TORY CONFLICT OF INTEREST OVER TWEED’S FRAGILE ECO-SYSTEM?

SPECIAL FEATURE by DOUG COLLIE

Proposals to build hundreds of new homes close to the Tweed in a £200 million development scheme promoted by councillors on Conservative-led Scottish Borders Council risk polluting the world-famous river and could threaten its dwindling salmon stocks, say ecology experts.

However, the planned residential development of up to 400 houses at Lowood/Tweedbank with its negative environmental implications appears to be at odds with efforts to protect fishing habitats by two local Tory politicians, one of them Scotland’s designated Species Champion for Atlantic Salmon.

A team of consultants representing the owner of the top quality salmon angling beat of Upper Pavilion, which sits adjacent to the planned residential development at Lowood, near Melrose, continue to warn housebuilding on such a massive scale would almost certainly compromise the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The salmon is one of the species rating a special mention in the SAC designation.

But at the same time Atlantic salmon ‘champion’ Michelle Ballantyne, Tory Member of the Scottish Parliament [MSP] for the South of Scotland and her Conservative party colleague Rachael Hamilton, the member for Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire, are pressing the Scottish Government to consider special measures to reverse the decline of fish stocks on the Tweed and other rivers.

The issues surrounding the plight of Atlantic salmon in Scottish waters was the subject of a debate in the Holyrood Parliament in early April after Mrs. Hamilton lodged the following motion:

“That the Parliament notes the reported long-term decline in salmon stocks across Scotland’s major rivers, including the Tweed, the Spey, the Dee and the Tay; understands that catches have decreased over the last decade; notes that, on the Tweed, rod catches have fallen from 23,219 in 2012 to 6,577 in 2017; believes that this is marginally above the previous worst years, 1977 and 1980; understands that angling in Scotland supports around 2,800 jobs and contributes £100 million to the economy; acknowledges that fishing generates significant employment opportunities in rural areas; recognises that there are significant challenges ahead if salmon stocks are to return to previous levels, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government to take urgent action to devise effective conservation and management plans in conjunction with relevant bodies to help address what it sees as the persistent decline in salmon stocks.”

And in her speech to Parliament Mrs Hamilton said: “On the ground, we need to look at the whole ecosystem along the entire course of the river. Healthy salmon populations are possibly one of the best indicators of a healthy environment, which every one of us will benefit from. If we do not take action now, it will not be only our fragile rural economy that takes the hit in the short term; it will be our fragile environment as a whole in the long term.”

Atlantic salmon champion Mrs Ballantyne - a former Tory Group leader at SBC - also contributed to the debate, declaring: “At the end of last year, I was asked whether I would be the Scottish Environment LINK species champion for Atlantic salmon and I was delighted to take that on. It has been a learning curve—I did not know anything about it when I set out. What I have discovered has led to a number of worries.

“The Atlantic salmon is a keystone species, which means that any decline in stock has a direct and immediate impact on freshwater biodiversity, with the presence of salmon being a useful indicator of the health of our rivers. It is therefore imperative that we work to preserve wild salmon stocks to secure the future of our aquatic ecosystem.”

Her “Champions” page on the Scottish Environment LINK website says: “Aquaculture poses the most serious threat through transfer of disease and interbreeding with fish that have escaped from farms. Barriers to migration such as dams and weirs, changes to river systems including development and pollution, unsustainable fishing practices both at sea and in rivers, and climate change have the potential to affect wild populations.”

And it adds under the heading ‘Action Needed’ : 1 “Support measures to reduce impact of aquaculture on wild fish 2. Support removal of obstacles to migration in rivers 3. Support enhanced regulation to reduce nutrient pollution 4. Support biodiversity and climate actions, including tree planting along river corridors”

It is not known whether Mrs Ballantyne and Mrs Hamilton have discussed the potential risk to Tweed salmon stocks from the Lowood development with the Conservative group at Scottish Borders Council led by Councillor Shona Haslam. SBC purchased the Lowood estate from the Hamilton family for £11 million, including fees, taxes and interest charges.

As previously reported, the council  has chosen to ignore the contents and findings of a comprehensive report, handed to them in March 2018 by a group of consultants  headed by Jones Lang Lasalle acting for Upper Pavilion owners Middlemede Properties.

In their environmental appraisal of the Tweedbank Masterplan (TM) specialists ITPEnergised wrote: 

“Given the extensive list of additional protected species surveys that need to be undertaken, it is clear that the proposed development of the Lowood element of the Tweedbank allocation has the potential to cause significant impact to these species, either through loss of habitat, disturbance, or indeed, mortality.

“The requirement for such extensive additional surveys supports the view  that ecological and environmental constraints have formed little, if any, of the ‘key principles’ behind the TM exercise. Given that none of this additional ecological survey work seems to have been completed, it is unclear how SBC has arrived at the figure presented in the Masterplan Brief of a ‘development of a minimum of 250-400+ dwellings’.

“This appears to be, at best, an aspirational figure and certainly premature until such time as it is known what the full impact of the development proposals could have on the important habitats and species present in this area. The River Tweed SAC and SSSI is a highly sensitive ecological receptor which requires protection from urban development and the TM does not appear to provide this protection in its current form.

“The River Tweed, which flows through the TM boundary, is designated as a SAC and SSSI for salmon and otter. This is a highly important ecological resource, maintaining a number of habitats and species, which require protection from future development. The TM includes an aspirational density of 250-400+ dwellings, however no justification has been provided that Lowood can accommodate this scale of development and indeed that figure would seem to have been arrived at before any level of environmental appraisal work has been undertaken.

“The TM has not taken into consideration the impacts that the proposed development will have on existing riparian uses and interests, including effects that increased pollution and flooding risks could have on recreational fisheries and ongoing conservation efforts. The TM currently shows that the proposed development would be drained through a SUDS pond which will be located within an area identified by SEPA as at medium to high risk of flooding. This is contrary to SEPA guidance and increases the exposure of the River Tweed to pollution and increased risk of downstream flooding.”

Appraisal of Lowood housing site showed potential risk of pollution

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

A screening exercise to ascertain whether 29 Borders housing sites could be developed without threatening protected habitats acknowledged the construction of hundreds of new homes at Lowood, close to the River Tweed "could increase discharge of pollutants from waste water treatment works".

The Habitat Appraisal Record (HAR) was compiled by Scottish Borders Council in 2017, but the findings from the study have only now been made public following a Freedom of Information request. It says: "There is a chance of housing allocations in the Housing Supplementary Guidance (SG) causing LSEs (Likely Significant Effects) to this site."

