This page presents the community feedback that was received from the consultation on the draft Borgue Local Place Plan (LPP) in March/April 2025. All of the comments below were received from members of the Borgue community.
What a huge amount of effort you have all put into this Plan. I hope it is appreciated by the greater population of Borgue. The Plan is very balanced and certainly reflects my recollection of some of the discussions at the various events. In my opinion, transport and internet connection are vital to encouraging young folk to move and stay here. We have the latter, albeit the storms have exposed the weak (above ground) points. We just need some transport now. I note that previous assessments showed that the bus was little used. That’s because in all the years I have been visiting here, no one has ever been sure it will turn up at the correct time. Thank you.
Place plan seems overly long at 54 pages most of which repeats the aspirations for the area as found in the National Planning Framework 4.
It is likely to result in more problems than it solves especially with regard to environmental issues with the proposed highest level of Environmental Impact Assessment required for all planning applications looking unnecessarily restrictive We do need more affordable housing.
A very comprehensive Placeplan giving a good picture of the issues facing our community.
The areas which would seem to be a priority in re-generating the soul of the village would be affordable housing and an emphasis on development of new enterprises. To this end it would be advantageous to look at using the school building. This could attract a range of different commercial and recreational initiatives. Outside the immediate village the area is beautiful and already attracts a wide range of visitors. It is vital we retain this interest by providing amenities for those who come here to enjoy them. Currently these visitors just pass through as there are very limited facilities to cater for their needs.
The draft local place plan is very informative about Borgue and has clearly involved a great deal of work. The number of people who have responded to the consultation is impressive.
My only criticism – and I include myself in this, is that the comments about housing, work opportunities and infrastructure have included so little long term or innovative suggestions.
The community needs to be drawing up plans now to address the problem of an ageing population who will in the near future not be able to drive. The current bus service does not serve all the properties beyond the village centre and so there needs to be some sort of car sharing rota or taxi service or a community run bus – for shopping, evening events, visits to places of interest. In the past there was a post office bus that would pick up passengers and take them to Kirkcudbright where they could get a taxi home in the afternoon. Alternatively could the local bus service introduce a ‘phone for a bus’ service that would divert from routes between Kbt, Gatehouse and beyond to pick up passengers along the C8S abd B727 roads?
Now that the Cream o Galloway and Laggan adventure parks have closed, the Plan might give consideration to developing an adventure facility – for example an indoor skating/curling rink? How about the mothballed school being used as a youth centre, indoor climbing wall
I feel the place plan reads as a very hopeful and positive vision bringing together the thoughts of the whole community.
I sincerely hope that it will be taken on as an asset for the village to aid future planning and sensible development.
I thank everyone involved for all their efforts.
Place plan is not needed in Borgue as we have a Community Council that does the same job.
Three members of the place plan group didn’t come to the Community Council meeting when it was to be discussed!! Not very supportive of their plan !!
The plan was too long and was very environmental in its theme not what the Borgue residents need.
A really clear and comprehensive draft. Much more thorough and comprehensive than implied in the consultation process. Thank you to all who worked so hard on it.
A few suggested amendments/ comments:
P6 First and Second consultations: 25% & 18% of ‘the village’ attended – amend to ‘Borgue’, or ‘BCC area’? (There are other slight confusions elsewhere between ‘Borgue area’ and ‘Borgue village’).
P14 NE5 SSSI Landscape Biodiversity: widen the awareness and opportunities for local education and inclusion of issues across all residents, including those with a direct influence on the environment, thereby reducing the longer term cost for rectifying damage. (Eg. incentives for children to pick up litter could incentivise them and their parents not to do it themselves.
My comments so far focus mainly on the suggested areas for housing development, they are as follows:
The areas highlighted for proposed housing development are all within the boundaries of the village of Borgue. The place plan is, as far as I understand it, intended to cover the whole of the area covered by Borgue Community Council – the old parish of Borgue. Why are the only areas being considered in the village itself ?
- On the peninsula there are several other locations which could provide development sites for housing, for example:
- In Kirkandrews there is an area at the end of the hamlet with a field leading down to the bay – this is accessible and could easily be used. A small housing estate could be built here along with other amenities such as a shop.
- Just beyond Kirkandrews there is a field with a road across it leading down to a single dwelling, the road and services are already in place to allow this field to be developed for housing.
- The land around Dhoon Wood Cottage would also provide space for housing development.
- Ross Bay has a hamlet which could easily be increased in size and the residents would benefit from improved roads and other infrastructure.
- Other hamlets such as Plunton should also be considered as they are much closer to the A75 which would provide much easier access for those needing to get to the work they need to pay for the houses they are buying.
