Lowood site has "little obvious merit or value"

by DOUG COLLIE

A new claim by Scottish Borders Council that the Tweedside country estate they bought for £9.6 million is 'worth what was paid for it' has been quickly challenged by a planning expert who believes the land at Lowood has little obvious merit or development value.

The council has come under fire after paying over the odds for the 110 acres they wanted for the construction of 300-400 new houses plus commercial premises.

As we reported, local MSP Christine Grahame (SNP) has reported SBC to the Accounts Commission after voicing fears over the development potential of the estate, previously owned by the Hamilton family.

When The National newspaper followed up that disclosure and approached the local authority for comment at the weekend SBC was forthright in its defence of the purchase which is set to cost Borders taxpayers £11 million when fees and charges are added.

A statement in similar vein was given to The Hawick Paper when that weekly reported on criticisms levelled at Borders councillors by former senior police officer and one-time SBC elected member Andrew Farquhar. He urged his successors to step up their scrutiny of the Lowood deal.

Here is the combined response the council issued to the two newspapers:

“The Council expects to recover the whole of its investment in Lowood through the future development of the asset which comprises a 44-hectare site and buildings. The asset is now fully owned by the public sector.

"The council remains strongly of the view that the decision to acquire Lowood is justified in terms of best value, and that the economic viability of the site will best be secured through a joint public and private sector approach which was agreed by Council last December, and which is now being pursued.

"The Council purchased the land following an appropriate investment appraisal process and the development of a detailed financial model, which followed The Treasury’s ‘Green Book’ best practice. Councillors considered the business case in full and three specific reports in December 2017, January 2018 and May 2018 prior to the purchase.

"These confidential reports were prepared by council officers to ensure councillors had access to all the information required to take an informed decision. They included the necessary information on site valuations which confirm the site is worth what was paid for it”

According to The National a total of four written submissions have been lodged with Audit Scotland, SBC's external auditors, objecting to the local authority's 2018/19 annual accounts. One of the issues raised in the objections is the complete lack of any mention of the Lowood transaction in the accounts which extend to more than a hundred pages.

Meanwhile Not Just Sheep & Rugby has been supplied with the views of a highly experienced planner who has made a personal study of the potential of Lowood estate for development.

This is the main section of the assessment in full:

"What is odd is that the site is clearly very, very difficult to develop, if not impossible. There are many constraints. Council reports say it [Lowood] has an indicative capacity of 300 units. If the railway goes ahead to Hawick and Carlisle the site will become very costly to access. It is likely two accesses across the railway would be needed ( and above the line rather than below given the river location). 

"The text says there may be a need for replacement of a bridge. It refers to flooding and says there may be contamination. So it is very hard to access, costly to service, and is not well related to settlement because of the railway.

"The site has little obvious merit or value. Why this site was selected for development is unclear. I assume it's because they had committed to buying it. The bigger question is why did they buy such a difficult site and the next question is why pay lots of money for a site which will be hugely costly to develop? 

"Given that a prime commitment/desire/aim of the Council is to promote the extension to the railway and there is as a result a need to safeguard that capacity and alignment, I cannot as a planner see this site as sensible. I would have identified sites in Melrose, sites with less constraints and similar access to the station."

This is the latest negative critique on Lowood's prospects as a development site. The council was warned last year in a report by planning consultants - months before the estate was bought - that the proposals in its so-called Tweedbank Masterplan were undeliverable and not economically sound.