Despite the apparent potential threat to the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation [SAC] the screening assessment concluded "all 16 of the sites screened into the process either were not found to have effects on the SAC, or had possible minor effects that could be sufficiently avoided or mitigated."

The land at Lowood - recently purchased by the council for £11 million inclusive of fees and tax - is expected to be the largest new greenfield housing site in the region's second Local Development Plan (LDP), due to be finalised in 2020. SBC clearly believes the scale of proposed development will not pose a risk to the delicate habitats associated with the Tweed river system.

But at least one of the riparian owners is convinced the Lowood housing proposals being promoted by the council could inflict unwanted damage on salmon stocks and the environment in general. As previously reported in these columns Middlemede Properties, proprietors of the mile-long Upper Pavilion salmon beat right next to Lowood is calling on the council to remove the estate land from its list of housing sites.

The local authority's 2017 HAR says: "Any housing development taking place on this site (Tweedbank/Lowood) would still require to be acceptable under LDP Policy EP15, which confirms that development that would adversely affect the water environment would be refused.

"Furthermore, the development requirements for this site include a flood risk assessment, mitigation required to ensure that there will be no significant adverse effects on integrity of the River Tweed SAC, possibly an environmental impact assessment, a drainage impact assessment, contact with Scottish Water in respect of water treatment works, and the assessment of ecology impacts and the provision of mitigation. The above is considered sufficient mitigation for any potential minor effects on the SAC."

However, Middlemede's representatives claim the proposed mitigation measures are vague and non-specific. The potential threats to the SAC have been under-played, they maintain.

The entire Tweed river system was designated a SAC - of European importance - in 2005. It is also referred to as a Natura site. A range of conservation objectives are included in the designation to safeguard key species including Atlantic salmon, otter and lamprey.

Those objectives are listed as follows: "To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species  or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features; and  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: Population of the species, including range of genetic types for salmon, as a viable component of the site; Distribution of the species within site; Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; No significant disturbance of the species."

The threats, pressure and activities with impacts on the River Tweed SAC according to the record of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee are: Pollution to groundwater; Human induced changes in hydraulic conditions; Invasive non-native species; Modification of cultivation practices; Grazing; Annual and perennial non-timber crops.

JNCC's record also states: "Substantial housing development within close proximity of the River Tweed SAC may increase recreational disturbance and could increase discharge of pollutants from waste water treatment works."

It is a formidable and robust designation, underlining the importance of keeping the river system safe from risky development projects and other activities which might upset the delicate balance.of the SAC's habitats.

However, the council's HAR overall conclusion appears to dismiss any potential threats from any or all of the proposed housing development sites.

The document states: "Ultimately, all 16 of the sites screened into the process either were not found to have effects on the SAC, or had possible minor effects that could be sufficiently avoided or mitigated. 

"These findings were confirmed following the relevant steps which were: screening out allocations for which a link to a Natura site cannot be established; screening out allocations where a previous HRA or appropriate assessment have concluded that there is no LSE on the conservation objectives of a Natura site or that there is LSE that can be avoided; screening out sites where Local Development Plan policy and site specific requirement means LSE on the conservation objectives of a relevant Natura site can be avoided; and confirming that any potential effects on the SAC are so minor there would be no cumulative effects."

Council plans could threaten special area of conservation - report

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

An assessment completed by Scottish Borders Council in 2017 confirmed that housing developments on the Lowood Estate near Melrose could have a significant impact on the designated River Tweed Special Area of Conservation [SAC] which lies close to where hundreds of new homes are planned.

It has been revealed in a response to SBC's Main Issues Report [MIR] which forms part of the preparation of the Borders' second Local Development Plan, that the potential effects on the SAC were pinpointed in a so-called Habitats Appraisal Record or HAR produced by the local authority.

The HAR was assembled long before The £11 million deal (including fees) between SBC and Lowood's previous owners was concluded late last year. The council now owns 109 acres, much of it attractive parkland, together with a large country house and a collection of other properties.

The Tweedbank Masterplan for the area includes provision for residential developments on Lowood by private builders. But, as we have already reported, it is claimed the local housing market does not warrant house-building on such a grand scale.

A detailed report by consultants Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) attempts to unpick the council's arguments for allocating the prime site as a future housing area. JLL represents Middlemede Properties whose Upper Pavilion salmon fishery adjoins Lowood. The consultants say in their submission that they acquired a copy of the HAR via Freedom of Information.

According to JLL: "It (the habitats appraisal) confirmed that housing development at Lowood would be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC's conservation objectives (thereby triggering the need for an appropriate assessment [AA] of the proposed plan to allocate the site for housing to be carried out) but then concluded that there would be no significant impact because unspecified mitigation measures would be put in place to offset the risk of what is then described as "potential minor effects".

"It is self-evident from the foregoing, that the Council has failed to carry out an AA and as part of that process set out the mitigation measures that would be needed to ensure that an adverse effect on the River Tweed SAC did not occur. The Council consequently also failed to consider whether the implementation of mitigation measures would impact on our client's riparian interest.

"Critically, in terms of its assessment of the effectiveness of the site (both in terms of site capacity and additional infrastructure cost), it has no information before it which would allow it to conclude that there would be no HRA (Habitats Regulatory Assessment) obstacle to planning permission for housing development on the site being granted. 

"Without information on whether the anticipated adverse impact can be properly mitigated, it follows in turn that the Council is currently unable to assess the cost involved in providing the appropriate level of mitigation and the impact which that additional cost may have on the overall viability of the site. This may include the payment of compensation."

JLL also claim  It is self-evident that in the absence of a properly modelled FRA (flood risk assessment)  the Council has no idea of the extent to which the Tweedbank site falls to be regarded as forming part of a functional floodplain. This in turn undermines assumptions made about net developable areas and housing numbers.

And the report concludes: "The Council now has an opportunity to address this serious matter with regard to Lowood, by acknowledging at this stage that the site’s proximity to sensitive national and European environmental designations, combined with the commercial viability and deliverability issues, all set against a very weak housing market dynamic, provide justification for not allocating the site an effective allocation in LDP2, in favour of more sustainable and deliverable alternatives."

NEXT: WHAT EXACTLY DID THE H.A.R SAY?

Scrap Lowood Estate housing plans, council told

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

Scottish Borders Council has been strongly advised not to allocate Lowood Estate land, near Melrose, for hundreds of new homes even though the local authority has splashed out £11 million of taxpayers' money to buy the prime site by the banks of the River Tweed.