- The areas on the map of the village highlighted with blue boxes seem to show a lack of understanding of some pretty basic features of the village itself. I have attached an annotated copy of the map and will make reference to the issues I can see below:
- The box I have labelled 1 is highly unsuitable. As any Borgue resident can tell you this area is prone to flooding, it acts as a natural seasonal pond. Any building here would require serious civil engineering works to carry the water away and would put the properties on the opposite side of the road at serious risk of flooding.
- Three other areas marked 2,3 and 4 are either wholly or partly outside the village boundaries and would constitute “ribbon development” which is generally frowned upon as it basically allows for development of the green belt by the back door.
- None of the ideas for development make any mention of the increased infrastructure required, for example the additional load on the local electricity grid which has regular outages without any load being added to it – there would be little point in building houses which did not have a reliable electricity supply.
After researching other submitted place plans I feel Borgue place plan has perhaps missed the point of the original objective.
Borgue plan is long winded and instead of focusing on improving opportunities for business development and employment. It instead seems to focus on prioritising flora and fauna,butterflies and wildlife. Yes they are important,yet surly engaging with local businesses determining what is holding them back from employing more young residents should at least have been investigated.
Borgue plan is more than double the length of the average submitted plan ,yet has only 350 residents.
Page 12 focuses on the top 10 aspirations,fair enough.However page 13 is straight into Environmental issues which are almost a side note on other plans already submitted. Surely roads ,housing and employment are the vital components of a sustainable community.
Trying to make out that Borgue needs higher environmental standards on all developments than currently in place ,NE7, shows a complete disregard of encouraging inward investment which Borgue so desperately needs. Stringent standards are already in place within the planning department.
Instead of emphasising that some Borgue roads which are vital access routes to certain farms are needing more improvements,it’s suggesting that road designation affecting lorry access should be considered.Yes passing places are required but not limiting HGV access through road designation.
Why would the most obvious site within Borgue for affordable housing,the old garage site not be earmarked for housing.This site which is privately owned is probably the most valuable area of land in Borgue , yet a community park is suggested.This area is crying out for housing,however it is still derelict because of resistance in the past by Borgue residents not wanting affordable housing within Borgue. Surely housing of any description on this site would be better than the status quo .
The strong emphasis and page after page of landscape geology , land types ,biodiversity ,climate change and water quality all of which are commonly completely absent from other submitted place plans begs the question why are you prioritising them over the fundamentals which are . Business opportunities,business restrictions because of the lack of working age residents and encouraging inward investment.
Please remove the waffle and only submit bullet points or perhaps hopefully this unwanted community dividing plan be scrapped.
Please can I request a change to the comment on tourist facilities on page 25/26. Borgue Hotel is just listed as that, whereas all the others get a rundown of what is provided. Can we add a few words to the hotel line such as ” bed and breakfast en suite rooms, lunch and evening meals, local pub” it would balance it up with the other entries. Thanks and well done to the team for your efforts!!
I wholeheartedly welcome the Borgue Local Place Plan and cannot really express enough appreciation of the huge amount of work undertaken by the LPP team in pulling together the consultation responses and background research into such a comprehensive document, on behalf of our small community. I fully support the threefold vision of respecting the history of farming in the area, welcoming new opportunities for growth and development, and celebrating the natural beauty of the countryside and coast. The plan recognises both the opportunities and challenges facing our community, but I would point out however the latter face the whole community and not just “our young people and older people” (p4). The plan will be invaluable to guide future community activities and developments, based on local opinion, and to support access to funding opportunities. The action plan is clear and addresses each issue succinctly, although I would argue the potential of local businesses as delivery partners is missing. The high level of detailed research and facts about the area is not only informative but will be crucial in underpinning any future activity and is therefore to be fully acknowledged. One omission on p.32 is that there is at least one local taxi in Gatehouse of Fleet. I cannot see any reason why the Community Council should not submit the plan to the Council and begin to determine the future vitality of Borgue. I therefore commend to the plan to the community.
I am not at all sure why the Community Council (CC) wouldn’t submit the LPP. I am clearly missing something. All I have heard so far from local people is that it is a comprehensive report which has involved many residents both as participants and members of the LPP Group. Everyone I have spoken to has commented on learning new things and how interesting certain aspects were. Our community created the document. Why would the CC want to distance ourselves from it? Across Scotland many CC’s are enthusiastically driving forward their Local Place Plans. They own the document and are proud to champion it.
