Lowood utilities could cost many millions, council was told

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

The expenditure required to provide electricity and other utilities to facilitate the development of up to 400 houses and business premises on the Lowood Estate - purchased last month by Scottish Borders Council - could run into many millions of pounds, according to technical reports provided for the local authority in 2017.

At a council meeting in December when councillors were told the 109-acres of land together with a collection of properties at Lowood had been acquired from the Hamilton family for £9.6 million it was claimed the estate was not worth that amount of money.

And Councillor Stuart Bell, leader of the opposition SNP group at SBC added: "We'll need to sell it all for over £11 million just to break even. Reports we have seen in private say there will also be significant infrastructure costs to develop the site."

So far the council has not published any details of the investment needed for infrastructure at Lowood/Tweedbank which is the subject of a so-called master plan. But some information regarding utilities is available in a 105-page document containing reports from several firms of consultants commissioned by SBC. To date that information does not appear to have attracted the attention of the press and media, and it has received little if any publicity.

Not Just Sheep & Rugby was particularly interested in documents from engineering consultancy K J Tait setting out a proposed utility servicing strategy for the area. One of the report indicates the cost of a new electricity sub-station for Tweedbank/Lowood would be in the region of £4 million.

Here is Taits' assessment so far as electricity provision is concerned. Note: MVA stands for mega volt amp, and if total load requirement is 1,000 volts and 5,000 amps it can be expressed as 5MVA.

"Our load study shows a total of 5MVA of new load. This is based on estimated diversified loads at each site identified for development. The rated capacity of the Tweedbank – Melrose 11kV ring is 6MVA and its current maximum load is 5MVA.

"It is anticipated that this will be inadequate for the anticipated eventual load at Tweedbank. The limited available capacity on the Tweedbank/Melrose 11kV ring will require early intervention to establish a solution to the issues outlined in this study and allow network reinforcement works to be carried out in line with the proposed timescales of the development.

"Developing any of Phases A, B and C north of the railway line at the initial stage would require a significant infrastructure extension to the existing 11kV network within Tweedbank and a budget cost of £100k should be allowed for this plus an additional £60k for each phase to establish a substation although there may be some scope for rationalisation with regard to the number of substations required. Developing phases D, E and F initially would be less expensive because of the proximity to the existing Tweedbank 11kV infrastructure but a budget cost of £60k should be allowed for each phase to establish a substation although there may be some rationalisation with regard to the number of substations required.

"Once the capacity required for the new Tweedbank Development reaches 1000kVA a new 11kV network ring will be required to be established out of Netherdale Primary Substation. This may prove problematical because of the geography and the difficulty crossing the Tweed at this location. Provision of this new 11kV network ring is budgeted at £400k and will require at least 18 months to design and construct.

"It may be necessary to establish a new Primary Substation in the Tweedbank area depending on final loads or other developments in the wider area. The budget cost for this is £4m. This may be considered as an alternative to a new 11kV ring out of Netherdale Primary substation but the high cost and potential future load growth would require careful consideration before this option was implemented."

The utilities report also looked at gas, water and telecommunications provision although no specific monetary values had been put on bringing these on site in the 2017 document.

A separate report from K J Tait examined the likely Carbon Strategy for future developments at Tweedbank.

It explained: "At present, the site at Lowood has no gas infrastructure. If no gas infrastructure could be provided to this site, solutions such as air source heat pumps or district heating would need to be investigated to pass building regulations. There is potential for the Lowood site to be constructed with a new district heating system with perhaps biomass as the heat source.

"The council would support such a network if it can be accommodated without unacceptable significant adverse impacts or effects, giving due regard to relevant environmental, community and cumulative impact considerations. In connecting to an existing network, there are none at present near to the proposed zones.

"The first of these areas, Lowood, is located to the south of the River Tweed and north west of Tweedbank railway station. The plan for this area is for the development of a minimum 250-400 dwellings which includes a provision of 25% affordable housing. Allied to the housing development, there is the expectation that ancillary retail and commercial developments are incorporated. This will provide a modest level of employment within the area. There will also need to be an investigation into impacts the development will have upon Tweedbank Primary School".

