News and Current Issues
Renewed Threat to Abbotsford House
Objections to the Allocation of the Netherbarns site in the 2020 Proposed Local Development Plan can be made online at www.scotborders.gov.uk/ldp2 or by email to localplan@scotborders.gov.uk or by post to ‘Forward Planning, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Scottish Borders, TD6 0SA’ , always being sure to quote the reference LDP2Consultation/AGALA029/Netherbarns.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Objection
Proposed Local Development Plan
Objection Response from Save Scott’s Countryside,
January 2021
AGALA029/Netherbarns
We remain resolutely Opposed to the Proposal to allocate this site for a substantial housing estate.
We seek it’s Removal from the List of Allocated Sites unless it’s Indicative Capacity is hugely reduced.
Galashiels Settlement Boundary
1. We Object most strongly to the proposed Incorporation of the Netherbarns site within the Galashiels Settlement Boundary and seek it’s Removal.
We Object most strongly to its Removal from the Protection of the Countryside Around Towns Policy.
We seek its Return to that Protection
2. We seek the Removal from the Settlement Boundary of that Area to the South-west, comprising Netherbarns Farmhouse, its steading and grounds.
We seek for it to come under the Protection of CAT policy.
——————————————————————————————————————————————--
Background History of the Netherbarns Site
Proposals for housing estate development on this site have previously been rejected at Public Inquiries—four times in twelve years.
The last Local Plan Public Inquiry (see Supporting Documents no.1) in 2015 concluded:
“I have noted the arguments of the council in favour of the development of Netherbarns which include a reference to the withdrawal of objections by Historic Scotland. I also recognise the reduced density of 45 houses now included in the proposed plan “
“All-in-all, despite the lack of a formaI objection by Historic Scotland, I concur with the conclusions reached at the previous local plan inquiry. It appears to me that cultural and landscape considerations combine to provide an asset which should remain free of the impact of the suggested allocation and any subsequent development of Netherbarns. I do not accept that the woodland screening would adequately mitigate the adverse impacts of the allocation on the setting of the house or the designed landscape. Additionally, the re-opening of the railway link to Galashiels is likely to increase the volume of visitors to Abbotsford, therefore further strengthening the need to protect the heritage of the vicinity.”
Present Proposed Local Development Plan
We were understandingly exasperated to find that the 2018 Main Issues Report had returned to a proposal to allocate Netherbarns for substantial housing. in our Response to the Consultation (see Supporting Document no.2) we reminded the Forward Planning Officers of the conclusion of the last Public Inquiry ; of our previous idea for a modest, semi-rural solution: and, as a Further Submission (see Supporting Document no.3), announced our plans for a Nationwide Competition for a Masterplan for Netherbarns—but only in the event that a modest, semi-rural solution was adopted.
In the Officer’s Report to Council Sept2020 (see Supporting Document no.4) it was stated:
“the Council held a number of PreMIR consultation events. During the event at the Galashiels Transport Interchange, on 27 September 2017, there was discussion on the possibility of the Netherbarns site being released for housing. It was generally agreed that it is a suitable and desirable location for housing in Galashiels, this is confirmed in the meeting minutes.”
It is not clear how many were present to “generally agree“. From our previous experience of such events, it was likely not many.
What is clear, and what Scottish Borders Councillors were not told (see Supporting Document no.4), is that there were in the eventual Consultation on the Proposed Local Development Plan at least twenty five or more written Objections to its inclusion—total numbers are not readily available as there is some pooling of responses in the ‘Summary of MIR Responses ’.
Not one member of the public supported the Developer’s and Officer’s arguments and proposals
Galashiels Settlement Boundary; and Countryside Around Towns Policy
The Proposed Plan goes significantly further than (just) introducing a new suburban housing site.
It amends the Galashiels Settlement Boundary to take in the whole of the site, thereby removing it from the Countryside Around Towns (CAT) Policy area.
Section 7.2 of that Policy says:
There are many important listed buildings both within and out with the settlements, including Abbotsford House and Chiefswood. The surrounding grounds to these two houses are also recorded in the Inventory of Gardens & Designed Landscapes. This highly sensitive landscape is an integral factor in the need to ensure that any settlement expansion does not eclipse the historical importance and recreational qualities of the area.
In the face of S7.2, to argue (see Supporting Document no.4) in addressing the Countryside Around Towns Policy, that prevention of settlement coalescence is essentially what Policy EP6 is about, to the marginalisation of landscape considerations, is a specious interpretation of the Countryside Around Towns (CAT) Policy.
Nothing on the ground or in the landscape has changed to justify the Council’s Proposed Amendment to the CAT Area and Development Boundary.
The Officer’s Assessment for Council at their Sept2020 Full Meeting (see Supporting Document no.4) did not mention or explain these proposed changes. It merely stated that the site was within the CAT area.
Again, the published Proposed LDP2 on p.342 says in the Settlement Profile for Galashiels that “The Plan takes forward one additional new housing site at Netherbarns, with an indicative capacity of forty five dwellinghouses”, but makes no reference to changes to the Settlement Boundary or to protection from CAT Policy.
It is therefore left to the public to spot the change in the Settlement Boundary on the map and understand the loss of protection from CAT Policy.
In promoting this site for suburban development, SBC will be seen as violating its own carefully-formed policy only in order to remove a major obstacle in their, and the Developer’s, path. This will look to many like SBC using a ‘dirty trick’ to deliver the site to the Developer.
Clearly, if Officers were serious in their claims that the proposed development is restrained to those parts of the site which can less easily be seen from Abbotsford, they would not have included the remainder of the site within an extended Galashiels Settlement Boundary, nor removed from it the protection afforded by the Countryside around Towns Policy.
This move can only be seen as an attempt to eventually deliver housing numbers more in line with Ballantyne’s original 2004 Application for 83 houses. If the presently proposed build on part of the site is delivered, it would be very difficult to resist the rest of the site, now no longer having these protections, being developed at a later stage.
We therefore argue for Removal of this Extension to the Settlement Boundary at the Netherbarns site.