In a hard hitting submission to the council - lodged after the multi-million pound deal was concluded last December - representatives of an adjacent property owner claim the proposals to use Lowood for residential development are flawed on multiple fronts.

Consultants Jones Lang Lasalle [JLL] acting for Middlemede Properties (MPL), owners of the Upper Pavilion salmon fishing beat next to Lowood, had presented a comprehensive response to the so-called Tweedbank Masterplan in March last year. But its assessment of the Lowood housing aspect of the plan was completely ignored by SBC. According to the local authority the 64-page document was not received in time and so was not shown to elected councillors.

It has now been revealed that JLL sent the council a second report in January 2019 in response to the Main Issues Report (MIR) of the Borders Local Development Plan Two (LDP2). The seven-page submission reinforces Middlemede's case for the housing developments at Lowood to be abandoned.

David Bell, director and head of planning at JLL, says in the report: "It should be noted that within the formal MIR/LDP process, MPL has made a number of representations to SBC with regard to what they consider is an inappropriate development approach to the Tweedbank housing allocation. As yet, disappointingly, there has been no response whatsoever from SBC to the important issues raised in that report."

The JLL document adds that MPL takes the view that the scale of development proposed at Tweedbank does not represent “the right development in the right place” and it cuts across the key objective of SBC – namely, to strike a balance between supporting sustainable growth and protecting the landscape and environment.

"The MIR sets out that LDP2 must incorporate a generous supply of housing land, but it acknowledges that there has been a limited annual completion rate for mainstream housing and limited take up of allocated housing sites", Mr Bell writes. 

"This illustrates some of the endemic housing market failure issues within the Scottish Borders and further underlines why sites such as Tweedbank, which clearly will have high abnormal costs to enable development, are likely to remain undeveloped and will not drive the sales values to deliver commercially viable development, high quality public realm and necessary environmental mitigation."

JLL also believe the reference to the Tweedbank site with regard to “excellent development opportunities” and being in an area “with a proven housing market demand” is misleading. 

"The housing market at this location faces extremely challenging issues which are likely to be a serious barrier to future development especially when considered against the expected development costs and relatively low values driven by housing development at this location."

The report declares: "Notwithstanding the fact that the Council seems to have purchased the Lowood Estate on an unconditional basis, there is, it is considered, strong justification for removing the allocation and pursuing more deliverable and effective housing land opportunities that can represent the right development in the right place in line with the Council’s overarching aims and objectives."

NEXT: MORE FROM THE MIDDLEMEDE SUBMISSION

More on that Audit Scotland 'wish list'

by EWAN LAMB

Risks associated with arms length companies, the potential threats posed by participation in so-called city region and growth deals and a concerning reduction in the number of finance staff working in local government all feature in the latest Audit Scotland report on safeguarding public money.

The document sets out to reinforce the importance of councils having effective internal controls.

It says: "Although these may have a low profile, they are fundamental to maintaining a council’s finances; securing its core values; safeguarding public money; and minimising the reputational impact on a council if things go wrong. Checklists are featured to help councillors and officers assess their council’s situation and, where necessary, to identify and plan improvements."

According to Audit Scotland, through their audit reports and plans, councils’ external auditors flag concerns about internal controls as a result, for example, of the trend in reduction of finance staff.

"Recurring weaknesses are becoming apparent with certain types of controls, particularly those relating to information processing controls, such as for key financial systems and performance reviews, such as making effective use of computer-generated reports that usefully highlight patterns and exceptions."

And the report goes on to highlight other issues linked to internal financial controls including segregation of duties, including ensuring that a council officer cannot perform both Human Resources (HR) and payroll functions, and so create fictitious employees; and ensuring an officer cannot both make a purchase from a supplier and arrange the payment for it.

To illustrate what can happen if internal control systems are not working efficiently, the report describes one case study in which an unnamed local authority continued to pay former members of its workforce over a three year period.

Audit Scotland say: "Between April 2015 and February 2018, the council made over 800 salary over payments totalling approximately £812,000 to a combination of actual and former employees. An eighth of former employees were still paid after leaving the council, usually due to a delay in a department notifying Payroll Services staff that someone had left. Six over payments exceeded £10,000 and the highest was £15,500. At the time of the external audit, there were no documented procedures for preventing or recovering payroll over payments."

The public spending watchdog goes on to urge Scotland's 32 councils to ensure: full council, cabinet, committee and board meetings are held regularly; there is trust between councillors and senior officers; and councillors and officers recognise and respect their distinct roles;

"A culture of openness to challenge helps councillors and officers to recognise the importance of scrutiny; be open to candid discussions about risks and related controls; and promote this culture across the council and the partnerships it is involved in.

"Scrutiny works best when officers provide councillors with timely, good quality information . A council should be transparent about its decisions and the quality of the services it provides, so that the public and the council’s partners can be confident it is making informed decisions; and safeguarding public money. This involves the council’s leadership being open to scrutiny and accountable for their plans and performance. Every councillor – not just those who sit on the council’s audit committee, scrutiny committee, or equivalent committees – has a valuable scrutiny role to play at corporate, local area and electoral ward levels."

In its reference to ALEOs (Arms Length External Organisations) which have been developed by many councils, the report warns: "ALEOs can bring financial and operational benefits, with more potential for innovation but also considerable risks. Once an ALEO is operating, councilors need to oversee its financial and service performance; financial sustainability; associated risks; and seek assurance from council officers that suitable controls are in place for managing these risks. Risks include a potential conflict of interest where a councillor sits on an ALEO’s board, especially should it encounter financial difficulties.

And councils participating in city region or growth deals - for example Scottish Borders Council is involved in two such deals -  may risk gaps between their income and spending in future years, which could threaten their financial sustainability if risks are not managed carefully.

Another collection of platitudes from Audit Scotland?

by EWAN LAMB

Scotland's public spending watchdog has warned of weaknesses within the country's local authorities which could lead to "the loss of significant amounts of public money, impacts on services and reputational damage."

In its latest report entitled Safeguarding Public Money - Are You Getting It Right, Audit Scotland urges the nation's councillors to intensify their scrutiny of expenditure and advocates transparency in decision making.

Apparently the elected members sitting on Scotland's 32 councils are responsible for £12.4 billion of taxpayers' cash. A frightening statistic And if that sum could be trimmed by just one per cent through improved financial and risk management then £124 million would be freed up to be devoted to public services. The squandering of scarce resources should be avoided at all times.