The report said ownership of the district heating system was important as the owners would be responsible for providing sufficient funding for maintenance.

"If the system deteriorates it will become inefficient and consequently may lose customers", the report warned. "The reliability will also be compromised. The infrastructure of a system may not be adopted or owned by existing utility infrastructure providers. Consequently, it is likely that a special purpose vehicle [a company] will have to be created to manage and maintain the infrastructure so that it efficiently serves, attracts and maintains customers.

"In addition, the owner of the system cannot force take up and so cannot guarantee householders or other users will sign up to the system. In terms of size, it would be likely that a biomass boiler in the region of 406kW would be able to provide a large proportion of the heating needs of the residential development. This would have the potential to mitigate around 19.8% of carbon emissions. The estimated installed cost of the network would be around £263,765 which would produce a payback of 11 years’ due to RHI payments."

Readers may recall that SBC spent a significant sum of money in 2013 on a consultant's report which outlined plans for a district heating system linked to an incinerator which would have treated Borders waste and converted it into electricity.

A special vehicle was set up to take forward the project. But the waste treatment facility never got built after councillors awarded a multi-million pound contract to an insolvent company from Dorset and an Isle of Man investment fund now under investigation by liquidators after shareholders' and investors' money "disappeared".

The special vehicle called Scottish Borders District Heating Company Ltd was dissolved in May 2016. 

Council debt mountain soars another £10 million

by DOUG COLLIE

Scottish Borders Council borrowed £10 million from the Public Works Loans Board [PWLB] the day after it finalised a £9.6 million property deal to purchase a country estate near Melrose.

Not Just Sheep & Rugby was first to report last month that the poverty stricken local authority which has repeatedly cut front line public services in recent years had assumed ownership of the remaining 109 acres of Lowood after completing negotiations with the previous owners, the Hamilton family.

But details of how the acquisition of the estate with its nine properties including a substantial residence had been financed were not included in a report published by SBC in advance of a full council meeting shortly before Christmas. It confirmed the deal had been concluded on December 6th.

This week the UK Government's Debt Management Office published a list of cash advances made to councils, police authorities and other public bodies during December 2018.

It shows that on December 7th Scottish Borders Council arranged a £10 million loan from the PWLB with the money to be spent "immediately". According to the published data SBC will pay interest of 2.74% on the loan which will be repaid over 30 years.

There has been no indication that this multi-million pound loan was needed to pay for Lowood. And we understand elected councillors are not able or willing to discuss the terms of the purchase which is designed to free up land principally for house building but also for other development purposes.

Last month's council meeting was told in a report: "The Council paid £9.6 million for the estate (lower than the price cap previously agreed by Council) and is now finalising the expenses due on the purchase which will form part of the overall project cost".

There have already been claims the £9.6 million paid for the estate was excessive.

Councillor Stuart Bell, leader of the opposition SNP group at SBC told the December council meeting:"The £9.6 million outlay, plus expenses, plus cost of maintaining the land and assets, plus the cost of borrowing mean we’ll need to sell it all for over £11 million just to break even.  Reports we have seen in private say there will also be significant infrastructure costs to develop the site.

"I don’t believe this site is worth £9.6 million, when you go into the detail of the terms and conditions of the sale; and that – as we know – was the opinion of the District Valuer whose assessment with vacant possession (which we will not have) was much lower than 9.6 million. Even when adjusted up for a “special assumption” she valued the land at a price lower than we are paying".

Perhaps the authority's hard-pressed council taxpayers and some councillors will be concerned at the size of the escalating debt mountain on the council's books.

The audited accounts for 2017/18 record total financial liabilities of £252.8 million as of March 2018. That figure had increased by more than £3 million over twelve months (£249.6 million at March 2017).

Latest financial information shows total borrowing - mainly from the PWLB, but also including a series of so-called LOBO loans - stood at £202.7 million, a significant increase from the 2017 figure of £196.5 million. PWLB debt on its own went up from £112.4 million to £119.6 million in the space of a year.