For consistency, we seek also the Removal from the Settlement Boundary of that Area to the south-west, comprising Netherbarns Farmhouse, its steading and grounds; and seek for it to come under the protection of CAT policy.
We do this on the grounds that it is rural in nature and that its incorporation into Galashiels’ settlement would represent an unwarranted and unnatural extension of Galashiels up the Tweed, which is not the natural water valley of the town.
The Netherbarns Site Itself
The site is highly visible in the wider landscape, not just in views from Abbotsford and from the Designed Landscape, but also in views towards them.
It is visible to walkers on the Southern Upland Way; and to visitors, including those heading for the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area, arriving along the A7.
The 2007 LPI “agreed that it would be very undesirable for the Galashiels urban area to extend any further to the south along the Tweed Valley”, which of course is not the natural water valley of the town.
The 2015 LPI concluded that “the re-opening of the railway link to Galashiels is likely to increase the volume of visitors to Abbotsford, therefore further strengthening the need to protect the heritage of the vicinity”.
Screening
In their current proposals, the Developers are making much of their claims about sight-lines and screening.
Much of the potential, summer screening already comes from the line of trees along the riverbank—but this is deteriorating and back in 2007 the LPI agreed with objectors that “the major tree belt along the river cannot be relied upon to provide an effective screen, either at present (in winter conditions and from higher elevations) or in the future (at all times and from lower as well as higher elevations)”.
The 2015 LPI concluded that they “did not accept that the woodland screening would adequately mitigate the adverse impacts of the allocation on the setting of the house or the designed landscape.
Seasonality
Planning policy concerning cultural heritage goes way beyond simple economics, but focusses on the intrinsic value of the special place to be protected. The protection afford by policy cannot be cast aside on seasonal grounds.
In any case, the suggestion that visitors aren’t around Abbotsford in the winter months is simply not true.
The work of the Melrose Paths Group has led to all-year round walking in the Designed Landscape; and the welcome, and increasing, number of initiatives being undertaken at Abbotsford, both inside and outside the House, mean there is already more winter use of the House and Grounds by community and family groups.
The 2015 LPI was not thinking seasonally in concluding that “the re-opening of the railway link to Galashiels is likely to increase the volume of visitors to Abbotsford, therefore further strengthening the need to protect the heritage of the vicinity”.
Historic Scotland’s Guidance and Opinion
Much has been made of Historic Scotland previously stating that they “are content with the principle of development” on the Netherbarns site.
However, they have confirmed that they would assess any proposal very carefully in terms of its impact on both the setting of the Category A-listed house and its Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape.
Indeed, their formal Guidance makes it clear that the setting of cultural assets should be protected; and their specific Opinions over the years about Abbotsford and Netherbarns are cogent reminders of the principles and facts.
Some of these principles, such as about the ‘setting’ of Abbotsford and it’s Designed Landscape, seem to us to have become lost in our Planning Officers’ perception, which has become increasingly blinkered in their repeated search for a way to deliver substantial housing at this unsuitable site, in part because “the submission has been made by a well-known and reputable local building firm and strong weight should be given to the fact that this is an effective site”—Officer’s Report to Council Sept2020 (see Supporting Document no.4)
Indeed our frustration at this apparent stance of near-obligation to the Developer, has led us recently to make a Freedom of Information Request (see Supporting Document nos.5 and 6) in order to understand how such a culture of mind may have arisen. This Request is, so far, only partially met (see Supporting Documents nos.7 and 8).
Some of the facts, such as the principal inward and outward views, have been dismissed eg. “Taking all matters into consideration, it is considered that views from the House to the new proposed houses will be negligible”—Officer’s Report to Council Sept2020 (see Supporting Document no.4 ).
In the case of summer screening, winter views and visitor numbers they have been misrepresented or played down.
Furthermore, the precedent of existing building has been used in justification—indeed, in one rather desperate instance (Officer’s Report to Council Sept2020, see Supporting Document no.4) Planning Officers pointed out to Councillors that a Visitor Centre has been built within the Designed Landscape.
This single building is sympathetically designed and is not comparable to a housing estate development. Indeed, it is singled out in Managing Change In The Historic Environment—Gardens and Designed Landscapes (HES 2016) as an exemplar “designed to sit comfortably in it’s Designed Landscape setting and has not required substantial screening”.
Historic Scotland’s Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas stated that Development outwith the curtilage of a Listed Building should also be regarded as affecting the setting where this will be seen in any principal view either of or from the Listed Building, or affect in any way the main approaches to it.
Furthermore, Historic Scotland’s July 2009 appraisal of the Netherbarns Site in their letter to the Developers (see Supporting Document no.9) stated that “It should be noted that it is not sufficient that the Listed Building and the new development will not be intervisible.”
Historic Environment Scotland’s Managing Change In The Historic Environment—Gardens and Designed Landscapes (HES 2016):
Confirms that “When a site is included on the Inventory it becomes a material consideration in the planning process. This means that those making decisions on planning applications have to take it into account.”
Discusses Impacts On Setting as follows:“Inventory sites often have a planned relationship with landscape features beyond their boundaries, and these surroundings may contribute to the way they are experienced, understood and appreciated.”
“Land outwith the boundary may provide a backdrop to a mansion house or terminate a vista. This ‘borrowed’ land is used as a feature to be enjoyed from the Inventory site. Development outside an Inventory site boundary may therefore impact on the site’s setting – for example, if it would affect a deliberately planned outward view.
Proposals should be carefully designed and located to minimise any such impacts.”
In their July 2009 letter to the Developers (see Supporting Document no.9) , Historic Scotland had:
Confirmed that “It was also Historic Scotland’s view that development in the area allocated in the Local Plan for housing, was bound to have a detrimental effect on the setting of the Category A listed Abbotsford House.
Described how “The main public rooms of this highly landscape orientated set piece are all designed to take full advantage of the view out to the stepped grass banks, grazed meadow and haugh directly across the River Tweed to where the Netherbarns site is located.
The present modern developments are very obvious in the winter months.”
Also that “It should also be taken into consideration that the principal view looking into the Designed Landscape specifically focussed on Abbotsford House from Gala Hill and the Southern Upland Way would be severely compromised by any development.”