Yet when allegations are made to Audit Scotland that cash may be being wasted through stupidity or wrongdoing, and when hard evidence of large sums being lost through reckless decision making is presented to it the watchdog either sits on its paws or refuses to investigate and bring the culprits to book.

This national agency with a multi-million pound budget of its own repeatedly produces lengthy reports telling councillors to pull up their socks and get a grip on events at their respective local authorities.

However, the regulatory system covering all aspects of council work is flawed and toothless. None of the 'watchdogs' in the sector can impose sanctions which renders much of their work meaningless and pointless.

So when Audit Scotland publishes one of its tub-thumping documents nothing much happens, and in many cases the so-called representatives of the council taxpayers are content to go on picking up their salaries and allowances, leaving paid officials to run the show.

A fair sample of elected members admit they simply don't understand the workings of local government. Others appear too timid or feel intimidated when it comes to asking searching questions. As a result many flawed projects come to be rubber-stamped without being properly scrutinised.

The willingness to wave through officers' recommendations may make it difficult for a good many councillors to comply with Audit Scotland's latest declaration that: "Councillors should seek assurances from officers that a rigorous system of internal controls is in place. Scrutiny and audit committees have leading roles, but every committee and councillor has a scrutiny role too."

The following passage also caught our eye: "Scotland’s 1,227 councillors have multi-faceted responsibilities and constantly make difficult decisions when prioritising and allocating their council’s finite resources.

"With so much at stake, it is more important than ever that the impact of their decisions on communities and individuals is transparent and clearly understood. This requires an organisational culture that is open to candid discussions about risks and recognises the importance of scrutinising decisions."

Before that instruction can be implemented we will require a complete volte-face from the secretive regimes operating within many councils in Scotland. The volume of private business at meetings has long been unacceptable, and when mistakes are made resulting in losses for taxpayers the tendency is to adopt the cover-up position!

NEXT: MORE ON THAT AUDIT SCOTLAND REPORT

Borders Main Issues Report 'premature and inappropriate'

by DOUG COLLIE

The consultation on Scottish Borders Council's so-called Main Issues Report (MIR) in preparation for the region's second Local Development Plan attracted more than 300 responses from organisations and individuals.

An indication of how the public has reacted to the MIR, setting out priorities and possible policies on housing and other aspects of development, is expected to form a report to members of the local authority next month.

The publication and formal representation phase of the key LDP2 is scheduled for winter 2019/20 with an examination of the proposals to follow in summer 2020 and adoption of the plan in early 2021.

It is already evident that future levels of housing construction will be one of the main topics for discussion, and several of the MIR submissions focus on the need for new homes.

Homes for Scotland [HfS], 'voice' of house builders across the country, have criticised the MIR in their submission to SBC.

According to HfS in preparing a LDP, the planning authority is to “ensure that the plan prepared is consistent with the strategic development plan.

 

"Homes for Scotland is therefore surprised that Scottish Borders Council has taken the decision to prepare, publish and consult on its MIR as the first statutory stage of its new LDP at this time without an approved Strategic Development Plan (SDP) in place.

"Homes for Scotland believes that the publication of the MIR is premature and when SESplan2 [South East Scotland Plan2] SDP is approved, it will have to be amended accordingly. The necessary amendments to the number of new homes that require to be delivered over the LDP plan period after the approval of SESplan2 by Scottish Ministers in due course, will substantially change the plan’s course."

The umbrella organisation has asked that the Council provides a far more detailed Housing Technical Note to explain in a robust and transparent way how all of the assumptions within the ‘Planning for Housing’ chapter of the MIR have been reached, to allow all parties to be able to analyse these, and comment on their appropriateness. 

In a section of their report dealing with housing land allocations Homes for Scotland say: "HFS would support a range of sizes and locations of sites being allocated within the emerging LDP to support different scales of home builders from small scale home builders, to larger home builders.  

"This would allow a range and choice for the delivery of new homes.  An over reliance on smaller scale sites will not allow meaningful and sustained housing growth in the Borders to be achieved to help build communities and stabilise the population. This requires some larger sites as part of the range of allocations.

"Given the nature of the Scottish Borders, we recognise that there are opportunities for small scale home builders to operate and flourish in the region, and we would like to see the inclusion of policies to support these small scale home builders in particular, to help to strengthen and encourage this sector of the market, as well as overarching policies supporting the delivery of homes more generally."

In a forthright conclusion to their report HfS declare: "HFS believes that the publication and consultation on a Main Issues Report at this stage, in the absence of an approved Strategic Development Plan to be premature and inappropriate. Furthermore, given the level of uncertainty over the methodology within the assumptions in the Housing Technical Note, we question the accuracy on all levels of the housing numbers provided within both the MIR and the Technical Note."

Tapestry project costs already on the rise

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

The main contract price for construction of the Great Tapestry of Scotland gallery in Galashiels is more than a quarter of a million pounds higher than the estimate published a year ago by Scottish Borders Council.

A contract award notice, published today (Tuesday) reveals that the bid submitted by successful tenderers Ogilvie Construction, of Stirling was £4,898,397 (excluding VAT of 20%).

The figure is £298,397 (6.48%) higher than the guide price of £4,600,000 (excluding VAT) quoted by the local authority in the original contract notice posted on the Public Contracts Scotland website in March 2018 even though there were four bids lodged with the council's procurement team.

There was no mention of the increased value of the deal signed with Ogilvie compared to last year's prediction when SBC issued a detailed news release about the award last week.

The council statement said: "Stirling-based Ogilvie Construction has been appointed to build the landmark facility for the attraction, which tells the story of Scotland through one of the world’s largest tapestries created by 1,000 people from across the country. 

"Work is expected to start in the coming weeks at the town centre site, which will be transformed with the creation of the new building. It has been designed by one of Scotland’s leading architectural practices, Page \ Park." 

Councillor Mark Rowley, SBC's Executive Member for Business and Economic Development said:
“I am delighted we now have an experienced and trusted contractor in place to take forward the building of this nationally significant attraction, with the artist impressions indicating it will be a stunning piece of architecture in Galashiels town centre.

“Jobs will be created during construction of the facility alongside a wide range of social, economic and educational benefits once the building opens to the public.

“Heritage and culture experts predict the centre will attract over 50,000 people to Galashiels each year once opened, as well as create 16 new jobs at the facility.

“In addition, almost £900,000 of extra spending per year is predicted for the local economy, providing 12,000 extra visits to complementary attractions, supporting a further 17 jobs."