On top of that must be added £47 million of outstanding interest on three secondary schools built using PFI arrangements which will continue to drain money from council coffers for many years to come. SBC expects to pay £10.8 million in 2018/19 to service its overall PFI debt.

The annual charges including interest payable on loans used for capital expenditure totalled £11.68 million in 2017/18. The overall figure to service debts of more than £22 million when PFI is included equates to a sum capable of paying for a range of local government services.

If local taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for the purchase of Lowood over the next three decades then surely they are entitled to see the full details of the deal and the background which persuaded a majority of their elected representatives to spend £9.6 million of other people's hard earned money. For example what price did the District Valuer put on the Lowood land?

Unfortunately it seems every effort will be made to prevent information reaching the public domain.

Three year 'deficit' on council credit cards

EWAN LAMB reports on a non-publication mystery at SBC

Scottish Borders Council's failure to publish details of credit card spending by its top officials over the last three years has been attributed to "changes to staff roles and responsibilities" despite the local authority's repeated pledge to be 'open and transparent' with the information it holds.

The use of credit cards by the Newtown St Boswells-based council has stirred controversy in the past with local Tory MP (then a member of the Scottish Parliament) John Lamont obtaining the payment details via Freedom of Information [FOI].

But after a flurry of data for 2014 and 2015 coupled with an unequivocal declaration that "we are committed to regularly publishing details on our credit card spending" there has been no disclosure whatsoever for 2016, 2017 or 2018.

Now it has emerged in a response to another FOI request for the backdated information that SBC plans to publish three years worth of facts and figures in February 2019. Because the council has stipulated a specific publication date within twelve weeks of the FOI request being lodged the local authority claims it does not need to supply the asked for data until February.

The saga of credit card expenditure at SBC stretches back over almost a decade. Mr Lamont's January 2014 disclosure revealed there had been nearly 1,000 transactions over the previous three years with two departments – the chief executive and environment & infrastructure – emerging as the most prodigious users of plastic cards.

Lists of all items and services bought by this method were released by Mr Lamont ( MSP for Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) who claimed Borderers would be “staggered” at the level of spending.

At that time the Border Telegraph reported a council statement which said:“Elected members play no part in sanctioning the use of the credit card…” 

According to the Telegraph the list provided to Mr Lamont showed that, between April, 2012 and November 2013, the chief executive’s department made credit card purchases worth £28,398, compared to £18,057 between November, 2010 and March, 2012.

A statement from Mr Lamont’s office noted: “The chief executive’s credit card included several purchases from Amazon totalling hundreds of pounds. “There were also several purchases from iTunes as well as money spent at bars and restaurants.

“Meanwhile, the environment & infrastructure departmental spend was mainly on accommodation and travel, although it did include items such as a woman’s jacket and a man’s fleece.” 

Mr Lamont told the paper: “I am sure that many Borders residents will be staggered to see the level of spending that has been put on these council credit cards. In the current economic climate it is unbelievable that it was considered appropriate to spend so much taxpayers’ money on items such as these.

“While some of them are undoubtedly necessary, many of them seem not to be and could easily have been avoided. For example, the spending on fees paid to attend conferences and awards ceremonies does seem excessive."

The subsequent transactions for 2014 and 2015 remain posted on the council's website. Examples included on the chief executive's list of purchases include three payments totalling over £135 to the Conciliation & Arbitration Service for mediation training; accommodation for the 2015 General Election count in June 2015 (£127.15) and a foreign exchange fee for a European Commission event (£1.05).

In the same year the Corporate Transformation Service at SBC used its card to pay shipping and insurance costs associated with the acquisition of Mungo Park's trunk (£991.48) and accommodation for seven at the Tomorrow's People Awards (£452.50).

But unfortunately the information trail ends in December 2015 with no further details published since then.

The recent FOI request to the council asked:"Unfortunately details of corporate credit card spending for 2016, 2017 and 2018 have never been published. A – why?; and B – Please provide full details of credit card spending by the council officers listed on the web page for those “missing” years of 2016, 2017 and 2018.