Stressed the “need to ensure that the setting of both Abbotsford House and it’s Garden and Designed Landscape are safeguarded.”
Acknowledged “that there has been previous modern development to the E and N of this site; however this should not be viewed as setting a precedent for further development”.
Our Opinion
We agree with the 2015LPI, and with Historic Scotland, that protecting the Setting of Abbotsford House and it’s Designed Landscape is about more than trying to hide a housing estate behind curtains of tree-planting; and the issue cannot, and must not, be reduced to being just about the views, seasonal or otherwise, from Abbotsford House.
On-site landscaping and tree-planting, as proposed by the Developers, is not going to mitigate the impact of a 45 unit housing estate in the vicinity of the House and its Managed Landscape.
There is increasing public awareness, and visitor education, about the importance Scott attached to the development of his immediate landscape and the views it afforded.
As described by an Abbotsford volunteer guide, with a professional interest in mental health issues, the atmosphere and views from Abbotsford’s terrace and grounds “make it greatly appreciated both by visitors and locals as an area of outstanding beauty and tranquility”.
Their present experience reflects Scott’s intentions. He found succour in contemplating landscape in general, and his created Picturesque Landscape in particular.
His legacy, Abbotsford’s setting and Scotland’s Heritage would be unacceptably, and irrevocably, damaged by such a short-sighted allocation and use of this land.
The Way Forward
Historic Scotland also Stated that “It is our view that it may be possible to accommodate appropriate development on the site”.
We have also come, reluctantly, to such a conclusion, if only to put in place a final and sympathetic resolution to this unhappy saga of recurrent attempts to put a large-scale housing development in such a sensitive site.
We say that such a housing estate here would be inappropriate in character and scale, but that a small, landscaped build of just a handful of smallish houses with significant areas of tree-planting and associated features, such as orchards, woodland or stables, would provide a softening of the town’s present hard edge at Kingsknowes---and an appropriately semi-rural, and irrevocable, transition between town and countryside.
The history of this site calls out for such a solution.We have previously announced our plans to launch a Nationwide Competition For a Masterplan for Netherbarns (see Supporting Document no.3), but only in the event that the site is allocated for such modest development.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Local Development Plan
Objection Response from Save Scott’s Countryside,
January 2021
ADARN005/Land South of Darnlee, Darnick
We Object to this Allocation.
We seek its Removal from the LDP.
Should it be Allocated, then we seek a halving of the site capacity, with a requirement for mixed housing and extensive tree-planting.
This site is located within the the Conservation Area of the village and within the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area.
Talk of a “High Standard Design” and a “must” for “Safeguarding the settings of the listed building ‘Darnlee’ and the historic battlefield (Inventory Battlefield of Darnick) and the character of the Darnick Conservation Area” will not in our view prevent ten houses on this rectangular site at this location having the appearance of a suburban, if somewhat upmarket, estate built in the parkland grounds of ‘Darnlee’.It will look like a larger version of building a house in your back garden, regardless of sense, setting or integration.
It is not the way to greet visitors to the village, whether they be general visitors or people exploring the Battlefield and the historic environs of Darnick Tower.
Given the recent expansion at Chiefswood Road, the housing-type balance of this Conservation Village would be adversely affected by a further, largish (in village terms) housing estate, especially so visibly at the entrance to the village and actually within its Conservation Area.
If the village, as opposed to the Central Housing Area, really does require further housing, then we say that a modest build of up to five houses, of mixed type and with much tree-planting, could be more acceptable at this 0.8ha site.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Local Development Plan
Objection Response from Save Scott’s Countryside,
January 2021
AMELR013/Harmony Hall Gardens, Melrose
We Object to this Allocation.
We seek its Removal from the LDP.
Should it be Allocated, then we seek a resolute requirement for single-storey housing.
This site is within the Conservation Area of Melrose; within the Setting of Melrose Abbey; and within the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area.
Its Allocation would represent the loss of a valued community resource and attractive open space within the Conservation Area of the town and across a narrow road from the most ancient remains on the Melrose Abbey (Scheduled Monument) site.
It would adversely affect the Setting of this Scheduled Monument, whatever attempts might be made at “respectful” development.
Should the site be Allocated, buildings higher than a single storey would certainly need to be excluded as they would be even more intrusive on the setting of Harmony Hall as seen from the road that runs in front of Melrose Abbey; and on the setting of Melrose Abbey, especially when approaching from the west along St Mary’s Road.
In the PLDP this requirement is only a “should” rather than a “must” in relation to the safeguarding of the character of the Conservation Area and adjacent Listed Buildings.
It is difficult to believe that developers will deliver even only five houses without significant loss of trees and hedgerow; and damage to the southern stone wall—whatever the “must’ contained in the Site Requirements.
In any case, it would be a retrograde step to disturb the roadside wall at all, bearing in mind its construction, which is probably very old and very traditional; and to compromise its continuity westward to the entrance into the orchard.
We do not consider it justified to build even small numbers of houses at this part of Conservation Area, since the proposed house numbers would only make a tiny housing contribution in the town of Melrose, where there are considerable, unbuilt Allocations on the Croft site and the Dingleton site.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom Of Information Request
Letter of Dissatisfaction to CEO,SBC January 2021:
To Rob Dickson (Executive Director | Corporate Improvement and Economy) and David Robertson (Executive Director | Finance and Regulatory)—as jointly Acting Chief Executives to Scottish Borders Council.
Dear Sirs,
You will be aware of controversial Proposals, currently out for Consultation, for a new housing development at Netherbarns, directly across the Tweed from Abbotsford House. Objectors will wonder what the point of consultation is, when their views, already submitted in 2019, seem to be completely ignored. We are also puzzled, to say the least, by the planning department’s continued promotion of this development when Scottish Ministers have already rejected similar proposals not once, but four times, following Public Inquiries. Officers’ claims that the current proposals are substantially different are simply not credible.