However, critics of the £6.7 million scheme have warned it will be impossible to go on attracting 50,000 visitors each year, and claim the predictions on economic benefits for the Borders are overblown.

Last November it was reported by the Border Telegraph that the project was already six months behind schedule although the project team insisted at that time the new Borders visitor attraction would be up and running by the spring of 2020.

But the invitation to tender suggested the work would involve a 16 month contract. The document envisaged an invitation to selected candidates would be made in July 2018 with work on site getting underway in October of that year. 

According to the contract notice: ":The Tapestry is a unique community arts project to stitch the entire story of Scotland from pre-history to modern times. The Tapestry is a linear pictorial history of Scotland depicting key events going back 12,000 years. It is also the world's longest tapestry at 143 metres [469 feet) and consists of 160 separate panels". 

"Twice as much for half the money"

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

A Borders businessman has told Scottish Borders Council their decision to spend £11 million to purchase the Lowood estate near Melrose for housing is 'a grave mistake' and he could have sold the local authority almost twice as much land for less than half the sum needed to seal the Lowood deal.

Jim Hewit is the owner of an extensive stretch of undeveloped land at Easter Langlee, some 200 metres from Lowood. The council has already faced criticism since it was revealed in December that the 109 acres plus nine properties including a mansion house had been acquired for £9.6 million.

When legal fees, surveyors' costs and land tax are added the total outlay for Borders council taxpayers will be just over £11 million. The figure includes £780,000 to cover interest charges.

Mr Hewit told how he contacted SBC immediately after reading about the overall cost of the Lowood transaction in a local newspaper.

He wrote in an email to Neil Hastie, Estates Manager at the council: "I read with disbelief the front page of the Southern Reporter this morning regards Lowood Estate. The cost to the council eleven million plus?

"The council are well aware I own Easter Langlee, Galashiels. And it is within two hundred metres of Lowood  estate, It is double the size and could be purchased for five million. In the interest of tax and rate payers I think this is a grave mistake."

Mr Hewit explained that his site at Easter Langlee extended to 175 acres, and in his view the land was capable of accommodating a thousand houses.

However, he added that his Easter Langlee site had been 'knocked out' of the council's last Local Plan, and it looked as though it would also be eliminated from the latest Local Plan.

The council's controversial decision to purchase Lowood from the Hamilton family is to facilitate the Tweedbank Masterplan which envisages a mixture of developments close to the Borders Railway terminus, including up to 400 houses.

But two reports from specialists - one of them from SBC's own firm of commissioned consultants - have included warnings that the local housing market is fragile while the proposed density of new homes may have to be increased to appeal to house builders.

The other review of the Masterplan, carried out by a team headed by Jones Lang Lasalle for Middlemede Properties, owners of the Upper Pavilion salmon fishing beat on the River Tweed, concluded the housing element was 'unviable and undeliverable'.

An observer of the Borders housing scene commented: "Seriously depressing but sadly not surprising that a scheme and expenditure of this size is progressed by SBC officials apparently without a development or commercial appraisal. 

"Why is SBC pursuing a unicorn as no commercial developer will dive into a deal with significant affordable housing and physical and educational infrastructure requirements?"

In a reply to Mr Hewit's email, Mr Hastie said: "Thank you for the email which I have forwarded.  I note all that you write and would advise you that either myself or Martin (Joyce) will come back to you with a more detailed response once we have had an opportunity to consider the points you have raised." 

Councillors were warned Borders housing market ‘extremely delicate’

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

A comprehensive list of ‘weaknesses’ and ‘threats’ linked to the proposed purchase of the 109-acre Lowood estate to accommodate the construction of hundreds of new homes was presented to members of Scottish Borders Council by their own firm of consultants before the £11 million deal was sealed.

The report from specialists Ryden, considered in private in May 2018, warned the local authority: “The residential development market within the wider Scottish Borders region remains extremely delicate”.

A heavily redacted copy of the document entitled: Strategic Advice & Appraisal In respect of Tweedbank Expansion Melrose Scottish Borders makes interesting reading in light of recently published claims that the housing element of the so-called masterplan was ‘unviable and undeliverable’.

This week Not Just Sheep & Rugby, and local Borders newspapers reported on a previously confidential 64-page submission to SBC from consultants Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) which also examined proposals for up to 400 houses on the highly attractive Lowood land. That report, prepared for Middlemede Properties, owners of the adjoining Upper Pavilion Tweed salmon fishing beat, concluded such a residential project did not stack up commercially with developers likely to make a significant loss.

However, SBC told the Border Telegraph the damning JLL report had not been shown to councillors because it had not been submitted in time. The council added: “The viability of development at Lowood Estate was thoroughly reviewed in a series of subsequent technical reports that formed the basis of the recommendations made to councillors in private on May 31, 2018. The report considered by Members in March 2018 contained detailed analysis including a thorough consideration of market conditions which went significantly beyond the scope of the JLL report.”

The Ryden appraisal was one of the papers available to councillors at their meeting last May. The censored version of the Ryden report was released by SBC to Middlemede’s lawyers who submitted a Freedom of Information request asking for it.

The consultants warn in their report: “The residential development market within the wider Scottish Borders region remains extremely delicate.

“A lack of development lending coupled with restricted funding via the Scottish Government has produced a position where Registered Social Landlords struggle in many cases to demonstrate the viability of proposed development in order to meet latent need. The same is true for many mainstream developers who are often uninclined to consider opportunities within the Scottish Borders themselves.

“In considering the wider marketplace, we would expect that the transport nodes associated with the new Borders Railway are likely to become the area’s most capable of seeking to attract developers. The market has not shifted sufficiently to see the volume builders commit to these locations at the present time. Once again, we would reiterate that we appreciate that the Scottish Borders Council are taking a longer term strategic view.

“At the present time, mainstream house builders remain selective in terms of postcodes and settlements and have continued to focus on existing legacy and land banked land parcels with acquisitions tending to be in established locations. There is a recognition at this point in time that the private sector is unlikely to commit speculatively in major volumes within the Scottish Borders.”

The Tweedbank masterplan suggests 25% of the houses to be built on Lowood should be affordable homes. But the Ryden report hints that this proposal might be changed to make the building plots more attractrive to developers.

The report says: “An alternative option would be for the Council to consider reducing the percentage of affordable housing required to be provided at the Lowood Estate or, alternatively, enabling this to be provided off-site.”