"Secondly – Please explain why the Council’s Freedom of Information archive has not been updated at all since March 2018 when previously it was updated on a monthly basis. It means potential FOI requesters cannot see what information has been released under the council’s ‘open and transparent’ regime before submitting requests which may have already been answered. Would a properly maintained archive not save staff in all council departments time and effort?"

Here is the council's response in full:

"Changes to staff roles and responsibilities have delayed the publication of the 2016 & 2017 credit card spend. On this occasion, 2018 will be published at the same time as 2016 & 2017.

"We can advise that credit card spending by council officers for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 will be updated and published publicly within 12 weeks of your request being made. The information you have requested is due to be made publicly available by 26th February 2019. Therefore we are relying on S27 of FOI(S)A 2002, information intended for future publication.

"We have considered the second part of your request and concluded that this is not a request for recorded information. However, I can advise that although we strive to publish FOIs on a regular basis, it is a very manual and onerous task and is not a statutory duty placed on us by the legislation and therefore it is not always given priority.

"Over the past 18 months, the team has been leading on implementing changes required by new data protection legislation throughout the Council and this has placed a strain on team resources.  Nevertheless, please be reassured that work is ongoing to bring the archive up to date and we expect to publish a large number of FOIs within the next week or so.

"We are developing a new FOI log with the view to improve the process of publishing making it much more efficient in the future".

"Tweedbank retail park will drain millions from town centres" - Co-op

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

The Co-op Group which is a major retailer and investor in most Scottish Borders towns has fired a warning that the planned gateway retail park at Tweedbank has the potential to draw more than £13 million worth of trade out of Melrose, Galashiels and Selkirk.

Glasgow-based consultants North Planning & Development have lodged a strong and wide-ranging objection to the Borders Gateway project with Scottish Borders Council on behalf of the Co-op. The written submission predicts the proposed scheme could seriously damage the vitality and viability of several nearby towns as well as the village of Newtown St Boswells where the group also has a store.

"The proposed convenience good sales floor space [at Tweedbank] exceeds the combined convenience sales floor space within Melrose, Newtown St Boswells and St Boswells", according to North. "The development of up to 2,310 square metres of retail floor space at Tweedbank would cause significant harm to the vitality and viability of Melrose, Selkirk, Galashiels and Newtown St Boswells".

North estimate the Borders Gateway project being promoted by Manor Place Developments, from Edinburgh, would have a total turnover of between £14.1 million and £16.3 million - "significantly higher than the applicant's estimate of £10 million".

The Co-op submission continues: "The applicant's study predicts a three per cent trade draw from Melrose town centre, something we consider to be an under-estimate. It is reasonable to assume at least 10 per cent of the proposed development's trade would be drawn from Melrose.

"This would result in a trade draw of £1.28 million if the proposed food store were operated by a discounter and £1.52 million if it were operated by a mainstream convenience retailer. Retail imports on this scale would have very serious consequences for Melrose town centre, most likely bringing about store closures".

North calculate that 72% of the trade drawn to Tweedbank would be from Galashiels (£10.94 million) and 12% from Selkirk (£1.82 million).

According to the submission: "The anticipated impacts on Galashiels town centre are less significant. But the proposals will certainly not support the health of the centre which is experiencing challenges, as evidenced by recent Scottish Borders Council retail surveys.

"The council's survey data illustrates the fragile nature of the town centres, particularly Melrose where vacancy rates [of shop premises] have been steadily increasing and pedestrian footfall declining."

North warn the proposed development which also incorporates a 70-bedroom hotel, will only serve to draw trade away from the town centres, something which will undoubtedly lead to further reductions in footfall and resulting increases in vacant floor space.

In a separate objection to the retail park Galashiels Community Council claims the current Scottish Borders Council Local Development Plan says that this Tweedbank location is safeguarded for business and industrial use and therefore as the application is predominately retail based, the application should be refused.