In trying to understand Scottish Borders Council's motives, Save Scott’s Countryside recently submitted a Freedom of Information Request, asking to see correspondence between officers and the developer, Ballantynes of Kelso. While officers have continued to promote the site to this day, the information so far provided in response to this FOI request goes no further than 2006. It is hard to believe that the developer or his agents have not had contact with the planning department since then, apart from the submission of new, formal plans. Furthermore, the information provided indicates that a
number of meetings took place, but gives no record of what was discussed. Where is the evidence (which we believe was provided by the developer) that Historic Scotland dropped their objection to the site?
So it appears that the FOI has not been responded to properly.
I therefore request that you could ensure that the FOI is responded to in full - both with correspondence up to date and information or notes of the meetings referred to.
Information that has been provided illustrates SBC’s efforts after Ballantyne’s first Planning Application, in 2004, to put in place an Interim Housing Policy, which allowed consideration of that planning application prior to the outcome of the new Local Plan.
This was highly controversial and a national body, I believe it may have been the National Trust for Scotland, moved to subject the use of this new policy to Judicial Review, However, this step which was not required as Scottish Ministers “called in” the application so they could consider it themselves, which shows how sensitive this matter was and is.
In short, while much of the correspondence produced in response to our FOI request illustrates officers under pressure simply doing their best, other elements of the response, including omissions, leave us feeling more uneasy than ever about SBC’s handling of the Netherbarns saga.
There have also been concerns about elected members from the Kelso ward who are regarded as more concerned for their local builder, Ballantynes, than for the national treasure that is Abbotsford. We are aware that a complaint about Councillor Weatherston has been lodged with the Standards Commission - outcome awaited.
Until quite recently Walter Scott was known as a writer, but hardly at all as a landscape designer or an architect. Not only was he highly accomplished in all these fields, he was also a pioneer: of the Novel in literature; of the Scottish Baronial in architecture; and of the Romantic in landscape design. He “created fairy scene with spade as well as pen”.
How remarkable it is that his home, designed by Scott himself, housing Scott’s collections, and surrounded by Scott’s own landscape should be so remarkably intact. It is truly a world-class heritage site, and was on Unesco’s short-list (in the nineties I think).
Save Scott’s Countryside was formed in In 2003 to fight SBC’s plans to build a new town of over a thousand houses on Scott’s former Abbotsford estate—a battle which we won and which resulted in much of Scott’s former estate being listed in Scotland’s Inventory of Designed Landscapes.
One of the most remarkable things about that campaign was the support we received, not only from right across the Borders, but from all corners of Britain, and from abroad too. Abbotsford is widely held in great affection and esteem, and it is wonderful to see how the Abbotsford Trustees are greatly broadening the visitor experience, and working so well with the Borders community.
All the more surprising and disappointing, therefore, that SBC is seen to be promoting a suburban development which would irreparably damage the principal vista within Abbotsford’s landscape setting.
Yours sincerely,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published Letter to 14th January 2021
The Editor,
The Southern Reporter.
Dear Sir or Madam, A Housing Estate Opposite Abbotsford House?
We were heartened to see that the guardians of Abbotsford House have made a public call for support in their campaign to prevent Scottish Borders Council being allowed to allocate the Netherbarns site, on the outskirts of Galashiels, for a substantial housing development of forty five houses across the river Tweed from Walter Scott’s Abbotsford House and it’s Designed Landscape.
We at Save Scott’s Countryside are pleased to support them in the face of this threat.
Such has been our Council’s determination to put housing there over the last fifteen years, that this is the fifth time that we have had to seek sensible decisions through Public Inquiries, of which there have already been a total of four, at considerable cost to the public purse.
However, the Council has, in our view, been convinced by dubious arguments and assurances from the Developers about attempts at screening the views across the Tweed from the House. It misunderstands the all-year-round numbers of people who visit the House or walk in it’s grounds. It fails to understand the international importance of this part of Scotland’s heritage and how important to Walter Scott were the views in and out of the House and its landscape.
We say the setting of this jewel must be protected and that it is about more than just trying to hide a large housing estate behind a curtain of trees.
We shall be posting our Response to this last-chance Consultation on our website at www.savescottscountryside.org.uk and can be reached by email at scottscountryside@yahoo.com
We urge all concerned individuals and organisations to make their views known to our Council by January 25th, by responding to the Netherbarns item of the Consultation on the Proposed Local Development Plan.
This can be done online at www.scotborders.gov.uk/ldp2 or by email at localplan@scotborders.gov.uk or by post to ‘Forward Planning, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Scottish Borders, TD6 0SA’ , being sure to quote the reference LDP2Consultation/AGALA029/Netherbarns.
Yours faithfully,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Emergency and the Borders Proposed Local Development Plan
We have been reminded by a supporter of important, if not fundamental, aspects of our Local Development Plan which we have not hitherto incorporated into our work and submissions.
We have seen a draft Representation from a Borders resident that addresses whether the professed commitment of Scottish Borders Council is adequately and foundationally expressed in their Proposed LDP.
We cannot attach it, or get it into a form to publish, here but would be glad to send it by e-mail to anyone who requests it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing Estate on Lower Slopes Of Eildon Hills
In 2018, Developers brought forward proposals to build 28 Houses on The Croft site at Melrose.
The site had controversially been allocated for housing many years before, despite being on the lower slopes of the iconic Eildons in our small and vulnerable National Scenic Area at a point where most visitors start walking both St Cuthbert's Way and the Eildons themselves.
Despite a vigorous local campaign and our arguments to mitigate the landscape damage by reducing numbers and the majority of houses to single storey, the Application was Approved with only minor modifications.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Borders National Park?
Various groups, including at national level the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, and interested individuals have begun campaigning for the creation of a new National Park, which would obviously deliver benefit to our local landscape--though we note a present suggestion for boundary does not include Abbotsford's Managed Landscape!
The Campaign commissioned an Independent Feasiblity Study, as requested by Scottish Borders Council.
In September 2017 the authors, Duncan Bride Associates, endorsed the feasibility and socio-economic benefits. The Campaign has prepared a Position Statement.