And Ryden also warn: “Clearly the Scottish Borders Supplementary Guidance on Housing refers to the subject site with an indicative site capacity of 300 units. This suggests a notional density of development at somewhere in the order of 20 units per hectare (8 units per acre).

“This is relatively low density and a mainstream developer is likely to seek to drive profitability by increasing the scale and mass of future development. Dependent upon the stance of the local planners, then there may well be a desire to engage with the planning authority with a view to delivering a greater number of houses over the longer term. We are aware of examples elsewhere where densities have been close to 30 to 35 units per hectare (12 to 14 units per acre) if an appropriate mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings are to be considered.”

When asked for their reaction to the Ryden report, JLL told Not Just Sheep & Rugby: “The Ryden report is a fair representation of the challenges that the Lowood site faces.

”The Ryden report is heavily redacted but, notwithstanding this, it seems to be suggesting that housing density needs to be higher, which in our opinion would further exacerbate the over-development issues facing the Lowood site.  The report also seems to be suggesting that to help viability, more standardised housing should be considered in place of more innovative upscale design.  This would, in our view, go against the high quality design objectives that were set in the Supplementary Guidance for the site and indeed not achieve the design quality aspired to in the Proctor Matthews Architect's Masterplan for Tweedbank.

”Moreover, the report also seems to be suggesting that a further step required to ensure viability is that consideration could be given to not providing affordable housing on the site.  This would, if progressed, further undermine the Council's aspirations for a balanced masterplan for Tweedbank.

Lowood pollution and flooding risks flagged up to council

DOUGLAS SHEPHERD reports on potential environmental and landscape impacts of  the Borders' controversial development project

The construction of up to 400 new houses close to the River Tweed near Melrose - a key element of the so-called Tweedbank Masterplan - would have detrimental implications for the high quality landscapes and increase the risk of flooding and pollution, according to a strategic review of the project.

As Not Just Sheep & Rugby has already reported, a team of consultants commissioned by Middlemede Properties Ltd., owners of the Upper Pavilion salmon fishery, near Melrose, handed a comprehensive 68-page report to Scottish Borders Council in March 2018.

But the document was only made public a few days ago, and it is understood many of SBC's elected members were not aware of the findings when it was decided to proceed with the purchase of Lowood Estate for £11 million, including costs, to facilitate the masterplan.

It outlined Middlemede's concerns over the £203 million masterplan, particularly the planned developments at Lowood adjoining the salmon fishery where most of the new homes would be built.

Consultants Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) who led the response to the masterplan on behalf of Middlemede, concluded the housing proposals were 'unviable and undeliverable' on commercial grounds.

And two other firms - Horner and Maclennan (landscape and visual review) and ITPEnergised (environmental review) also identified a list of concerns associated with the council's vision.

The environmental section of the report explains that the Tweed, which flows through the masterplan area boundary, is designated as a SAC (Special Area of Conservation) and a SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) for salmon and otter.

"This is a highly important ecological resource, maintaining a number of habitats and species, which require protection from future development", the report warns.

"The masterplan includes an aspirational density of 250-400+ dwellings, however no justification has been provided that Lowood can accommodate this scale of development and indeed that figure would seem to have been arrived at before any level of environmental appraisal work has been undertaken.

"The masterplan has not taken into consideration the impacts that the proposed development could have on existing riparian uses and interests, including effects that increased pollution and flooding risks could have on recreational fisheries and ongoing conservation efforts.

Properties would be drained through a SUDS (Sustainable Drainage System) pond to be located within an area identified by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) as at medium to high risk of flooding. This was contrary to SEPA guidance and increased the exposure of the River Tweed to pollution and increased risk of downstream flooding, said the consultants.

"A preliminary environmental appraisal that was undertaken for the masterplan identifies that mature woodland will need to be felled to accommodate the proposed development. It identifies a number of additional ecological and environmental surveys that will need to be undertaken to demonstrate that the proposed development will not result any significant adverse effects. These surveys do not appear to have been undertaken."

The parallel scathing landscape review claims: "The masterplan fails to adequately consider the existing tree and woodland pattern on the site as a strategic constraint to development, fails to base its proposals on an arboricultural survey of the tree resource as required by the Council, and fails to apply appropriate buffer zones to areas of existing woodland and trees proposed for retention

"The existing secluded character of the riparian river corridor and the quality of its views, forming an important part of the Borders Abbey Way, would be significantly altered by the introduction of the scale and location of built development proposed.

"Tree removals of the scale required to achieve the development pattern proposed are likely to increase the visibility of the proposed development from the surrounding area.

"Given the extent of tree and woodland removal which is considered necessary as part of the masterplan proposals, and the scale and extent of built development which is proposed, it is considered that the proposed development would become visible in elevated views from within the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area (NSA), drawing attention to the development to the detriment of the overall quality of this view from within the NSA."

According to the review report the dense development pattern proposed is considered to constitute significant ‘over-development’ of the site, given its sensitive landscape character and extensive woodland and tree belt pattern.

Horner & Maclennan state: "SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage) advice recommends that the proposed development is designed around the existing allocation site characteristics of woodland, specimen trees and boundary walls to create a high quality development, and that the proximity of the allocation site to the River Tweed necessitates consideration of the assessment and mitigation of potential impacts. Consideration of the masterplan proposals indicates the current proposals fall well short of SNH’s requirements."

'No awareness of market conditions' in council's Masterplan

DOUGLAS SHEPHERD with more revelations from The Middlemede Report

The absence of any appraisal of housing market conditions in Scottish Borders Council's Tweedbank Masterplan is a fundamental failure of the planning process, according to a wide ranging and hard hitting report from consultants.

Not Just Sheep & Rugby has already reported on the conclusions and recommendations from the report which was made public at the weekend over a year after it was presented to council officials.

Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) was commissioned by Middlemede Properties Ltd, owners of the Upper Pavilion salmon fishery on the River Tweed to examine SBC's development proposals for the Tweedbank/Lowood area which will cost more than £200 million to implement.

The most contentious element of the Masterplan from Middlemede's point of view is the planned construction of an estimated 350-400 houses on Lowood Estate right next to the valuable salmon beat. In JLL's view the entire Masterplan is financially 'unviable and undeliverable'.

In their report, which includes contributions from a team of experts, JLL state: "It is important to note that it has been evident from our review of the Tweedbank Masterplan documentation, in particular the element of it with regard to the Lowood [housing] allocation, whilst there has been an absolute focus on design considerations and high level environmental considerations, there has been no market or commercial appraisal input to inform the Masterplan preparation whatsoever.