In a letter to planners the community council's Richard Kenney says: " There will be detrimental effects on Galashiels if this out of town development should go ahead. The increased number and capacity of petrol stations for the area will result in lack of business overall and the possible closure of existing businesses.

"Existing Galashiels retailers are already facing severe economic challenges and the addition of another store and major catering provider in this location would increase the possible closure of more Galashiels shops and therefore create the loss of more jobs."

The community council points out that while it is looking at the planning application through the auspices of Galashiels its members feel they should also mention that Melrose would also suffer adversely should this planning application be approved. In fact, as reported recently, Melrose Community Council has lodged its own objection.

Other points made in Mr Kenney's written objection include:

·         There are more appropriate sites for hotel provision in Galashiels such as the previously identified Burgh Yard location and also the field on the south side of the A6091 just past the Galafoot Bridge. Other locations also require more investigation.

·         With the Transport Interchange facility, the railway station and the forthcoming Great Tapestry of Scotland building all being located in Galashiels, Scottish Borders Council should be concentrating all its efforts to ensuring the success and future sustainability of these and the town of Galashiels. The Tweedbank planning application is detrimental to all this and therefore should be refused

Alarming increase in Borders greenhouse gas emissions

A DISTURBING INVESTIGATION by DOUG COLLIE

The volume of methane and other harmful gases produced at Scottish Borders Council's landfill site on the outskirts of Galashiels increased by more than 25 per cent in 2017 at a time when Scotland-wide emissions continues to fall.

Environmental data released by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) at the weekend revealed 451,000 kilos of methane were sent into the atmosphere from the rotting garbage at Easter Langlee, 27% more than in 2016 and more than twice the level of 2011 when the figure was 197,000 kilos. The reporting threshold for methane is 10,000 kilos per annum.

Meanwhile the statistics for CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) and HCFCs (Hydrochlorofluorocarbons) are equally alarming with increases at Langlee of 39.7% and 25% respectively.

In the case of these two polluting substances the reporting threshold is 1 kilo. But the Borders landfill site generated 38.3 kilos of CFCs (27.4 in 2016) and 26.5 kilos of HCFCs compared to 21.4 kilos in 2016. The 2016 figure for methane emissions at the site was 356,000 kilos.

Waste management emissions in Scotland as a whole have been travelling in the opposite direction to those in the Borders. From 2015 to 2016 (the latest data available) emissions decreased by 4.9%.

The Scottish Government claims the decrease is largely due to the progressive introduction of methane capture and oxidisation systems within landfill management. From 1990 to 2016 emissions have dropped by 72.8%.

Our investigation shows that between 2002 and 2017 - figures are not available for 2003 on the SEPA database - Easter Langlee produced 13,867,000 kilos of methane.

Research has apparently established a dairy cow will generate 110.7 kilos of methane in a year while the total for a beef cow is given as 50.5 kilos.

It means the Easter Langlee methane emissions of 451,000 kilos in 2017 were equivalent to the "output" from a herd of 4,074 dairy cows or 8,930 beef cattle. And the mammoth total for 2002-2017 would have required over 125,000 dairy cows or almost 275,000 beef cattle to match it.

So far as CFCs and HCFCs are concerned the Borders landfill total emissions show little sign of abating with CFCs considerably higher than the 2013 level of 27.5 kilos and HCFCs in 2017 identical to those recorded in 2013.

In April 2015 Persimmon Homes had to call a temporary halt to house building at their Melrose Gait site near the landfill at Easter Langlee following the discovery of elevated levels of methane gas and carbon dioxide in the area..

 SEPA's own briefing note on methane tells us one of the main sources of the gas being emitted into the environment is from the natural decomposition of plant and animal matter in airless conditions.  The UK's biggest man-made source of methane is from rotting rubbish in landfills. Methane is also released during the mining and distribution of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas).

According to SEPA: "On a local scale, build-up of methane poses an explosion hazard which can result in evacuation of areas over old landfills or mines.The main impact of methane is on a global scale, as a greenhouse gas. Although levels of methane in the environment are relatively low, its high 'global warming potential' (21 times that of carbon dioxide) ranks it amongst the worst of the greenhouse gases."

