Solar farm scheme will be 'well contained'
Councillors in the Borders have agreed not to object to a large solar park being proposed for the Lammermuir Hills in Berwickshire.
Fred Olsen Renewables has applied to the government's Energy Consents Unit for permission to put up about 55,000 panels near the Crystal Rig wind farm - about four miles (6km) from the village of Cranshaws.
Scottish Borders Council (SBC) planning committee agreed not to oppose the scheme in the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area.
Berwickshire councillor Donald Moffat said he felt the proposals would be quite well screened from general public view.
More stories from South Scotland
Listen to news for the Scottish Borders on BBC Sounds
"Where these solar panels are being proposed for - unless you are actually going up to drive through the area you won't see anything," he said.
"It is something that is going to be well contained within the plateau.
"I didn't see any reason to go against this and actually all our officers were all quite happy about this."
SBC is being consulted on the project but due to the scale of the development the final say will lie with the Scottish government.
Light concerns over wind farm plans
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Cruise Scotland warns government against ‘damaging' levy proposal
The Scottish cruise industry has lashed out at the government's proposals to introduce a cruise ship levy over fears it would deter cruises from visiting its ports. The Scottish Government announced earlier this year that it is considering a proposal to allow local authorities to create a visitor levy on cruise ships docking at its ports. During the consultation, Cruise Scotland, a membership-based marketing organisation that represents key cruise industry players, issued a warning to the Scottish Government that the levy could damage the sector. The organisation expressed its concern in its formal submission to the government consultation on implementing a cruise ship levy, saying that cruises will become discouraged from visiting Scottish ports. 'Scotland must decide whether it wants to attract or deter a sector that delivers over £130m annually to the national economy and sustains jobs in some of the most remote and economically vulnerable communities,' Rob Mason, chair of Cruise Scotland, said. Mr Mason also claimed that if the levy was mishandled, it could result in job losses, cause a slump in local business growth and disrupt a tourism model that benefits communities. Cruise Scotland said that the government's plans are so far too ambiguous, stating that prolonged uncertainty regarding the levy is 'damaging' as cruise operators cannot plan accordingly. The group also warned against creating devolved powers for individual councils to implement the levy, as it claimed this would create competition between areas and would require port authorities to function as tax collectors. 'We must remember that this is a movable market that does not need to come to Scotland, despite all we have to offer, and neighbouring regions in the North Atlantic and Northern Europe are strongly positioned to benefit from any displacement,' Mr Mason added. While the chair said Cruise Scotland 'fully acknowledges' the need for targeted investment, he called upon the government to be more transparent in its decisions around the levy and asked for 'close collaboration' with the industry. The organisation said it remains engaged in discussions with policymakers. Cruise Scotland says that 1.1 million passengers visited Scottish ports in 2024, contributing over £130 million to local businesses and communities. Kirsty Hutchison, Cruise Scotland's market development manager, said that this number could see a drop if a levy were implemented. 'Introducing a levy could send the wrong signal to cruise operators at a time when Scotland is successfully growing its reputation as a responsible and attractive destination,' Ms Hutchinson said. 'The evidence from other markets suggests that a levy risks reducing visitor numbers, along with the significant revenue and opportunity they bring.' The levy has received support in other areas. The Scottish Greens are in favour of the potential to cut climate emissions, while the Orkney Islands Council said it would welcome the revenue it would generate for the communities. The consultation on the levy has now closed, and responses will be analysed over the summer to inform ministers the next steps they can take.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starmer will pay a heavy price for his efforts to fight off Reform
Next week's spending review should go better for the Chancellor than widely expected – at least, in the short term. The Treasury communications plan would normally build up to the big day by focussing on things that might get lost in the moment. So if they can pre-announce an extra £1bn for free school meals and £16bn for transport projects, that suggests there is even more good news up Rachel Reeves's sleeve. I suspect there will be reasons enough for Labour MPs to cheer on Wednesday. Together with the about-turn on the winter fuel allowance, however messy that may be, I'm sure this will get the Chancellor through the week. The reasoning for the winter fuel change is on display in Scotland. Labour won a surprise by-election victory in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, snatching the Scottish Parliament seat from the SNP. Not only that, but it managed to see off the threat of Reform, which surged into third place in the constituency. The real challenge will come in the autumn. Not least because the bill for this good news will have to be paid. Voters may not then be as grateful as they might be next week when they see their taxes go up thanks to the Government's botched attempt to reform the welfare system. So these short-term wins will quickly evaporate and simply store up more political trouble for the future. With other headwinds going against the Government, Reeves may need to find anywhere between an extra £10bn and £30bn in the next Budget. The Chancellor refused four times to rule out more tax rises this year when questioned at the CBI annual dinner this week, suggesting this is exactly what she is contemplating. Aside from the economic damage this will do, tax rises of this magnitude will have serious political implications. First of all, it will further exacerbate Reform's overall appeal. With a general election so far away, it doesn't really matter that Reform's numbers don't add up. People like what they are saying about tax cuts funded by spending less on net zero and diversity initiatives. With Labour poised to announce more money for net zero, Reform will argue it gives them even more cash with which to fund tax cuts. Any tax rise will therefore make this dividing line even starker. Given the scale of revenue needed, it looks increasingly likely that the Chancellor may have to break her manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, National Insurance or value added tax (VAT), as well as keeping corporation tax at or below 25pc. Some rises are politically more damaging than others. Faced with a choice of which promise to break, which is the most Reform-friendly option? Given that many of Reform's voters are on the economic Left, measures that hit lower-income, working people seem unlikely. So I think we can rule out income tax or National Insurance rises. Likewise, VAT. This was one of the many tax rises that seemed to always appear on Treasury scorecards ahead of each fiscal event I was involved in. It is straightforward and raises serious revenue, with each additional percentage point resulting in around £8bn of extra tax income. George Osborne increased the standard rate of VAT to 20pc, which didn't stop the Conservatives from winning a majority at the next general election. He hadn't promised not to do so, though – and I cannot see how this Government could target people's pockets when its main measure for economic growth is supposed to be real household disposable income. With inflation also expected to stay around 3pc for the rest of this year, anything that pushes prices up in the short term makes little sense. Which leaves one major tax that Labour promised to leave untouched, but that no one is really talking about: corporation tax. For the avoidance of doubt I think it would be a terrible mistake to increase it. It would be the final nail in the coffin of the Government's relationship with 'big business', send a dreadful signal to international investors and represent the end of Reeves's already-crumbling growth narrative. But if you compare it to the alternatives, I can see why Sir Keir Starmer and his Chancellor may go for it. For a start, it would be popular, even populist. Every Treasury commissioned opinion poll and focus group that I saw found overwhelming support for increasing tax on big business. It also passes the PM's payslip test and wouldn't directly hit working people in the pocket. It is lucrative too. Every percentage point increase would raise around £4bn a year. You could therefore get most, if not all the revenue you need, from one measure, avoiding the need to fight on many fronts. Whichever tax rise they do pick, expect the Chancellor to blame 'international events'. They will no doubt be helped somewhat by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which will (rightly) take into account the impact of increased global tariffs on GDP. Whether this negative hit is sufficient to mask the impact of the actions the Government itself has taken, we will see. By the autumn, the Government will be in damage-limitation territory. With Reform continuing to ride high in the polls, they may be tempted to find the money they need from big business rather than working people, regardless of the economic consequences. But the general election is a long way off and Starmer risks paying a heavy price if decisions he takes now to boost Labour's standing fail to sustain momentum by the time it comes around. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Up to £3bn may be needed to fix building cladding
Up to £3bn of public money may have to be spent assessing and removing potentially flammable cladding from buildings in Scotland. New estimates from the Scottish government suggest up to 1,450 residential buildings may need remediation work, including about 250 high-rises. It was previously estimated about 900 buildings were affected. However, full surveys will be needed to establish what needs to be done on a case-by-case basis, with 107 buildings being examined as part of a pilot phase. It is now estimated that the Cladding Remediation Programme could cost £1.7bn to £3.1bn over a 15-year period. If new legislation is passed by the Scottish Parliament, additional funding could be unlocked to fix building safety issues. Ministers making 'painfully slow' cladding progress Scottish ministers given new powers to tackle cladding The Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill will see a tax charged on the construction of certain new residential properties, in line with equivalent legislation in England. The bill seeks to raise about £30m a year to help fund work to fix residential buildings with unsafe cladding which have no linked developer. Public Finance Minister Ivan McKee said: "The Scottish government is committed to doing what is right and necessary to address the challenge of fixing buildings affected by unsafe cladding. "That includes putting the appropriate funding arrangements in place to ensure that the associated costs of cladding remediation do not fall directly onto affected homeowners. "I know that developers share our determination to keep people safe and this levy will ensure they make a fair contribution to these costs, just as they will be doing in England." He added: "I also welcome the continued co-operation of developers who have accepted responsibility for the assessments and any required mitigation and remediation of their buildings." Trade body Homes for Scotland, whose members deliver the vast majority of all new homes in Scotland, said they were committed to remedial action on buildings they had built. But a spokesperson raised concerns about the impact of a building safety levy. "In addition to the proposed Building Safety Levy, Scotland's largest home builders are already contributing to the remediation of other impacted buildings through their payment of the Residential Property Development Tax (RPDT)," they said. The spokesperson said the proposed levy would mean an additional layer of taxation which "will add thousands of pounds to the cost of new homes, pushing families, first-time buyers and future generations further away from home ownership". They added: "At a time when Scotland is facing a housing emergency and 693,000 Scottish households are living in some form of housing need, this is simply unacceptable." The UK government agreed in principle to devolve the powers needed for a Scottish Building Safety Levy last year. Last month ministers announced plans to speed up efforts to inspect and repair buildings in response to the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in London that killed 72 people. The 23-storey tower's cladding is believed to have contributed to the rapid spread of the fire. It broke out in the kitchen of a fourth-floor flat at the tower block in North Kensington, just before 01:00 on 14 June 2017. Within minutes, the fire had rapidly spread up the exterior of the building and moved across all four sides. By 03:00, most of the upper floors were well alight. As well as those killed, more than 70 people were injured. The Cladding Remediation Programme was set up in the aftermath of the disaster but Scottish ministers have been criticised for its slow progress. How are the laws on cladding changing in Scotland? 'No warning' over cladding evacuation, couple say