"This, in our view, demonstrates that the Council has not prepared the Masterplan in a sound and appropriate manner. Moreover, this situation fundamentally undermines the masterplanning approach taken and contravenes the objectives set in the Masterplan Brief.

"Given there has been no residential market information considered as part of the Masterplan process, it means that the viability and in turn the deliverability of what is proposed, in our considered professional opinion, which is underpinned by a robust development appraisal, is highly questionable, and the lack of this appraisal entirely undermines the proposed Lowood allocation. Indeed, in terms of the appraisal we have undertaken on the basis of our own market information, and taking into account the cost information provided by the consultants who prepared the Masterplan it is clear in our view that the development as proposed, is commercially unviable."

JLL add that from their review of the Masterplan they are very clear in their conclusions that the process followed by SBC, and the outcome as expressed in the Masterplan documentation, contained no information or any awareness of market conditions and did not set out a position at all on viability.

It was clear from the planning brief that there was a specific requirement, in terms of the housing component, that 25% of the total provision should be affordable. There was also clear anticipation that the impact on educational provision (in particular Tweedbank Primary School) needed to be considered - and there should be creation of new or additional sport and leisure facilities Secondary education was not mentioned but that would also be an important consideration. All of those matters had cost implications and clear consequences for viability of development.

The report sets out its own detailed development appraisal and examines market considerations.

"The appraisal overview demonstrates that the site cannot generate a positive land value. There is insufficient revenue to generate: a developer's profit or a positive land value.

"As it is presented, even if the land was sold for just £1, a developer would generate a loss of -£1.75 million. This represents a -4% profit on revenue.To put this into context, a developer in this location would expect to make a 15-20% gross margin on revenue.

"Based on our assessment of GDV (Gross Development Value) = (£43.3 million) this would equate to £6.5 - £8.7 million. If we assume a mid-point of say, £7m then the true extent of the negative land value would be -£8.7.

"In our experience the only way to increase the profitability would be to increase the density. However, given the significant difference between the current loss (as outlined above) and a positive land value, the increase of density would be unrealistic both in terms of planning viability, the urban design approach and standard sought and expectations locally in the market."

Leading councillor 'unaware of Lowood report'

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

The leader of the Opposition group on Scottish Borders Council has confirmed he was unaware of the existence of a report from consultants claiming the £200 million Tweedbank Masterplan proposals were 'unviable and undeliverable' when the authority sanctioned the purchase of Lowood estate last year for £11 million, including costs.

Councillor Stuart Bell (SNP) was reacting to Not Just Sheep & Rugby's coverage of a 68-page document commissioned by Middlemede Properties Ltd., owners of the Upper Pavilion salmon fishing beat next to Lowood. Our report, published yesterday, revealed the report's findings publicly for the first time.

A team of specialists headed by Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) assembled the evidence for the report before lodging it with SBC in March 2018. The report records meetings with named officers at SBC prior to that.

But its contents do not appear to have featured much in the council's discussions about the Masterplan or the multi-million pound purchase of 109 acres at Lowood to facilitate controversial development proposals including upwards of 250 houses.

Councillor Bell, who raised serious concerns in December about the amount paid for the land - the sum was well above the undisclosed valuation placed on the estate by the District Valuer - will now demand an explanation as to why elected members were denied sight of the JLL report. He said he had been handed a copy of the document last Friday.

In a statement, he told us: "It seems to me that there have been two parallel processes running over the last year in regards to Tweedbank development.   A sequence of Housing Supplementary Guidance and Tweedbank Master planning which JLL & Middlemede Properties were trying to contribute to; and a separate, parallel, process where the Council was purchasing the Lowood Estate.  This second process was in private so although the JLL Report can be read as a very critical commentary on the land purchase; I don’t think that was the authors’ specific intent. 

He had been unaware of the report and its conclusions when the decision was taken by Scottish Borders Council to purchase the Lowood Estate. 

"I think that many other Borders Councillors were similarly in ignorance of it which is worrying given the significance of its conclusions (as the Not Just Sheep & Rugby blog dated 7^th April indicates… ) that the Lowood proposal is over-development and not commercially viable.  This does seems strange to me when the Report is dated March 2018 and I understand it was passed to Council officers."

"Given the potential significance of the analysis and conclusions I have written to SBC officers asking for clarification on why this Report was not brought immediately to the attention of Councillors.  I am told by the originators of the Report that they are now sending a copy to all SBC Councillors."

He claimed that potentially of greater significance is the implication of the JLL Report for SBC’s development planning process going forward. The Council was in the middle of consulting on a Main Issues Report which would feed into the next iteration of the Local Development Plan.

"The core of JLL's argument is that the planned housing on the Lowood Estate is over-development and the report raises a number of environmental and landscape concerns", added Councillor Bell.

"Regardless of whether SBC own this land it has to act impartially when determining the preferred location of and scale of development.  At present, because future Lowood Housing is included in the fully approved Supplementary Planning Guidance for Housing (Nov 2017), then subject to approval of specific applications this site can be developed in line with that Guidance.

 "Time will tell whether SBC can impartially refute the planning logic of the JLL Report.  If not that could be grounds for objections to on-going development on that site and potentially place limits on its inclusion on the next Local Development Plan.  As the new landowner I think that SBC is going to have to be, and be seen to be, very even handed in how it now considers the JLL Report."

Council's Lowood venture does not stack up - claim

EXCLUSIVE REPORT by DOUG COLLIE

A detailed examination of Scottish Borders Council's £203 million Tweedbank/Lowood Masterplan proposals by an expert team found the project was commercially non viable, represented over-development of the site and could create environmental and pollution threats for the River Tweed corridor.

The disturbing findings from the assessment were handed to the local authority in March last year -  before councillors finalised the deal to purchase the 109-acre Lowood Estate for £11 million (including fees and interest charges) to facilitate their Masterplan.

The 68-page document prepared by Edinburgh-based consultants Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) was commissioned by Middlemede Properties Ltd. [MPL], owners of the top quality mile-long Upper Pavilion Tweed salmon fishing beat adjoining Lowood/Tweedbank. The Middlemede company is run by the Westbrook family. The fishery is not operated as a business, but sits in one of the most tranquil and attractive stretches of the river.

It is not known whether Borders councillors were shown the report submitted on behalf of Middlemede or if the council simply chose to ignore the document's damning findings.

JLL say in the report that their clients were not consulted when SBC planners were preparing so-called Supplementary Guidance (SG) on the allocation of new housing sites for the Borders. Yet the planned construction of housing on land at Lowood represented over 35% of the Borders housing shortfall of 916 units.

