Development of Lowood 'cannot be justified'

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

A fresh bid has been made to block the construction of over 400 new homes together with commercial and community facilities on a 110-acre country estate in the Central Borders with a claim the development of such a large greenfield site runs counter to Scottish planning policies.

Government planning reporters who are currently examining Scottish Borders Council's new Local Development Plan [LDP] are being urged not to sanction the allocation of the Lowood estate, near Melrose, for housing and associated infrastructure.

A detailed written submission from eminent planning consultant David Bell seeks to demolish the council's reasoning for the 'urbanisation' of Lowood which the authority purchased for £11 million in 2018. Permission is currently being sought for earthworks and the laying of roads as a first step towards extending the village of Tweedbank.

Mr Bell represents Gowanloch Investments Ltd., owners of the Upper Pavilion salmon fishing beat on the River Tweed, adjacent to Lowood. It is feared construction work would have a detrimental impact on water quality of the Tweed, a Special Area of Conservation [SAC].

One of the main planks of Mr Bell's argument against developing Lowood is linked to the revised national planning policies which recommend a shift from development away from greenfield land by actively enabling the redevelopment of vacant and derelict land.

According to Mr Bell: "For the Council to simply say it “acknowledges the drive within the revised draft NPF4 for the development of brownfield land but highlights that there is a finite supply of brownfield sites across the Scottish Borders…” is not a sufficient nor evidence-based response.

He continues: "The policy approach was also indicating that there was a need to provide greater protection to natural spaces and to make places greener and more resilient to the impact of climate change."

And Mr Bell adds: "Fundamentally, in terms of infrastructure, which is a key constraint within this local area, the National Planning Framework (NPF4) Position Statement made it clear that there was a need to prioritise areas where there was existing capacity in infrastructure. 

"A key concern expressed in January 2021 was that the Council had failed to address a delivery mechanism in relation to the considerable infrastructure requirements and that in many respects, the Lowood site failed the effectiveness test and indeed has not been deliverable within the original timeframes set for the allocation."

He explains that SBC was clear that the fundamental driver for the site allocation is close proximity to the railway station at Tweedbank. The council had also noted the site was one of the largest greenfield allocations within the Scottish Borders. 

"The Tweedbank Spatial Framework document which the Council has now provided to the Examination provides a schedule of accommodation which shows circa 411 residential units. There would be other mixed use development and road and other infrastructure."

In Mr Bell's view, the council’s approach was now based on a dated assumption that the majority of residential occupiers would utilise the train for transport. 

"This is thinking from several years ago: is one in which work/travel patterns which were conventional at that time are no longer today. Today live/work patterns are much more flexible by way of hybrid and homeworking, which means that reliance on train for day-to-day travel is much less than it has been in the past. Notwithstanding that position, the Council’s assumption that there would be high levels of train use from occupiers of a land parcel which is severed from the main settlement by the railway, was overly simplistic and remains so today."

It was clear from the local authority's Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for Lowood that the predominant mode of access would be by way of car and other motorised vehicles. The Lowood site was effectively “cut off” from the remainder of the Tweedbank settlement and the wider urban pattern in the area. The council had acknowledged that this severance would necessitate a new vehicular overbridge and pedestrian bridge(s).

The six-page written submission on behalf of  Gowanloch Investments states: "Whilst it is accepted that it will be a requirement of developers in due course to satisfy the infrastructure requirements, it is clear from the list of infrastructure deficiencies that there is a considerable constraint in the area ranging from wastewater to NHS provision which undermines the effectiveness of the location. 

"When these considerations are examined in the round with how the site fails to perform in terms of the climate emergency and biodiversity matters which are fundamental to and which underpin the NPF4 policy approach, it is considered that there is limited justification to continue the allocation of this urban expansion site. 

"The lack of accordance with this most recent part of the Development Plan is expressly clear. To include a site that is severed from the main urban pattern in this part of the Scottish Borders simply because it is close to a railway terminus, is the thinking of a decade ago and is contrary to the rebalanced new policy framework which must be taken into account. The development of the site in the way proposed by the Council would undermine the National Spatial Strategy and would not ensure the delivery of a sustainable, liveable or a productive place within the Central Borders."

A recent update on the Borders LDP examination which is on the Scottish Government planning website states: "The examination of the proposed plan is progressing with most unaccompanied site inspections now carried out. The reporters have issued some further information requests already and are likely to issue more in January/February 2023 relating to transport, minerals, NPF4, housing (with the possibility of a hearing on housing) and other matters."