Copyright all rights reserved Dumfries Council LA...

1

0 9/P/3 02 5 9 8 Crown Copyright all rights reserved Dumfries & Galloway Council LA 100016994 2009

I COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 8 JULY 2009

COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 8 JULY 2009

,\

' \

OUTLINE OF SHED PREVIOUSLY TAKEN DOWN

/ * \ \

\ \ \

/ / / / /<,'

/ / / /

09/P/30259

BLOCKWORK AND RENDERED 1

I EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION ', i-

I I

EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION

EXISTING

09/P/30259

EXISTING PLAN BUILDING STRIPPED BACK TO BARE WALLS ALL TIMBER REMOVED AND DISPOSED OFF

.r EXISTING WEST ELEVATION EXISTING EAST ELEVATION

EXIST1 NG

8 Crown Copyright all rights reserved Durnfnes & Galloway Counal LA 100016994 2009 L

OWP130259

SITE BLOCK PLAN ’

PREVIOUSLY CONSENTED

~~


09/P/30259

FRONT ELEVATION MADE GOOD IN SANDS TO MATCH EXISTING

PLOT 3

PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1 :a00 EXISTING SANDSTONE

REBUILT TO MATCH

PLOT 2

SLATED ROOF TO /-MATCH EXISTING

IS TONE

PLOT 3 EXISTING SANDSTONE

MULLION FEATURE REBUILT TO MATCH

PLO1 2

EXISTING SANDSTONE MULLION FEATURE

REBUILT TO MATCH

PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1:tOO LRENDER PANEL

BELOW WINDOW


U Y / P/ 3 U 23 Y n 2. I )Crown Copyriaht all

LATED ROOF TO ATCH EXISTING

DRY DASH RENDER COLOUR DRY DASH RENDER COLOUR

I

TRADITIONAL VERGE DETAIL WITH SLATE OVERHANG TO MATCH EXISITNG

PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION PLOT 3 1 : l O O

DORMER CHEEKS SLATED

_ _ _ _ -

ED ROOF TO H EXISTING

- _ _ - -

DORMER

SLATED /CHEEKS

PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PLOT 2 1 : l O O -COURSED RANDOM SANDSTONE


I l i I I k 4 0 T 3 PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1 : l O O

l i I 1 FENCE 1.8m HIGH FENCE 1.8n HIGH I ! I 1 I I l i

PLOT 2 PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN



~~ ~ _ _ ~~

0 Crown Copyright all rights reserved Durnfnes & Galloway Council LA 100016994 2009 ~~

0 9/P/3 025 9

1 1 I , 1 1 lPI+OT 3 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1: lOO

1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1

PLOT 2 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN


2. I


6002 ~inr 8 33llIWM03 AWOl Wln!33W W3WW 3lWaSHlIN lWOd3W 33lllMNO3

a HldUN -. .

I . . .

09/P)30259 9 Crown Copyright all rights reserved Dumfnes & Galloway Council LA 100016994 2009

XISTIh PENIN(

CURRENT AMENDED PROPOSAL


0 Crown Copytight all rights reserved Dumfries & Galloway Council LA 100016994 2009

09W30259

! I 1 1

PLOT 3 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR P U N 1 : l O O I 1

I ' I 1 I 1 1

I 1 I I I I ' I I I


3.1 .... . ._

B Crown Copyright all 0 9 1 P13 0 2 5 9’

NFW CI RW GOODS ” WhLl RE BUILT

AST ELEVATION PLOT 3 1:lOO

_ _

YM

-

-41 -

/ / EXISTING

NEW CI RW GOODS

QUARE DRESSED RA

PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PLOT 2

NEW CI RW GOODS


0 Crown Copyright all rights reserved Dumfries & Galloway Council LA 100016994 2009

, w I- s a

0 0 7

? . .