Details of the campaign, events planned and opportunities to comment or get involved, can be found on their web-site at:
http://www.borders-national-park.scot/main.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renewed Threat to Abbotsford House
Objections to the Allocation of the Netherbarns site in the 2020 Proposed Local Development Plan can be made online at www.scotborders.gov.uk/ldp2 or by email to localplan@scotborders.gov.uk or by post to ‘Forward Planning, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Scottish Borders, TD6 0SA’ , always being sure to quote the reference LDP2Consultation/AGALA029/Netherbarns.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Objection
Proposed Local Development Plan
Objection Response from Save Scott’s Countryside,
January 2021
AGALA029/Netherbarns
We remain resolutely Opposed to the Proposal to allocate this site for a substantial housing estate.
We seek it’s Removal from the List of Allocated Sites unless it’s Indicative Capacity is hugely reduced.
Galashiels Settlement Boundary
1. We Object most strongly to the proposed Incorporation of the Netherbarns site within the Galashiels Settlement Boundary and seek it’s Removal.
We Object most strongly to its Removal from the Protection of the Countryside Around Towns Policy.
We seek its Return to that Protection
2. We seek the Removal from the Settlement Boundary of that Area to the South-west, comprising Netherbarns Farmhouse, its steading and grounds.
We seek for it to come under the Protection of CAT policy.
——————————————————————————————————————————————--
Background History of the Netherbarns Site
Proposals for housing estate development on this site have previously been rejected at Public Inquiries—four times in twelve years.
The last Local Plan Public Inquiry (see Supporting Documents no.1) in 2015 concluded:
“I have noted the arguments of the council in favour of the development of Netherbarns which include a reference to the withdrawal of objections by Historic Scotland. I also recognise the reduced density of 45 houses now included in the proposed plan “
“All-in-all, despite the lack of a formaI objection by Historic Scotland, I concur with the conclusions reached at the previous local plan inquiry. It appears to me that cultural and landscape considerations combine to provide an asset which should remain free of the impact of the suggested allocation and any subsequent development of Netherbarns. I do not accept that the woodland screening would adequately mitigate the adverse impacts of the allocation on the setting of the house or the designed landscape. Additionally, the re-opening of the railway link to Galashiels is likely to increase the volume of visitors to Abbotsford, therefore further strengthening the need to protect the heritage of the vicinity.”
Present Proposed Local Development Plan
We were understandingly exasperated to find that the 2018 Main Issues Report had returned to a proposal to allocate Netherbarns for substantial housing. in our Response to the Consultation (see Supporting Document no.2) we reminded the Forward Planning Officers of the conclusion of the last Public Inquiry ; of our previous idea for a modest, semi-rural solution: and, as a Further Submission (see Supporting Document no.3), announced our plans for a Nationwide Competition for a Masterplan for Netherbarns—but only in the event that a modest, semi-rural solution was adopted.
In the Officer’s Report to Council Sept2020 (see Supporting Document no.4) it was stated:
“the Council held a number of PreMIR consultation events. During the event at the Galashiels Transport Interchange, on 27 September 2017, there was discussion on the possibility of the Netherbarns site being released for housing. It was generally agreed that it is a suitable and desirable location for housing in Galashiels, this is confirmed in the meeting minutes.”
It is not clear how many were present to “generally agree“. From our previous experience of such events, it was likely not many.
What is clear, and what Scottish Borders Councillors were not told (see Supporting Document no.4), is that there were in the eventual Consultation on the Proposed Local Development Plan at least twenty five or more written Objections to its inclusion—total numbers are not readily available as there is some pooling of responses in the ‘Summary of MIR Responses ’.
Not one member of the public supported the Developer’s and Officer’s arguments and proposals
Galashiels Settlement Boundary; and Countryside Around Towns Policy
The Proposed Plan goes significantly further than (just) introducing a new suburban housing site.
It amends the Galashiels Settlement Boundary to take in the whole of the site, thereby removing it from the Countryside Around Towns (CAT) Policy area.
Section 7.2 of that Policy says:
There are many important listed buildings both within and out with the settlements, including Abbotsford House and Chiefswood. The surrounding grounds to these two houses are also recorded in the Inventory of Gardens & Designed Landscapes. This highly sensitive landscape is an integral factor in the need to ensure that any settlement expansion does not eclipse the historical importance and recreational qualities of the area.
In the face of S7.2, to argue (see Supporting Document no.4) in addressing the Countryside Around Towns Policy, that prevention of settlement coalescence is essentially what Policy EP6 is about, to the marginalisation of landscape considerations, is a specious interpretation of the Countryside Around Towns (CAT) Policy.
Nothing on the ground or in the landscape has changed to justify the Council’s Proposed Amendment to the CAT Area and Development Boundary.
The Officer’s Assessment for Council at their Sept2020 Full Meeting (see Supporting Document no.4) did not mention or explain these proposed changes. It merely stated that the site was within the CAT area.
Again, the published Proposed LDP2 on p.342 says in the Settlement Profile for Galashiels that “The Plan takes forward one additional new housing site at Netherbarns, with an indicative capacity of forty five dwellinghouses”, but makes no reference to changes to the Settlement Boundary or to protection from CAT Policy.
It is therefore left to the public to spot the change in the Settlement Boundary on the map and understand the loss of protection from CAT Policy.
In promoting this site for suburban development, SBC will be seen as violating its own carefully-formed policy only in order to remove a major obstacle in their, and the Developer’s, path. This will look to many like SBC using a ‘dirty trick’ to deliver the site to the Developer.
Clearly, if Officers were serious in their claims that the proposed development is restrained to those parts of the site which can less easily be seen from Abbotsford, they would not have included the remainder of the site within an extended Galashiels Settlement Boundary, nor removed from it the protection afforded by the Countryside around Towns Policy.
This move can only be seen as an attempt to eventually deliver housing numbers more in line with Ballantyne’s original 2004 Application for 83 houses. If the presently proposed build on part of the site is delivered, it would be very difficult to resist the rest of the site, now no longer having these protections, being developed at a later stage.
We therefore argue for Removal of this Extension to the Settlement Boundary at the Netherbarns site.