So far as CFCs are concerned, SEPA says: "At a global level releases of CFCs have serious environmental consequences. Their long lifetimes in the atmosphere mean that some end up in the higher atmosphere (stratosphere) where they can destroy the ozone layer, thus reducing the protection it offers the earth from the sun's harmful UV rays.

"CFCs also contribute to Global Warming (through 'the Greenhouse Effect'). Although the amounts emitted are relatively small, they have a powerful warming effect (a very high 'Global Warming Potential')".

On HCFCs the environmental watchdog has this to say: "Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are a large group of compounds, whose structure is very close to that of Chlorofluorocarbons  but including one or more hydrogen atoms. 

"In particular, HCFCs are now used as refrigerants (in refrigerators, freezers and air conditioning systems) and also in insulative foams. The use of HCFCs as solvents is now being phased out in developed countries and has been banned in the UK since 2001. 

"Although not as stable and therefore not so persistent in the atmosphere as CFCs, HBFCs or Halons, they can still end up in the higher atmosphere (stratosphere) where they can destroy the ozone layer"

Estate bought by Borders council 'not worth £9.6 million'

by EWAN LAMB

Scottish Borders Council, which purchased a country estate for £9.6 million following a string of private meetings and briefings, will have to sell on the 109 acres for at least £11 million just to break even, it has been claimed.

The decision to buy Lowood Estate, near Melrose, from the Hamilton family to accommodate over 300 new houses has sparked widespread criticism locally. The deal, which equates to £88,000 an acre, follows years of spending cuts by cash-strapped SBC whose leaders have often blamed the Scottish Government for their financial plight.

The council has failed to publish meaningful details concerning the transaction which has resulted in the estate being handed to an arms length company Tweedbank Lowood Ltd., wholly controlled by the local authority.

Although members of the Tory-led administration seem to have rubber-stamped the multi-million pounds purchase en bloc, it has now been revealed that the Opposition's nine-member SNP group were and are far from happy with the price paid and are dissatisfied with the way the deal has been done.

The Lowood purchase was fiercely attacked at a council meeting yesterday by Councillor Stuart Bell, leader of the SNP team.

He told councillors: "The separate Lowood Estate acquisition which we are undertaking by ourselves remains a tortured tale.  The £9.6 million outlay, plus expenses, plus cost of maintaining the land and assets, plus the cost of borrowing mean we’ll need to sell it all for over £11m just to break even.  Reports we have seen in private say there will also be significant infrastructure costs to develop the site. 

"I don’t believe this site is worth £9.6 million, when you go into the detail of the terms and conditions of the sale; and that – as we know – was the opinion of the District Valuer whose assessment with vacant possession (which we will not have) was much lower than 9.6m. Even when adjusted up for a “special assumption” she valued the land at a price lower than we are paying".

Councillor Bell described the deal as a speculative and risky expenditure of public money at a time when – quite apart from Brexit - there was shuddering uncertainty in markets. House prices and land values can down as well as up, he warned.

"We should not be spending public money on buying this estate at this time, for more than it is worth", he said. "Yes.it is a good place for housing – but SBC has the power of the planning authority
to dictate how this site is developed".

In what alternative opportunities could we invest £10m?, he asked. "This Council should invest enough in roads to significantly improve the Road Condition Index – But we cannot afford to do that. This Council should commit to 4 new High Schools in 10 years.  But you won’t make that commitment. I will not tell the electors in Peebles – as you will have to – that they cannot have a new High School within 10 years when you have tied up £10m for 10 or so years in Tweedbank. We can’t even cut the grass properly in our cemeteries but this Administration glibly spends £10m on buying a private estate. This is a decision I fear you may come to regret.”

New shopping centre threatens Melrose businesses

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Long-established businesses in the centre of Melrose could be forced to close if councillors approve plans for a multi-million pound retail centre with 70-bedroom hotel in nearby Tweedbank, it has been claimed.