Depending on individual perspectives and experiences, there will be some differences of opinion about certain priorities, sections, wording etc. But that is only to be expected and these can be considered during this consultation phase. I think the LPP Group should be commended for producing such a valuable document for the whole community’s benefit. It is vitally important that a few loud complainers are seen in the wider context of just how many local residents have contributed positively to the Local Plan.
As a member of the team which created the National Standards for Community Engagement, I am very impressed by the extent and depth of both the process and consultation programme for our Place Plan.
As a new Community Councillor, I am looking forward to having a set of local priorities which have been created by local residents. Without the work of the LPP Group, we could never have involved so many people or identified clear aspirations for our community. However, I do think that a new organisation e.g. as suggested, a Development Trust should be established as soon as possible. Momentum must not be lost in taking forward some of the priority actions. It saddens me greatly to say that certain members of our community, via Community Council meetings will probably continue to block the whole notion of Borgue residents taking the plan forward.
Our community needs to work together, respecting different viewpoints to create a sustainable future for all residents. I would suggest identifying local people who could get involved in progressing specific actions which are of interest to them. These would not be representative groups. We need people who want to work together positively – just as the LPP Group has done.
If required, I am more than happy to offer my services as a link between the CC, the LPP Group and any new community organisation.
Excellent very thorough job. I particularly like the emphasis on protection of biodiversity and the environment.
I should like to see a little higher priority on revitalising Borgue village itself – a cafe/community shop could make a big difference, and the derelict old garage site really needs redevelopment.
I would be grateful if you could confirm now whether Culraven Steading is going to be added to the list of suggested affordable housing development sites. Your email from 13 December 2024 was clear that the steading would be added to the list of sites. As previously mentioned, the redevelopment of Culraven steading is something we have been working on since 2020. We have done a significant amount of feasibility work in this time which indicated the suitability of the steading as an affordable housing development location. Based on this, and also on the comments you have received from the community (not just farmers) about wanting to see derelict farm buildings converted into affordable housing, it would seem appropriate to include Culraven steading as a suitable site on your draft place plan.
This a very thoughtful and clear draft plan that I wholeheartedly support. It is wonderful to be part of a community with so many positive individuals who are prepared to consult and come up with such sound proposals.
Thank you to the place plan committee for putting in such a lot of effort to bring together this document. The sections on biodiversity and natural history are excellent. I totally agree that the derelict garage site in the centre of the village should be developed; at present it is an eyesore. Other run down steadings and buildings would be perfect locations for housing. However, I am not sure some of the other proposed sites for housing would have the agreement of the community as a whole. I would like to see more prominence given to the suggested provision of a village shop/cafe; at present it appears under community led projects, but I think it should appear on p.16 under New Village Facilities as well – a shop/cafe is a important lifeline for any village and serves a very different purpose from the pub. There is a grammatical error in the first sentence of p.29. Overall an excellent piece or work.
Summary of the Comments regarding the Final Consultation on the Draft Plan
There were 16 comments communicated to the Committee.
In general ,13 of these were positive about the LPP and the issues it raises, and 3 were largely against. Only 1 comment did not acknowledge that the LPP had any positive points at all and some of the generally positive comments had issues where they felt the LPP did not fully represent their views (mainly where they felt there was not enough detail or ambition).
Factual issues have been raised and changes made to the LPP with regards to the Borgue Hotel, the taxi service, potential housing sites and Environmental Impact Assessments.
With regard to the topics identified in the Action Plan:
Natural Environment had 2 comments that thought the proposed Plan was unnecessarily environmental in its approach while 3 comments specifically liked what was written.
Travel & Transport had 4 specific comments agreeing with the LPP’s Action Plan and 1 which partially thought the Action Plan might have negative effects.
Facilities & Services had 4 specific comments supporting the LPP Action Plan.
Housing had 4 comments that directly addressed this issue. All were in agreement about the need for more, but were wanting more detail on topics that could only be pursued in more detail if any schemes are taken forward.
Economy, Enterprise & Employment had 4 specific comments that agreed with the LPP about the need to boost these things. Some thought the LPP should have been more specific and more ambitious.
Stronger Community had one comment offering to help take the Action Plan forward.
3 comments thought the LPP was too long.
Given the very positive turnouts to the first two consultations, the LPP Committee considers that small numbers responding to this final opportunity to comment on the Draft Plan and the even smaller numbers of comments which were negative about aspects of the Plan, indicates general agreement with the Draft Plan as a summary of opinions expressed in the Consultations. The LPP Committee are grateful to all those who took the time to respond to all the consultations.
The next stage is to continue discussions with D&G Council about the appropriate way to submit the Plan.