For consistency, we seek also the Removal from the Settlement Boundary of that Area to the south-west, comprising Netherbarns Farmhouse, its steading and grounds; and seek for it to come under the protection of CAT policy.
We do this on the grounds that it is rural in nature and that its incorporation into Galashiels’ settlement would represent an unwarranted and unnatural extension of Galashiels up the Tweed, which is not the natural water valley of the town.
The Netherbarns Site Itself
The site is highly visible in the wider landscape, not just in views from Abbotsford and from the Designed Landscape, but also in views towards them.
It is visible to walkers on the Southern Upland Way; and to visitors, including those heading for the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area, arriving along the A7.
The 2007 LPI “agreed that it would be very undesirable for the Galashiels urban area to extend any further to the south along the Tweed Valley”, which of course is not the natural water valley of the town.
The 2015 LPI concluded that “the re-opening of the railway link to Galashiels is likely to increase the volume of visitors to Abbotsford, therefore further strengthening the need to protect the heritage of the vicinity”.
Screening
In their current proposals, the Developers are making much of their claims about sight-lines and screening.
Much of the potential, summer screening already comes from the line of trees along the riverbank—but this is deteriorating and back in 2007 the LPI agreed with objectors that “the major tree belt along the river cannot be relied upon to provide an effective screen, either at present (in winter conditions and from higher elevations) or in the future (at all times and from lower as well as higher elevations)”.
The 2015 LPI concluded that they “did not accept that the woodland screening would adequately mitigate the adverse impacts of the allocation on the setting of the house or the designed landscape.
Seasonality
Planning policy concerning cultural heritage goes way beyond simple economics, but focusses on the intrinsic value of the special place to be protected. The protection afford by policy cannot be cast aside on seasonal grounds.
In any case, the suggestion that visitors aren’t around Abbotsford in the winter months is simply not true.
The work of the Melrose Paths Group has led to all-year round walking in the Designed Landscape; and the welcome, and increasing, number of initiatives being undertaken at Abbotsford, both inside and outside the House, mean there is already more winter use of the House and Grounds by community and family groups.
The 2015 LPI was not thinking seasonally in concluding that “the re-opening of the railway link to Galashiels is likely to increase the volume of visitors to Abbotsford, therefore further strengthening the need to protect the heritage of the vicinity”.
Historic Scotland’s Guidance and Opinion
Much has been made of Historic Scotland previously stating that they “are content with the principle of development” on the Netherbarns site.
However, they have confirmed that they would assess any proposal very carefully in terms of its impact on both the setting of the Category A-listed house and its Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape.
Indeed, their formal Guidance makes it clear that the setting of cultural assets should be protected; and their specific Opinions over the years about Abbotsford and Netherbarns are cogent reminders of the principles and facts.
Some of these principles, such as about the ‘setting’ of Abbotsford and it’s Designed Landscape, seem to us to have become lost in our Planning Officers’ perception, which has become increasingly blinkered in their repeated search for a way to deliver substantial housing at this unsuitable site, in part because “the submission has been made by a well-known and reputable local building firm and strong weight should be given to the fact that this is an effective site”—Officer’s Report to Council Sept2020 (see Supporting Document no.4)
Indeed our frustration at this apparent stance of near-obligation to the Developer, has led us recently to make a Freedom of Information Request (see Supporting Document nos.5 and 6) in order to understand how such a culture of mind may have arisen. This Request is, so far, only partially met (see Supporting Documents nos.7 and 8).
Some of the facts, such as the principal inward and outward views, have been dismissed eg. “Taking all matters into consideration, it is considered that views from the House to the new proposed houses will be negligible”—Officer’s Report to Council Sept2020 (see Supporting Document no.4 ).
In the case of summer screening, winter views and visitor numbers they have been misrepresented or played down.
Furthermore, the precedent of existing building has been used in justification—indeed, in one rather desperate instance (Officer’s Report to Council Sept2020, see Supporting Document no.4) Planning Officers pointed out to Councillors that a Visitor Centre has been built within the Designed Landscape.
This single building is sympathetically designed and is not comparable to a housing estate development. Indeed, it is singled out in Managing Change In The Historic Environment—Gardens and Designed Landscapes (HES 2016) as an exemplar “designed to sit comfortably in it’s Designed Landscape setting and has not required substantial screening”.
Historic Scotland’s Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas stated that Development outwith the curtilage of a Listed Building should also be regarded as affecting the setting where this will be seen in any principal view either of or from the Listed Building, or affect in any way the main approaches to it.
Furthermore, Historic Scotland’s July 2009 appraisal of the Netherbarns Site in their letter to the Developers (see Supporting Document no.9) stated that “It should be noted that it is not sufficient that the Listed Building and the new development will not be intervisible.”
Historic Environment Scotland’s Managing Change In The Historic Environment—Gardens and Designed Landscapes (HES 2016):
Confirms that “When a site is included on the Inventory it becomes a material consideration in the planning process. This means that those making decisions on planning applications have to take it into account.”
Discusses Impacts On Setting as follows:“Inventory sites often have a planned relationship with landscape features beyond their boundaries, and these surroundings may contribute to the way they are experienced, understood and appreciated.”
“Land outwith the boundary may provide a backdrop to a mansion house or terminate a vista. This ‘borrowed’ land is used as a feature to be enjoyed from the Inventory site. Development outside an Inventory site boundary may therefore impact on the site’s setting – for example, if it would affect a deliberately planned outward view.
Proposals should be carefully designed and located to minimise any such impacts.”
In their July 2009 letter to the Developers (see Supporting Document no.9) , Historic Scotland had:
Confirmed that “It was also Historic Scotland’s view that development in the area allocated in the Local Plan for housing, was bound to have a detrimental effect on the setting of the Category A listed Abbotsford House.
Described how “The main public rooms of this highly landscape orientated set piece are all designed to take full advantage of the view out to the stepped grass banks, grazed meadow and haugh directly across the River Tweed to where the Netherbarns site is located.
The present modern developments are very obvious in the winter months.”
Also that “It should also be taken into consideration that the principal view looking into the Designed Landscape specifically focussed on Abbotsford House from Gala Hill and the Southern Upland Way would be severely compromised by any development.”