Z 0 I= P W -I W I t- ry 0 z n W v)

CQO I-a

aa 9 8

J a cn 0 e 0 w e D , W n z

CI


2. I Dumfries

David W Bell, Operations Manager Development Management Kirkbank, English Street, Dumfries, D G I 2HS Telephone (01387) 260199 - Direct Dial Fax (01387) 260188

PLANNING APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION (081Pl30265) TO ALLOW FOR ALTERATIONS TO DESIGN INCLUDING DEMOLITION AND REBUILDING OF AN EXISTING WALL, RESULTING IN THE ERECTION OF NEW BUILD DWELLINGHOUSE ON PLOT 3 (RETROSPECTIVE), AND ALTERATIONS TO DESIGN OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STEADING CONVERSION TO DWELLINGHOUSE ON PLOT 2 AT PLOTS 2 & 3, PRIESTLANDS FARM STEADING, NEW ABBEY ROAD, DUMFRIES

APPLICANT: MR & MRS S EDEN (PLOT 3) l

Recommendation by Operations Manager Development Management - Approve subject to conditions

REF. NO.: 09lPl310259 MR J KERR (PLOT 2)

Decision -

Case Officer - David Suttie

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 The application site relates one of the buildings that form part of the former farm steading at Priestlands Farm set in open countryside just outwith the settlement boundary of Dumfries off the New Abbey Road (A710).

1.2 The farm was subdivided and sold off at the beginning of 2004. The farmland was sold off, with the existing farmhouse (Priestlands Farm) remaining. The steading buildings were separated.

1.3 These outbuildings have been subject to a series of planning applications:-

04/P/30299 - Change of use, alterations and extensions of 3 outbuildings to forr 4 dwellinghouses and 1 garage, demolition of outbuildings and installation of 4 septic tank and soakaways. (relates to Plots 1, 2, 3 and 4) Approved under delegated powers on 10 September 2009.

07/P/30158 - Conversion of farm buildings to form dwellinghouse and garage, includin installation of septic tank and soakaway, formation of access road and improvements t existing access. (relates to Plot 4 only) Approved under delegated powers on 5 July 2007. [NB - this application has commenced on site, with the access road being formed off th existing track.]

08/P/30265 - Alterations to bring about the change of use of farm buildings to forr 2 dwellinghouses to form 2 detached dwellinghouses with integral garage and installation ( 2 septic tanks and soakaways and change of use of agricultural land to form garden ground. (Relates to Plots 2 and 3 only and essentially deleted reduced the scale of the developmet from 3 dwellinghouses down to 2 houses for this building) 4pproved under delegated powers on 29 September 2008. COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDALE AREA REGULATORY COMMITTEE 8 JULY 2005

1.4 The current application has been submitted following a site inspection by the case officer for 08/P/30265 who noted there had been significant alterations to the approved scheme, in particular in relation to the part of the building closest to Priestlands Farm (identified as Plot 3).

1.5 The applicant / developers were contacted regarding this breach of planning control. A Stop Notice and associated Enforcement Notice under Section 140 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 was served by the Council on 7 May 2009, requiring the developer to cease works on site immediately and submit a retrospective planning application within 1 month. A valid planning application was registered by the planning authority on 1 June 2009. The applicant / developers have ceased works on site. [NB - While the Stop Notice applies to the whole site (Plots 2 and 3), Plot 3 is at a far more advanced stage in terms of building works than Plot 2.1

1.6 The application being considered is for an amendment to planning permission 08/P/30265 to allow for alterations to the design (including demolition and rebuilding of an existing wall, effectively resulting in the erection of a new build dwellinghouse) on Plot 3 (retrospective) and alterations to the design previously approved steading conversion to a dwellinghouse on Plot 2.

1.7 The majority of the work which has been undertaken is within the Plot 3. The developers of that plot (Mr & Mrs Eden) advised they had removed the original sandstone wall and erected a brand new breeze-block wall on health and safety grounds. No contact was made by either the developer or their architect with the Planning department regarding these modifications to the proposal. In their supporting information (Appendix 2), Mr and Mrs Eden apologise for their actions and advise they were unaware of the consequences of their actions as they were ignorant of the planning process and naively believed that as the wall was being built strictly replicating what was there, this would be acceptable.

2 CONSULTATIONS

2.1 There were no consultations undertaken with this proposal as the consultation responses for 08/P/30265 still remain valid and any conditions would be re-imposed on this application.

3 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Mr & Mrs Niblock, Priestlands Farmhouse, New Abbey Road, Dumfries submitted separate representations, objecting on the following grounds:- (a) the increase in wall height from the previously existing building by about 2m has had significant impact on the light reaching their property. (b) The introduction of a second floor level overlooking their property is a serious invasion of their privacy. Currently they are not overlooked at all. A Velux fire-escape window in the roof could solve this problem. (c) The exterior design is modern, utilitarian in nature and not in-keeping with what existed previously or the surviving surrounding buildings. (d) Noted that the applicant did not notify them of the changes to the original scheme (Feb 2008) being considered under 08/P/30265 and had a discussion with Mr Kerr at that time.