Meanwhile Scottish Borders Council's own landscape architect has lodged a written submission which is heavily critical of proposals to chop down scores of mature trees to clear space for the scheme. The local authority's ecology officer has already warned against the mass felling of over a hectare of woodland on the site.

Melrose & District Community Council has told the planners it is strongly against the development of the so-called Borders Gateway centre close to Tweedbank railway station.

In a written objection the community council claims:"The proposal includes a retail outlet which Melrose & District Community Council strongly oppose as we feel this will further dilute the shop and hotel businesses on the High Street of Melrose.

"We need to support what is one of the few still strong vibrant High Streets in the Borders. Most of our shops are occupied making Melrose somewhere people aspire to stay and shop".

The Melrose submission goes on to warn that there is a strong possibility that some long-established businesses will be forced to close as has happened in Galashiels and Hawick if the proposal is given the go ahead.

It continues: "At present we have one closed hotel hopefully getting refurbished with plans to re-open and one reopening under new management. We cannot support anything which will affect this fragile economy.

"This proposal contravenes Planning Policy as it is placing this retail development on land retained for Commercial Business having denied previous retailers the opportunity to develop a retail outlet on this land SBC must stand by this.

Not Just Sheep & Rugby has already reported on the misgivings over the loss of so many trees at the Tweedbank location as expressed by the ecology officer and by Scottish Natural Heritage. Now council landscape architect Siobhan McDermott has weighed in with a critical written contribution. 

Over a hectare of woodland is "protected" by a Tree Preservation Order, imposed by the council in 2006. But given SBC's track record on chopping down protected trees at Tweedbank in 2016 the TPO is unlikely to be allowed to stand in the way of development.

Ms McDermott points out: "The woodland was planted at the time the Industrial Estate was developed in the 1970s alongside the development of Tweedbank village as a residential area. Tweedbank Village, Industrial Estate and Tweedbank Business Park were developed within a scheme of structure planting that aimed to create a woodland framework into which development would fit. This structure planting approach was also adopted at the Borders General Hospital site continuing this design philosophy.  

"The resultant structure woodlands and woodland belts have helped to reduce the visibility of development in an area that lies within the Borders Strategic Green Network that is ‘a network of green spaces and green corridors through, within and around settlements, linking open spaces within settlements to the wider countryside, which can assist in enhancing the biodiversity, quality of life and sense of place of an area."

In a withering comment on the felling proposals. Ms McDermott writes: "I consider the proposed development turns the SG Development Vision on its head – proposing the removal of the woodland which will result in the landscape screening being lost, the uninterrupted visibility of the development and does not comply with the SG Development Vision aspiration to develop an internal principal frontage along the western side of the site.

"I acknowledge that there might be scope to remove a portion of the internal edge of the woodland to increase the developable area but I do not consider this proposal gives due consideration to the visual amenity that the woodland provides".

The landscape architect goes on to list specific concerns:

1 I suggest that the proposals amount to over development of the site and this has required the removal of the majority of the screening woodland. The requirement for car parking exacerbates the requirement for woodland removal as does the assumed desire for visibility from the surrounding road network.

2.       I suggest the southern elevation of the retail store, and petrol filling station, seen as they will be, entering Tweedbank do not achieve the high quality built environment that meets the design standards aspired to in its development vision.

3.       The scale of the hotel- with a roof height of more than 15 metres - is likely to dominate the immediate area, with only a small number of trees retained to reduce the visual impact and with not much more than a dozen trees, beech hedge and some ground cover planting proposed.

4.  The Planting scheme does not compensate for the woodland removed. The planting of 45   standard trees (some native but the majority horticultural varieties of native species) along with ground cover and beech hedging will not adequately  screen or soften the proposed elements of the development.   As a planting scheme it seems more appropriate for the interior of the Business Park  but falls short of achieving key landscape screening as per the Development Vision

Ms McDermott concludes her report:"I would welcome the developer reconsidering how a much greater proportion of the woodland along the east and south boundary could be retained whilst achieving some visibility through the existing structure planting.

 "Given my above concerns and the precedent that the almost complete removal of the largest block of TPO woodland would create, I cannot support the application as submitted".