Council challenged again on Tweedbank financial viability

by DOUG COLLIE

A planning consultant has renewed his claim that the failure of Scottish Borders Council to produce development costs for a multi-million pound extension of Tweedbank village will leave the local authority's planning guidance for the project open to legal challenge.

But council officials have refuted the case advanced by David Bell, who represents MPL, a company which owns salmon fishing rights on the River Tweed right next to the planned housing and commercial developments.

Mr Bell was among those who lodged submissions during the consultation process before councillors finally approve the so-called Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) relating to the development of land on the Lowood Estate, acquired by the council at a cost, including fees, of £11 million.

A summary of the submissions is included among the papers for this Thursday's council meeting when Tweedbank's extension, including a proposal for 300 extra houses, is on the agenda.

Mr Bell told planning officers in his document on behalf of MPL that a key principle of masterplanning was an iterative process which involved an understanding of development costs and wide ranging deliverability issues together with an understanding of financial returns that could flow from completed development – all aimed at ensuring development viability in commercial terms.

"Until such time as the Council decide what scale of housing and mixed use development on the site is commercially viable, it cannot begin to properly plan the net developable areas. As part of this a detailed assessment would be needed to be carried out to establish the associated costs of the delivery of the required level of supporting infrastructure including access roads, vehicular over-bridges, education provision, healthcare, waste, water and drainage etc.

"It will be critical therefore for the housing market information and the associated infrastructure costings to inform the draft SPG and the various points listed above in terms of housing density, broad specification, phasing etc. The importance of this approach is set out in Government guidance."

On that specific point the council planners say there remains significant work to be undertaken that would include commencing the formal planning process to adopt the masterplan as Supplemental Planning Guidance, developing a communications and branding strategy which would attract private sector investment through an agreed delivery mechanism, development of business cases for individual projects as they come forward, analysis of risk and detailed costed proposals for the comprehensive development of the area. The conclusion is: "No action required" on Mr Bell's claim.

The consultant goes on to state: "My client’s view still stands, that the process of developing the SPG cannot be properly started until this viability issue has been satisfactorily addressed. Despite the requirements set out in the Brief set by SBC, namely that the development proposals be realistic and deliverable and that detail be provided on phasing and in particular that phasing for development should take into account infrastructure issues and indeed that clear guidance should be provided “on delivery mechanisms for the development of the site”, it would seem that these aspects have been entirely ignored. The draft SPG is silent on them and the consultants have made no reference whatsoever to these matters having been taken into account in drawing up the new layout guidance in the draft SPG."

However, that thread of Mr Bell's argument is also rejected with a 'No further action required' tag.

"Issues relating to viability are not a matter for the SPG to address. The contributor has been contacted separately by the Council’s Legal/Project Management teams on this matter. The Design Guide sets out an anticipated phasing plan for the development."
In conclusion, Mr Bell warned: "If these matters are not addressed, then the legal advice MPL has obtained is that the process of preparing detailed planning guidance that the Council has embarked upon is fundamentally flawed, thereby rendering any future decision on the part of the Council to adopt the SPG based on this current approach being open to challenge in the courts. I would be grateful if you could please confirm how the Council proposes to address the matters set out above in the final SPG.

In a short response the SBC document says: "The Council would refute this statement. No further action required".

The draft SPG also attracted a submission from Edinburgh architects Benjamin Tindall.

Tindall's comments include: "The site at Lowood is so exceptional that it demands a special and inspiring response. The opportunities afforded by the site being owned by SBC gives the rare chance of the committed long term owner participation that is the key to all successful new settlements.

"Vision? - This document is no ‘vision’, it is more a gathering together of standard policy documents with some added landscape analysis. A ‘vision’ needs to be inspiring and drive forward a reality on the ground. A ‘vision’ is something that applies to the future, which will now so obviously be different from today. The pre-existing policies will produce the same results as can be seen today."

But the council mounts a strong defence of the consultation document.

It says: "Page 26 of the Draft SPG sets out a clear development vision for the site along with strategic objectives for the development of the site.

"The development vision states ‘The Lowood site provides a unique opportunity to support the sustainable expansion of Tweedbank with a range of historical, cultural and environmental assets to create a distinct sense of place. These important assets will be safeguarded and enhanced, encouraging their recreational use and enjoyment by the local community and visitors. The integrated and expanded settlement of Tweedbank will be a social, well-connected community which people will aspire to live in and visit."