2. I

Consider they were misinformed and lead to believe there were would be no increase in the height of the building and no windows facing their property. They were not informed of any changes.

3.2 Letters from the Applicant and Agent are included as Appendix 2.

4 REPORT

4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Countn Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that “Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

4.2 The application has to be considered against Structure Plan Policy D4: Housing in the Countryside and General Policies 2, 7 and 15 of the Nithsdale Local Plan (see Appendix 1).

4.3 Criterion 1 of Structure Plan Policy D4 allows the change of use of traditionally built agricultural or other buildings to a dwellinghouse without substantial rebuilding or extension of the original building. The supporting information in relation to Policy D4 is set out below:-

“The Council has always encouraged the renovation and / or conversion of traditionally built properties for housing since this can make a positive contribution to the countryside if the work is undertaken in a sympathetic manner and continues to preserve the area’s heritage of traditional buildings. A building survey will normally be required to confirm the property is capable of being renovated without requiring extensive rebuilding. Any extensions should be limited in size to avoid dominating and adversely affecting the appearance and character of the original building.”

4.4 It was on this basis that the previous application (08/P/30265) was approved. It should be noted that as part of pre-application and post-applications discussions, the case officer for that application received details of proposals that were significantly larger and had even greater extensions than the proposal which was finally approved. Several amendments were requested as the plans submitted did not correlate. As part of these discussion, the original applicant (Mr Kerr) was advised that further neighbour notification was required, and that plans should be submitted which correlated and, more importantly, annotations were added to the plans to ensure that the existing sandstone wall was being retained on Plot 3 ,

4.5 The applicant, as an architect, was well aware of the requirements to retain all of the elements of the original steading building shown on the final plans in order to comply with Council policy and was also aware of that the scheme he proposed only just met the threshold of acceptability. The planning permission was issued on the basis that overall there was just enough of the existing building being retained to warrant a grant of permission.

4.6 It is standard practice for the following warning to be attached as a directive of planning permissions for steading conversions:- “Please note that this planning permission has only been granted on the basis that the development involves the change of use of and alterations / extension to an existing structure. Accordingly, the whole basis to the permission will be put at risk if any more of the


building than those areas shown as being rebuilt on the approved drawings is lost before or during implementation of the permission. 'I

Regrettably, this directive was not attached to planning permission 08/P/30265, as should have been the case.

4.7 It should however be noted that directives are only non-statutory advice and do not have the status of conditicqs attached to planning permissions. Condition 2 of planning permission 08/P/30265 stated :- "That the development hereby granted planning permission shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved plans and the details specified on the application form unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority or unless otherwise required by conditions attached to this permission." The approved plans clearly showed the retention of key original sandstones walls and it was their unauthorised demolition which resulted in effectively the loss of the permission to convert the steading, the serving of the Stop Notice and the submission of the current application.

4.8 Other unauthorised alterations have taken place, such as additional openings on first floor level on the side facing Priestlands Farm. However, these are positioned so they meet with the Council's minimum window-to-window standard. Any addition loss of daylight compared to that which would have occurred with the originally approved plans is considered negligible.

4.9 The scheme now proposed for Plot 3 is only based on an insignificant part of the original fabric of the barn, due to the amount demolition that has taken place. The demolished parts have been replaced with new blockwork with space left to provide for a stone facing on the external sections. The decision to demolish the walls in Plot 3 was taken by the developers on the basis that, in their opinion, the structure was unsafe. No attempt was made to contact officers regarding this fundamental change to the scheme.

4.10 The applicants claim that, in essence, the amended scheme is not dissimilar, with the modifications proposed, to the development already approved under 08/P/30265 with only the internal construction of the buildings now being in modern materials and only small changes to the external appearance.

