Borders' former chief planner's take on Lowood proposals

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Scottish Borders Council's former Director of Planning and Economic Development has again hit out at proposals by the authority to build hundreds of new homes on a local country estate, warning the concept  "will create an alarming context for determination of future developments elsewhere in the Borders".

Ian Lindley, who previously lodged an objection to SBC's allocation of the 110-acre Lowood Estate, near Melrose, for development has now submitted more written comments to the on-going Examination of the Borders Local Development Plan by a team of Scottish Government planning reporters.

In his newly published statement, Mr Lindley claims an accurate visual appraisal would lead to an honest assessment of the estate development's true (adverse) impact on the setting of the listed Lowood Bridge, the fringe of the Eildons' National Scenic Area, [NSA] and the Tweed river valley, before any development was contemplated or commenced. 

He adds: "Proposed new residential clusters are centred within existing tree plantations which the consultants’ reports recognise form part of a designed parkland, albeit not one that SBC has included within previous surveys to afford it greater protection. Indeed, SBC has, in the interim, declined to add the estate to the schedule of designed landscapes and gardens. 

"If this site is to be developed along traditional ‘planning application treated on merit’ processes, then one can assume that a number of reassurances given to date by the Consultant’s assessments and by SBC will in reality carry little weight. Look for guidance from the north side of the Tweed foothills at the Langlee estate east of Galashiels to consider whether time alone mitigates the impact of new development."

On the issue of tree retention, Mr Lindley says at a time when UK and devolved national governments are promoting tree planting against a backdrop of tree disease, drought, storm, inappropriate land management and demographic decline, "it is disturbing that we witness proposals for new development in mature tree plantations which are to be hollowed out except for a few specimens along some edges."

And he has this to say on Ecological Impacts: "There is no clarity on the future specialist management regime required of any retained neutral semi-improved grassland and unimproved river margins. These are integral to the parkland design and ecological value of the estate and its designation as part of the Tweed Special Area of Conservation, NSA and for the setting for Lowood Bridge."

In Mr Lindley's view, no detail is given to the after-care/ long-term funding of the riverside footpaths, (including routing and erosion control), or of how to address the adverse impact of increased public land use on the Sand Martins which currently nest in this stretch of river bank. 

"Further east a land owner has lately fenced in paddocks and narrowed public access alongside the river bank with consequent greater path wear, bank collapse and disturbance to bank nesting birds in that section. The proposed development could be expected to achieve the same unwanted impacts."

SBC was already seeking consents to undertake infrastructure works to enable the development of Lowood which limited the value of any Local Plan Inquiry into its acceptability in principle, or its implementation in detail.

In a section of his submission headed Co-ordination, Mr Lindley writes: "Alternative increases of on-street parking along Tweedbank Drive are mooted, together with the possible double-decking of the existing car park in an area stated to be visually sensitive. One could recall that use of the adjoining quarry formerly situated due east of the [Tweedbank] station site (now the site of recent office developments) might have provided a suitable site for a ready-screened multi-level car park below the surrounding land-level. 

"This might have enabled adjoining public space and business development north and or east of the station without the need for expensive land-fill and foundation construction. One is reminded of the lack of forward thinking, or of any apparent coordination between each stage of development, or between respective agencies. It does not reassure, and one is left to concur with the consultant’s sentiment on employment land that ‘it is difficult to know what is being proposed’".

In conclusion, Mr Lindley argues the concept illustrations are inadequate given the outline level of detail available and the apparent negative impacts upon protected species and sensitive landscapes. 

"Diagrammatic proposals for tree retention and landscape treatment are unrealistic, ineffective and inadequately detailed. The visual and ecological impacts of development along the summit of the river valley will be considerable and adverse in the short and long terms and will breach all the designations for the protection and enhancement of this important asset. It will create an alarming context for determination of future developments elsewhere in the Borders."