not yet 5 months since I became a member of the Peebles Community Council and simultaneously landed the role of Planning Convener. Not long before, I had never even heard of a Community Council, let alone wanted to be on one. I was enjoying my retirement and the freedom from responsibility that it gave me. However, I had taken a very visible stand against the new South Parks development and also helped the community fight the plans for the four storey flats at Tweedbridge Court. Subsequently, the Community Council thought I may be useful, and they can be very persuasive!
All of this has been a significant learning curve. In resisting the plans for South Parks and Tweedbridge Court, it was necessary to study Scottish Borders Council (SBC) policies, procedures and guidelines and the same for those issued by the Scottish Government. There were also items of legislation and a whole raft of documents that apply to roads. Many of these documents extend to hundreds of pages and make very dry reading.
My role before retirement has helped me in climbing this mountain of information. Two years before retirement I was made redundant as my company in Aberdeen closed its operations. I was then fortunate to be offered a position with Technip, a very large French engineering company. With them I was working on a major contract for BP West of Shetland on what was known as QUAD 204. My role included auditing ships and companies for HSEQ (Health, Safety, Environment and Quality) from Shetland to West Africa. Analysing planning issues has many similarities with auditing.
There is still a large learning curve for me attached to working with the Community Council. The issues generated by SBC are many and varied and residents of Peebles and District often ask the Community Council for assistance in approaching our elected Councillors and the body they represent. The Community Council also assist other causes where requested, such as Bonnie Peebles, Peebles in Bloom, the Peebles Community Trust – the list is endless and greatly extended by more subjects raised though the Tweeddale Area Partnership.
As Planning Convener there have already been several issues that my colleagues on the Community Council have asked me to either support or object to. These are all issues that would affect the town and its surroundings directly. Generally, we do not take a position on felling trees, extensions, new windows and most single developments unless specifically asked to.
Just now, we are still objecting to further major development south of the Tweed, at least until a second river crossing is built. We note in this context an SBC Roads Department report filed under the kittlegairy application. This report considers that the mini roundabout by the Courthouse will reach its practical capacity to take traffic once the development at South Parks and Tweedbridge Court are completed. We support SBC’s Planning Department in its position regarding the Rosetta Holiday Park proposal. Looking forward, we await the publication of the new draft Local Development Plan (LDP2). In this respect we already have the assurance of the Leader of the Council, that LDP2 will not include any major developments on the south side of the river.
Recently, an initial filing has been tabled by a developer for land that has already been refused consent twice, both by SBC and then on appeal to the Scottish Government by the Scottish Government Reporter. This land to the East of Edinburgh Road and immediately below Castle Venlaw lies outside the Development Boundary. Reviewing the SBC planning portal demonstrates that the last time this site attracted a proposal for building, approximately 150 objections were lodged by residents, including those from the Community Council and Peebles Civic Society. In refusing the appeal last time, the Scottish Government reporter concluded “that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and in particular a fundamental LDP policy PMD4”.
At this time, we would argue that nothing has changed and as such this proposal should also be refused. However, we are open minded and as such will await the substance of the proposal and feedback from the community before taking a stand one way or the other. For those who would like to know more about these proposals, the application is registered on the SBC Planning Portal under 19/01192/PAN. Your opinion counts and we urge anyone with a view to register it with SBC’s planning department.
Peter Maudsley
Planning Convenor
Peebles and District Community Council