4.1 1 However, in terms of planning policy, the proposal is materially different. On Plot 3, the proposal can no longer be described as a steading conversion (which would comply with Structure Plan Policy D4) but instead is tantamount to the erection of a new house in the countryside, which is clearly contrary to policy as there is no essential agricultural need for the applicants' to be located at Priestlands. Had this been applied for originally, it would have been recommended for refusal. However, it is clear that Plot 2 still remains well within the policy guidelines, given the amount of the original steading which remains.

4.12 The concern with this proposal is the precedent that it would set if accepted, in regards to other traditional buildings being converted to dwellinghouses in the countryside. There is an ever-increasing pressure for such buildings to be converted and the quality and quantity of the available stock on which these conversions are being based is declining. Officers encounter requests on a regular basis for the simpler 'knock down and rebuild' approach because it is cheaper and easier for the applicant and this is always resisted as not complying with Council policy, which seeks to preserve the area's heritage of traditional


2. I

buildings. revised proposals to Plot 3 on that basis unless there is specific justification to do so.

It potentially could be seen as unreasonable and inconsistent to accept the

4.13 Members therefore have 2 options:-

(a) Refuse the current application on the grounds that it is contrary to Council policy and as the developers should be held accountable for their own actions, which have rendered their previous permission null and void. It would follow from such a decision that Plot 3 shwld be the subject of a further Enforcement Notice, requiring the demolition of the unauthorised development; or

(b) Approve the application, as an exception to policy, due to the particular material circumstances of the case, namely:- (i) the final external appearance of the building would not be dissimilar to the approved develop men t ; (ii) the applicants maintain that the unauthorised demolition was undertaken in error on the basis of naivety rather than a deliberate decision to breach planning control; and (iii) the non-statutory ‘health warning’ Directive which is normally attached to planning permissions for steading conversions had been omitted in this instance.

4.14 Option (a) would, of course, be a very harsh result for the developers of Plot 3, who would be left with no implementable planning permission and so no house, despite their investment to date in the site. The owner of Plot 2 would still have the option of submitting a fresh planning application for his own plot, given that sufficient parts of the original steading remain for a freestanding house to be created for him within the terms of Council policy.

4.15 In terms of Option (b), points (i) and (iii) are undisputed facts - in some respects, particularly the fenestration patterns, the revised house designs would actually improve on those originally approved. Whilst officers have no basis on which to doubt the claims Mr & Mrs Eden set out in their letter in Appendix 2, it must be pointed out that the need to retain as much of the original steading as possible was verbally stressed to both them and the original applicant, Mr Kerr, before any development took place. Furthermore, as Mr & Mrs Eden have collectively worked in the building industry for over 30 years and operate a firm of construction consultants (which, it is claimed on their website, has “a respected reputation for providing high quality building services”), the claims of their ‘naivety’ about planning procedures should perhaps be given less weight than such claims from individuals taking on a construction project for the very first time.

4.16 In conclusion, it is recommended, very much on balance, that the second option should be adopted. In so doing, it is important to underline the point that this represents a concession due to the very specific material considerations of this case and that Members should note that this should not be taken as a precedent for developers to carry out the unauthorised demolition and rebuilding of steadings for residential purposes.

4.17 In line with approved procedures, as officers are recommending approval for this departure from policy, if the Area Committee agree to the recommendation, there is no requirement for the application to be considered by the Planning Housing & Environment Services Committee.


5 RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Approve subject to the following conditions:-

1. That neither dwellinghouse hereby granted planning permission shall be occupied unless it has been implemented in full accordance with the approved plans and the details specified on the application form unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority or unless otherwise reqyired by the requirements of Condition 2 below.

2. That the terms and requirements of Conditions 3 to 14 inclusive of planning permission 08/P/3/0265 (a further copy of which is hereby attached) will continue to apply to the development hereby granted planning permission.

3. That, for the avoidance of doubt, the dwellinghouse at Plot 2 shall not be occupied unless its roof and walls has been linked to Plot 3 as shown on the approved plans (or such other plans as may be submitted to and approved in writing for the purpose by the Council as planning authority). Thereafter, the 2 dwellinghouses shall remained linked in this manner for the lifetime of the development.

