Council queried over Lowood development plans

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

The government planning reporters who are examining the Borders Local Development Plan have asked the LDP's authors for further information about the proposals for Lowood Estate, near Melrose which has been earmarked for an expansion of Tweedbank village. 

Lowood's development has been challenged even before Scottish Borders Council has obtained planning permission for the initial roads and infrastructure works. There are claims the authority should have commissioned an Environmental Impact Assessment prior to any works even though local planners maintain there is no need for an EIA in this case.

The key Lowood housing and industrial land in the Central Borders is just one of the council's many development sites under scrutiny by Scottish Government reporter Nick Smith and his team. The final decisions on the new Borders LDP are expected in May 2023 once the planning experts have looked at hundreds of documents and hundreds of comments from organisations and individuals.

As part of that process, the reporters' unit which reports to Scottish Ministers has this week requested additional information from SBC relating to Lowood.

The council is asked specifically: "The “site’s natural assets” map on page 30 of the supplementary planning guidance shows different areas of woodland protection and planting than those shown in the Tweedbank settlement map. The supplementary planning guidance also shows areas suitable for compensatory planting which are not mentioned in the site requirements.

"The council is invited to suggest modifications to the list of site requirements for allocation MTWEE002 [Lowood's reference number in the LDP] and the Tweedbank settlement map, to reflect relevant provisions of the supplementary planning guidance in relation to woodland protection and compensatory planting."

A second issue cited in the request relates to the possible impact of developments at Lowood on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

According to the reporters: "The council states that standoff zones from the floodplain and river terraces effectively introduce areas that are not developable and as such NatureScot considers that intrinsic mitigation is in place. However, these measures do not appear to be fully reflected in the site requirements for allocation MTWEE002 or the Tweedbank settlement map. 

"Taking account of the matters raised in the above representations, the council is invited to suggest modifications to the list of site requirements for allocation MTWEE002 and the Tweedbank settlement map, to reflect relevant provisions of the supplementary planning guidance in relation to flood risk and potential impact on the River Tweed SAC."

The council has until December 1st to respond to the request.

The potential for damage to the Tweed is the focus for objections to the Lowood infrastructure proposals, currently the subject of a planning application by SBC to its own planning department. David Bell, an eminent planning consultant represents the interests of Gowanloch Investments, owners of the prime Upper Pavilion salmon fishing beat next door to Lowood.

Last month Mr Bell lodged a supplementary objection to the council's application, with emphasis on the circumstances surrounding the non-existent EIA.

Mr Bell claimed in his written submission on behalf of Gowanloch: ".The area of land covered by the proposed work (i.e. the area within the 'red line' boundary) is confirmed in the Application under "site area" to be 0.99 hectare in area (meaning that it falls below the one hectare applicability threshold set down in the 2017 EIA Regulations). 

"However, having measured the red line area we calculate it in fact as 1.036 hectare. This all supports the Company's contention that the Council is artificially splitting the Lowood project as a whole, and its road and drainage infrastructure proposals in particular, in order to avoid EIA scrutiny."

And Mr Bell maintains that had an EIA report been required, it follows that the likely effects of the construction and operation of the Estate's proposed road and drainage infrastructure on the River Tweed and its designated conservation objectives would have been required to have been properly assessed by the Council prior to the Application being finally determined.

Mr Bell states: "In the event, the potential impact of contaminated surface water flowing from the application site into the adjoining area of the SAC appears not to have been considered by the Council simply because no part of the physical drainage infrastructure comprising the outfall pipe or channel is proposed to be located within the SAC's designated boundary."