Senior officers' reservations over Lowood housing plans

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

A number of leading officials in several local government departments at Scottish Borders Council expressed doubts and concerns over the scale of planned residential development on the Lowood estate, near Melrose, when the proposals were first presented to them for comment.

The views of the department heads form part of a briefing note which the council has circulated to consultants in the process of assembling Supplementary Guidance (SG) for Lowood, the remains of which SBC bought last year for £9.6 million.

As we have already reported, independent planning experts claim the construction of even 300 new homes - the number originally indicated in a council Masterplan - as an extension to Tweedbank village would cause untold damage to landscapes, the environment, and threaten the ecology of the River Tweed Special Area of Consultation.

At the same time there have been suggestions from within the council that the highly attractive green spaces on the country estate could comfortably accommodate more than 300 houses.

The SG briefing note sets out the reaction of the various SBC departments which would have a part to play in Lowood's development when they were confronted by the initial Masterplan.

According to the Forward Planning section at the council: "It is understood the Masterplan sought to, in the first instance, address whether the land at Lowood could feasibly accommodate 300-400 dwelling houses.  It is noted that this is primarily provided on the western half of the site which may be less contentious in landscape terms.

"However, it is noted that to achieve these numbers in this relatively limited area, the house types are quite small in size, have a high density and would be unlikely to meet the range of housing wants within this popular housing market area."

And Forward Planning went on to say: "There is longer term need to consider alternative options for an alternative Lowood Bridge.  This will be subject to a separate detailed study by appropriate consultants to consider feasible options."

The Landscape department also had some criticisms of the proposals. Their comments included the following passages: "Unconstrained development at Lowood would cause some significant losses in terms of parkland and associated policy woodland, specimen trees and riparian zones along the Tweed.

"The eastern end of Lowood, in particular, is very visible from the B6374 Gala to Melrose road.  If this eastern area was to become developed, it would contribute to visible urban coalescence between Galashiels / Tweedbank and Melrose contrary to our policy on 'Countryside Around Towns’.

"My concern however, is that a concentrated, high density, development with limited road access, based only on existing single track roads, as proposed, will prove impossible to deliver!  Any new ‘standard width’ road access is likely to require some substantial interventions in the existing landscape fabric, especially at the more vulnerable, steeply sloping, eastern end where there is a gap between the river and the railway.  This would weaken and potentially destroy the character of the existing landscape."

Roads Planning/Strategic Transport had this to say: "Much as the proposed pedestrian/cycle access is very good, proposed vehicular access is very poor with external connectivity very weak. To rely on a minor network of narrow roads, all from the largely undeveloped eastern part of the site, is not acceptable.

"The intended one-way system on this part of the network is a real concern as the outcome would likely be traffic speed issues and operative difficulties if any of the roads were temporarily closed for whatever reason." 

And on the issue of the replacement of Lowood Bridge to accommodate the project:“If we do not carry out this feasibility work at the present time, we run the risk of trying to retrofit a bridge at a later date which will significantly reduce the options available to the Council in terms of providing a suitably enhanced road and transport network in an area that is considerably constrained at the present time.”

Meanwhile Economic Development's contribution included the following: "I am very critical of the narrow single track looped road as the only means of access to a major village expansion development. 

"Whilst this may provide an attractive route, it is not practical to serve a development of this size.  Any breakdowns / punctures, or road repair works, would just freeze any traffic flow into and out of the site.  By all means retain these minor routes with passing places as two way routes, but not as major access links.

"The illustrated density of residential development is understood as a concept, at a railhead, but is somewhat alien in the Borders and more demand analysis is needed to prove the marketability of this form in a non-urban location.  As has been said, in the Borders car ownership would appear to be a necessity, yet the development layout makes delivery of normal parking standards problematic."  

NEXT: IS LOWOOD'S DEVELOPMENT A THREAT TO NYCTALUS NOCTULA?