Appendix/-


2. I

APPENDIX 1 Dumfries and Galloway Council Structure Plan

Policy D4 : Housing In The Countryside Proposals for new housing in the countryside must meet one or more of the following req u ire men ts : -

1. dwellinghouse without substantial rebuilding or extension of the original building;

the change of use and alteration of traditiomlly built agricultural or other buildings to a

2. unless this would result in the loss of a significant traditional building;

the replacement of a habitable dwellinghouse by a new house within the same curtilage

3. limited small scale housing developments;

it forms part of an existing building group identified in a Local Plan as being suitable for

4. depopulation, is remote from other settlements and would not adversely affect natural heritage designations; or

it is within an area which has been identified in a Local Plan as suffering long term

5. other uses requiring an appropriate rural location in the countryside which cannot be satisfied by points 1 to 4 above.

the house can be shown to be essential at that location for the needs of agriculture or

Proposals for new houses must take into account design, siting, landscape setting, access, site servicing and the natural and built heritage. These matters will be the subject of further policy guidance in Local Plans.

Nithsdale Local Plan

General Policy 1 : Development Principle There will be a general presumption against development which would give rise to a material degree of land use conflict, which would materially detract from and / or be incompatible with the character or amenity of the locality.

General Policy 2 : Development Considerations As part of the assessment of development proposals, including those on sites identified in the Plan, developers will be required to satisfy the Planning Authority with regards to their proposals in terms of all of the following, where they are regarded by the planning authority to be material to the determination of the application:-

a) and water supply;

access, ground conditions and stability, contamination, foul and surface water drainage

b) traffic generation onto the adjacent road network;

c) flooding; (see Policy 58 on Flood Risk and Development);

d) environmental impact.

COMMITTEE REPORT NITHSDA L E A REA REGULA TORY COMMITTEE 8 JULY 2009

When assessing planning applications, the Planning Authority will take into account the provisions of any site guidance, site specifications, or development brief as set out in Section 3 of the Plan. Where further information is required, the Planning Authority may apply the provisions of Article 13 of Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992 or Article 4(3) in respect of outline applications.

General Policy 7: Siting and Design The Council as Planning Authority will require development to:-

a) the building, group of buildings or adjacent area of which it will form a part; and

have regard to the character and appearance, scale, density, massing and materials, of

b) contribute to the quality of the local environment having regard to the Local Biodiversity Action Plan; and

retain and, where appropriate, enhance important physical or landscape features which

c) ridge lines or other visually sensitive sites; and

have no material adverse effect on the local landscape character, avoiding prominent

d) and

take into account the guidance and advice set out in the Landscape Assessment Study;

e) comply with the Design Guidance set out in Appendix 1; and

f) Prevention”; and

where appropriate, have regard to the principles of PAN 46 - “Planning for Crime

g) the development; and

have regard to the replacement of any trees which are unavoidably lost as a result of

h) orientation and layout of the site or buildings.

have regard to the need for energy conservation and efficiency in the design,

General Policy 15: Housing in the Countryside Proposals for new residential development in the countryside, outwith those areas defined by Inset Maps, will be assessed against the criteria set out in the Structure Plan Policy D4.


09/P/30194

i Albany House i 28 Nunholm Road

Dumfries 1 9 MAY 2009

D c l 1JW i 01387 248811 KIRKBANK, BUMFRIES

Planning and Building Standard Kirkbank English Street Dumfries DGI 2HS

18 May 2009

Plot 3, Priestlands Steading, New Abbey Road, Dumfries

In support ofthe proposed development, we would be grateful ifyou would take the following into consideration when determining our application for amendment to planning permission (081P/30265).

It was always our intention to retain the east elevation of plot 3 and building works commenced in accordance with this. On removal of the existing floor slab it became apparent that the existing wall had no foundation beneath, we therefore started to implement measures to try and stabilise the wall to enable thesafe commencement of underpinning works. Scaffolding was erected and shoring was being positioned when a section of the wall became unstable and fell. 1 was on site at this time and as a qualified and experienced construction health and safety professional, I became extremely concerned for the immediate safety of our work operatives and neighbours. 1 therefore instructed the remainder of the wall to be brought down. At the time I did not fully understand the implications that the removal of the wall would have on our planning permission, and believed that if it was rebuilt as it originally stood, the consequence of my actions were minimal in respect of the appearance to the finished development. Neither my husband nor 1 had any knowledge or notification that the loss of this wall would invalidate our planning permission, although we haveeollectively worked in the building industry for over 30 years, neither of us has previously been involved in planning matters. We acknowledge that we should have notified the Planning department of our situation and wholly regret that we didn't and offer our sincere apologies for this. We naively believed that as the wall was being rebuilt strictly replicating what was there that it would be accepted.

