SCOTTISH Borders Council should “not be in the land and housing speculation business”, the council’s opposition leader said yesterday after more details were revealed about the controversial Lowood development near Galashiels.
Councillor Stuart Bell, SNP group leader on Scottish Borders Council (SBC), criticised the council for its decision to spend up to £11 million buying the Lowood Estate from the Hamilton family.
The National reported in December that Lowood’s 109 acres plus nine properties including a mansion house had been bought for £9.6m, a figure that has been revised upwards. SBC plans to make land available for housing and business development which could create more than 300 jobs.
According to the Not Just Sheep and Rugby blog, the council’s own specialists, Ryden, said in a report that was considered in private in May 2018: “The residential development market within the wider Scottish Borders region remains extremely delicate.”
A review of the masterplan, carried out by a team headed by Jones Lang Lasalle for Middlemede Properties, owners of the Upper Pavilion salmon fishing beat on the River Tweed, concluded the housing element was “unviable and undeliverable”. The District Valuer also placed a price on Lowood that is said to be much less than was paid, though such valuations remain confidential.
Councillor Bell said: “Lowood could be a sensible place for expansion of business, but the council should not be engaged in a risky speculative development.
“I think councils should not be in the housing speculation business, and I certainly don’t think they should be paying over the odds for what they have bought.”
SBC has strongly defended its plans. A spokesperson said: “The acquisition of Lowood Estate by Scottish Borders Council is part of a long term strategy that will enable appropriate development opportunities to be taken forward by both the private and public sector.
“The site will make provision for new business space and make a significant contribution to the housing land requirements which the Council is require to make to meet Scottish Government requirements. The purchase of Lowood supports the Council’s commitment to the Edinburgh and South East City Deal and the Borders Railway Blueprint programme.
“SBC will be pursuing a joint public and private sector approach towards the development of the site. A detailed assessment of the economic viability of the site was undertaken prior to its purchase.
“This assessment took account of not only the simple cost of the purchase but also the long-term economic benefits of jobs that will be created during construction phases, through employment space that will be created, and through the provision of homes for both local people and those who wish to re-locate to this area.
“Prior to deciding to acquire the site, the council considered detailed independent technical reports on the viability of the development.”
Referring to the JLL report, the spokesperson added: “The JLL report, to which reference has been made by some parties, was submitted on behalf of a party who opposed the allocation of the land for development. It was submitted as a representation to the Housing Supplementary Guidance produced in 2017, although it was a late submission received after the expiry of the consultation period and after council had decided to allocate the site.
“The JLL report should not be viewed as an independent report or assessment of the value or merit of the Lowood site. It was submitted on behalf of a party opposed to the allocation of the site and its contents must be viewed in that light.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here