Stressed the “need to ensure that the setting of both Abbotsford House and it’s Garden and Designed Landscape are safeguarded.”
Acknowledged “that there has been previous modern development to the E and N of this site; however this should not be viewed as setting a precedent for further development”.
Our Opinion
We agree with the 2015LPI, and with Historic Scotland, that protecting the Setting of Abbotsford House and it’s Designed Landscape is about more than trying to hide a housing estate behind curtains of tree-planting; and the issue cannot, and must not, be reduced to being just about the views, seasonal or otherwise, from Abbotsford House.
On-site landscaping and tree-planting, as proposed by the Developers, is not going to mitigate the impact of a 45 unit housing estate in the vicinity of the House and its Managed Landscape.
There is increasing public awareness, and visitor education, about the importance Scott attached to the development of his immediate landscape and the views it afforded.
As described by an Abbotsford volunteer guide, with a professional interest in mental health issues, the atmosphere and views from Abbotsford’s terrace and grounds “make it greatly appreciated both by visitors and locals as an area of outstanding beauty and tranquility”.
Their present experience reflects Scott’s intentions. He found succour in contemplating landscape in general, and his created Picturesque Landscape in particular.
His legacy, Abbotsford’s setting and Scotland’s Heritage would be unacceptably, and irrevocably, damaged by such a short-sighted allocation and use of this land.
The Way Forward
Historic Scotland also Stated that “It is our view that it may be possible to accommodate appropriate development on the site”.
We have also come, reluctantly, to such a conclusion, if only to put in place a final and sympathetic resolution to this unhappy saga of recurrent attempts to put a large-scale housing development in such a sensitive site.
We say that such a housing estate here would be inappropriate in character and scale, but that a small, landscaped build of just a handful of smallish houses with significant areas of tree-planting and associated features, such as orchards, woodland or stables, would provide a softening of the town’s present hard edge at Kingsknowes---and an appropriately semi-rural, and irrevocable, transition between town and countryside.
The history of this site calls out for such a solution.We have previously announced our plans to launch a Nationwide Competition For a Masterplan for Netherbarns (see Supporting Document no.3), but only in the event that the site is allocated for such modest development.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Local Development Plan
Objection Response from Save Scott’s Countryside,
January 2021
ADARN005/Land South of Darnlee, Darnick
We Object to this Allocation.
We seek its Removal from the LDP.
Should it be Allocated, then we seek a halving of the site capacity, with a requirement for mixed housing and extensive tree-planting.
This site is located within the the Conservation Area of the village and within the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area.
Talk of a “High Standard Design” and a “must” for “Safeguarding the settings of the listed building ‘Darnlee’ and the historic battlefield (Inventory Battlefield of Darnick) and the character of the Darnick Conservation Area” will not in our view prevent ten houses on this rectangular site at this location having the appearance of a suburban, if somewhat upmarket, estate built in the parkland grounds of ‘Darnlee’.It will look like a larger version of building a house in your back garden, regardless of sense, setting or integration.
It is not the way to greet visitors to the village, whether they be general visitors or people exploring the Battlefield and the historic environs of Darnick Tower.
Given the recent expansion at Chiefswood Road, the housing-type balance of this Conservation Village would be adversely affected by a further, largish (in village terms) housing estate, especially so visibly at the entrance to the village and actually within its Conservation Area.
If the village, as opposed to the Central Housing Area, really does require further housing, then we say that a modest build of up to five houses, of mixed type and with much tree-planting, could be more acceptable at this 0.8ha site.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Local Development Plan
Objection Response from Save Scott’s Countryside,
January 2021
AMELR013/Harmony Hall Gardens, Melrose
We Object to this Allocation.
We seek its Removal from the LDP.
Should it be Allocated, then we seek a resolute requirement for single-storey housing.
This site is within the Conservation Area of Melrose; within the Setting of Melrose Abbey; and within the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area.
Its Allocation would represent the loss of a valued community resource and attractive open space within the Conservation Area of the town and across a narrow road from the most ancient remains on the Melrose Abbey (Scheduled Monument) site.
It would adversely affect the Setting of this Scheduled Monument, whatever attempts might be made at “respectful” development.
Should the site be Allocated, buildings higher than a single storey would certainly need to be excluded as they would be even more intrusive on the setting of Harmony Hall as seen from the road that runs in front of Melrose Abbey; and on the setting of Melrose Abbey, especially when approaching from the west along St Mary’s Road.
In the PLDP this requirement is only a “should” rather than a “must” in relation to the safeguarding of the character of the Conservation Area and adjacent Listed Buildings.
It is difficult to believe that developers will deliver even only five houses without significant loss of trees and hedgerow; and damage to the southern stone wall—whatever the “must’ contained in the Site Requirements.
In any case, it would be a retrograde step to disturb the roadside wall at all, bearing in mind its construction, which is probably very old and very traditional; and to compromise its continuity westward to the entrance into the orchard.
We do not consider it justified to build even small numbers of houses at this part of Conservation Area, since the proposed house numbers would only make a tiny housing contribution in the town of Melrose, where there are considerable, unbuilt Allocations on the Croft site and the Dingleton site.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom Of Information Request
Letter of Dissatisfaction to CEO,SBC January 2021:
To Rob Dickson (Executive Director | Corporate Improvement and Economy) and David Robertson (Executive Director | Finance and Regulatory)—as jointly Acting Chief Executives to Scottish Borders Council.
Dear Sirs,
You will be aware of controversial Proposals, currently out for Consultation, for a new housing development at Netherbarns, directly across the Tweed from Abbotsford House. Objectors will wonder what the point of consultation is, when their views, already submitted in 2019, seem to be completely ignored. We are also puzzled, to say the least, by the planning department’s continued promotion of this development when Scottish Ministers have already rejected similar proposals not once, but four times, following Public Inquiries. Officers’ claims that the current proposals are substantially different are simply not credible.