Not Just Sheep & Rugby is in possession of a copy of JLL's response report to the Masterplan and will publish articles based on its contents. Its conclusions and recommendations should certainly have provided food for thought for the local authority's elected members.

For example an outline development appraisal of the residential components (300-350 new houses) of the Lowood site concludes: "There would be insufficient revenue to generate either a developer's profit or a positive land value. The Tweedbank Masterplan as currently proposed is therefore unviable and undeliverable".

A representative of JLL said: "The emphasis in the Masterplan of Lowood's proximity to Tweedbank railway station is understandable. But this appears to have blinded the council to the considerable additional costs and public spending on infrastructure which will be required to develop the site.

"Our clients are not against any development taking place on Lowood. But we believe say 40-50 higher value houses would make much more economic and environmental sense. Middlemede would not wish to see a costly White Elephant by the banks of the Tweed and it seems clear from our review that SBC should be looking at alternative housing land which would be less costly to develop".

The recommendations contained in the report were frank and hard-hitting. They include the following:

"Our client is seriously concerned with the level of development that is proposed and from the environmental and technical review that MPL’s consultants have undertaken, it is quite clear that what is proposed is over-development of the site: as such the various environmental guidance principles and parameters set in the SG itself cannot be attained. Indeed, we consider that the level of development and infrastructure proposed would seriously harm the environment and the River Tweed interests from a physical and amenity perspective.

"Moreover, a fundamental failing we consider, is that there has been no commercial or development appraisal input to the preparation of the Masterplan to ensure viability and this is most surprising given an outcome of a deliverable and a viable masterplan was a key specification of the Brief. This brings into serious question whether or not the site is effective in line with Scottish Government guidance and whether it can be delivered within the necessary time period. Our view is that the site cannot be delivered on the current basis of the proposed Masterplan.

"The Council has an opportunity now to address this matter by reconsidering the scale and scope of development to ensure that what is proposed properly respects the environmental parameters of the site and its proximity to sensitive environmental designations and is of a scale and nature that is viable and deliverable.

"It would seem that a considerable over-emphasis has been put on place-making and idealistic urban design considerations and proximity to Tweedbank railhead, that is not underpinned by commercial reality or viability considerations. It would be most unfortunate if the SBC Development Brief or Framework is prepared on the basis of the current Masterplan as this would simply perpetuate this fundamental failing."

True costs of council's estate purchase revealed

EXCLUSIVE REPORT by EWAN LAMB

Scottish Borders Council's highly controversial decision to purchase a country estate and nine properties near Melrose to accommodate house building and other developments will cost taxpayers approximately £11 million, Not Just Sheep & Rugby can reveal.

In December the local authority announced it had bought the 109 acres at Lowood from the Hamilton family for £9.6 million. It is believed the price paid exceeded the value placed on the land by the District Valuer although details of that official's estimate are being kept a tightly guarded secret.

But a Freedom of Information request submitted to SBC asking for a breakdown of costs linked to the property transaction has produced a set of figures which add up to £10.232 million. One of the most interesting figures is the £72,170.55 forked out by the council to cover the seller's "Solicitors Legal Fees & Outlays."

The other items of expenditure on top of the £9.6 million land deal include Surveyors Fees £80,944.03; VAT on Surveyors and Legal Fees £30,596.92, Land & Buildings Transaction Tax £422,250.00; Deed registration Lowood, Melrose £7,500; Valuation reports £16,163.80; and Foreign Options £3,100.00.

SBC was also asked about the cost of borrowing relating to the Lowood transaction. They said: "The costs of temporary borrowing for the purchase of Lowood were estimated at £780k. Assumed period of borrowing is 10 years." When that sum is added in total spending stands at £11.012 million.

But when it was asked to reveal the District Valuer's calculations the council claimed it could not disclose these and quoted FOI exemption clauses citing "confidentiality of commercial and industrial information".

According to SBC: "It is the Council’s view that its disclosure would be likely to cause the substantial prejudice envisaged by this exemption.

"The Council accepts that there is public interest in making information available in order to improve accountability and transparency, ensuring effective oversight of expenditure of public funds and that the public obtains value for money. However, it is the Council’s view that disclosing the information requested would prejudice the Council’s ability to negotiate in private and consult on matters internally and externally. Releasing would inhibit the Council’s ability to carry out transactions with third parties. It is also considered that the public interest in interrogating transactions is effectively met through other restrictions such as approvals being made by full Council.

"In addition, the Council is subject to a legally binding duty of confidence in terms of the report (obtained on the valuation) between the Council and the District Valuer Scotland (DVS). The Council consulted with the DVS and it is their view that no information should be released, as stated within the report.

"Disclosure of the information would cause substantial harm to the legitimate economic interests of the Council by releasing this information as it could prejudice the ability of the Council to compete in the open market in the future. Furthermore, it could put in jeopardy the Council’s integrity and trust with the DVS.

"It is the Council’s view that the DVS’ economic interests may also be damaged by providing this information and it is therefore the Council’s decision that the public interest lies in favour of withholding the information at this time."

Councillor Stuart Bell [SNP] who leads the Opposition Group on SBC told December's council meeting: "The separate Lowood Estate acquisition which we are undertaking by ourselves remains a tortured tale. The £9.6 million outlay, plus expenses, plus cost of maintaining the land and assets, plus the cost of borrowing mean we’ll need to sell it all for over £11 million just to break even.  Reports we have seen in private say there will also be significant infrastructure costs to develop the site. 

"I don’t believe this site is worth £9.6 million, when you go into the detail of the terms and conditions of the sale; and that – as we know – was the opinion of the District Valuer whose assessment with vacant possession (which we will not have) was much lower than £9.6 million. Even when adjusted up for a “special assumption” she valued the land at a price lower than we are paying".

Councillor Bell described the deal as a speculative and risky expenditure of public money at a time when – quite apart from Brexit - there was shuddering uncertainty in markets. House prices and land values can down as well as up, he warned.

The FOI request on Lowood also contains the following statement on infrastructure costs: "Estimated development costs contained in the Business case related to the purchase of Lowood were £90 million (including acquisition costs).  However this figure includes some infrastructure estimates that are shared between the Innovation Park development on the former quarry site (currently under construction) and the development of adjacent Lowood land for business purposes.

"The estimate provided was not split between the two sites.  The final infrastructure costs associated with developing the site will be dependent on the precise form and scale of the development details of which are not currently known."