In trying to understand Scottish Borders Council's motives, Save Scott’s Countryside recently submitted a Freedom of Information Request, asking to see correspondence between officers and the developer, Ballantynes of Kelso. While officers have continued to promote the site to this day, the information so far provided in response to this FOI request goes no further than 2006. It is hard to believe that the developer or his agents have not had contact with the planning department since then, apart from the submission of new, formal plans. Furthermore, the information provided indicates that a
number of meetings took place, but gives no record of what was discussed. Where is the evidence (which we believe was provided by the developer) that Historic Scotland dropped their objection to the site?
So it appears that the FOI has not been responded to properly.
I therefore request that you could ensure that the FOI is responded to in full - both with correspondence up to date and information or notes of the meetings referred to.
Information that has been provided illustrates SBC’s efforts after Ballantyne’s first Planning Application, in 2004, to put in place an Interim Housing Policy, which allowed consideration of that planning application prior to the outcome of the new Local Plan.
This was highly controversial and a national body, I believe it may have been the National Trust for Scotland, moved to subject the use of this new policy to Judicial Review, However, this step which was not required as Scottish Ministers “called in” the application so they could consider it themselves, which shows how sensitive this matter was and is.
In short, while much of the correspondence produced in response to our FOI request illustrates officers under pressure simply doing their best, other elements of the response, including omissions, leave us feeling more uneasy than ever about SBC’s handling of the Netherbarns saga.
There have also been concerns about elected members from the Kelso ward who are regarded as more concerned for their local builder, Ballantynes, than for the national treasure that is Abbotsford. We are aware that a complaint about Councillor Weatherston has been lodged with the Standards Commission - outcome awaited.
Until quite recently Walter Scott was known as a writer, but hardly at all as a landscape designer or an architect. Not only was he highly accomplished in all these fields, he was also a pioneer: of the Novel in literature; of the Scottish Baronial in architecture; and of the Romantic in landscape design. He “created fairy scene with spade as well as pen”.
How remarkable it is that his home, designed by Scott himself, housing Scott’s collections, and surrounded by Scott’s own landscape should be so remarkably intact. It is truly a world-class heritage site, and was on Unesco’s short-list (in the nineties I think).
Save Scott’s Countryside was formed in In 2003 to fight SBC’s plans to build a new town of over a thousand houses on Scott’s former Abbotsford estate—a battle which we won and which resulted in much of Scott’s former estate being listed in Scotland’s Inventory of Designed Landscapes.
One of the most remarkable things about that campaign was the support we received, not only from right across the Borders, but from all corners of Britain, and from abroad too. Abbotsford is widely held in great affection and esteem, and it is wonderful to see how the Abbotsford Trustees are greatly broadening the visitor experience, and working so well with the Borders community.
All the more surprising and disappointing, therefore, that SBC is seen to be promoting a suburban development which would irreparably damage the principal vista within Abbotsford’s landscape setting.
Yours sincerely,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published Letter to 14th January 2021
The Editor,
The Southern Reporter.
Dear Sir or Madam, A Housing Estate Opposite Abbotsford House?
We were heartened to see that the guardians of Abbotsford House have made a public call for support in their campaign to prevent Scottish Borders Council being allowed to allocate the Netherbarns site, on the outskirts of Galashiels, for a substantial housing development of forty five houses across the river Tweed from Walter Scott’s Abbotsford House and it’s Designed Landscape.
We at Save Scott’s Countryside are pleased to support them in the face of this threat.
Such has been our Council’s determination to put housing there over the last fifteen years, that this is the fifth time that we have had to seek sensible decisions through Public Inquiries, of which there have already been a total of four, at considerable cost to the public purse.
However, the Council has, in our view, been convinced by dubious arguments and assurances from the Developers about attempts at screening the views across the Tweed from the House. It misunderstands the all-year-round numbers of people who visit the House or walk in it’s grounds. It fails to understand the international importance of this part of Scotland’s heritage and how important to Walter Scott were the views in and out of the House and its landscape.
We say the setting of this jewel must be protected and that it is about more than just trying to hide a large housing estate behind a curtain of trees.
We shall be posting our Response to this last-chance Consultation on our website at www.savescottscountryside.org.uk and can be reached by email at scottscountryside@yahoo.com
We urge all concerned individuals and organisations to make their views known to our Council by January 25th, by responding to the Netherbarns item of the Consultation on the Proposed Local Development Plan.
This can be done online at www.scotborders.gov.uk/ldp2 or by email at localplan@scotborders.gov.uk or by post to ‘Forward Planning, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Scottish Borders, TD6 0SA’ , being sure to quote the reference LDP2Consultation/AGALA029/Netherbarns.
Yours faithfully,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Emergency and the Borders Proposed Local Development Plan
We have been reminded by a supporter of important, if not fundamental, aspects of our Local Development Plan which we have not hitherto incorporated into our work and submissions.
We have seen a draft Representation from a Borders resident that addresses whether the professed commitment of Scottish Borders Council is adequately and foundationally expressed in their Proposed LDP.
We cannot attach it, or get it into a form to publish, here but would be glad to send it by e-mail to anyone who requests it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing Estate on Lower Slopes Of Eildon Hills
In 2018, Developers brought forward proposals to build 28 Houses on The Croft site at Melrose.
The site had controversially been allocated for housing many years before, despite being on the lower slopes of the iconic Eildons in our small and vulnerable National Scenic Area at a point where most visitors start walking both St Cuthbert's Way and the Eildons themselves.
Despite a vigorous local campaign and our arguments to mitigate the landscape damage by reducing numbers and the majority of houses to single storey, the Application was Approved with only minor modifications.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Borders National Park?
Various groups, including at national level the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, and interested individuals have begun campaigning for the creation of a new National Park, which would obviously deliver benefit to our local landscape--though we note a present suggestion for boundary does not include Abbotsford's Managed Landscape!
The Campaign commissioned an Independent Feasiblity Study, as requested by Scottish Borders Council.
In September 2017 the authors, Duncan Bride Associates, endorsed the feasibility and socio-economic benefits. The Campaign has prepared a Position Statement.
Details of the campaign, events planned and opportunities to comment or get involved, can be found on their web-site at:
http://www.borders-national-park.scot/main.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