The absence of the existing wall has not been of any benefit to us, other than the new wall will be structurally more stable. The partial collapse was unavoidable and the subsequent decisions taken were for no reason other than to preserve human safety. We have encountered greater costs with the collapse and consequent removal of the wall than we would have if the wall had remained. The proposal, to which we hope to re-build this wall, will not result in any reduction on the quality of the finished development in terms of external finishes or detailing and will to all intents and purposes appear the same on site.

We are also regretful of the incorrect construction of wall head levels and window heights, these have occurred from the culmination of various construction discrepancies of which we were unaware. They have been as a result of honest mistakes and we give our sincere assurances that the rectification ofthese items, as detailed in the amended drawings will be implemented

immediately if our proposal is accepted. Our new proposal also details the front elevation of the house being constructed in sandstone to match the remaining buildings, rather than the previously agreed rendered block-work. We hope that this alteration will allow the sympathetic integration of the new building back into the existing range of buildings, which may otherwise be compromised if the replacement building was not permitted.

Finally we would just like to convey the extensive detriment that the current situation, in which we have unavoidably arrived, has had on our family. The continuous stress that the fear of losing our house and solvency is having on us and our children is immeasurable. We have already established ourselves in the local community surrounding Priestlands. Our three children attend school and nursery in Troqueer and we are currently travelling there three times daily from our home in Nunholm to facilitate this. We feel dreadful for also drawing our neighbours, Mr and Mrs Kerr into this situation and exposing them to similar stresses.

We hope this information is acceptable to you and appeal for your understanding when considering our application.

Yours sincerely

Emma Eden

Smiths Gore - 12 Bernard Street - Edinburgh EH6 6PY - United Klngdom t 0131 555 1200. f 0131 554 2211 - dx 550854 Leith. www smithsgore CO uk

-- - - -

1 May 2009

Claire Eckstein Planning and Environment Services Dumfries & Galloway Council Kirkbank English Street Dumfries DG1 2HS

Our Ref DMK/SD/1014675 Your Ref

c %i SMITHSGORE

Dear Miss Eckstein

Removal of Condition No. 3 of Planning Consent 04/P/3/0527 and Discharge of Associated Section 75 Agreement to allow Unrestricted Occupancy of Dwelling House at Tannoch House, Solway Fishery, New Abbey, Dumfries Ref. 09/P/3/0194

Thank you for your letter acknowledging my application dated 8 April, 2009.

Please find attached a letter received from the Barony College, who have looked at the case we have submitted and assessed Mr lonathan lowett’s report on the viability of the Solway Fishery and endorsed his findings. I would be grateful if you could add this letter to the documentation relating to the application.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Kind regards,

Yours sincerely

/k* Debbie Mackay BSC (Hons) MRTPI Associate

Smiths Gore 12 Bernard Street Edinburgh EH6 6PY t 0131 561 7117(direct) . e <4ebhii. nra k - www smithsgore CO uk

cc Collette Mackie

t 0131 555 1200 (switchboard). f 0131 554 2211 dx ED550854

Abergavenny - ‘Berwick upon Tweed - *Carlisle LFochabers - Haddlngton . *Llchheld - *Lincoln * London - Maidstone * Marlborough * *Newmarket * Oxford - Perth. *Peterborough. ‘Petworth - -Preston . Stow-on-the-Wold - ‘Taunton. *Winchester * *York Assoclated companies in Brltish Virgin Islands ‘offices accredited to 1509001

A list of partners IS available from 17 18 Old Bond Street Authorised and regulated by the Rnancial Services Authertty

*Clrencester - Corbridge * *Darlington - *Dumfries ‘Edinburgh *

Oenver Kuala Lumpur - Sabah * Brunei

London W1S 4PT United Klngdom A member Of pnmeiocatlan EOm

27.04.09

Dear Madam I Sir

To whom it may concern.

On behalf of Barony College department for Aquaculture and Fisheries Management, i can confirm that we agree with the conclusions drawn by Jonathan Jowett of Brow Well Fisheries, regarding the viability of the Solway Fish Farm as a commercial Unit.

We have known this site for a long time and have organised many visits to it with students over the years, using it to illustrate the problems that a fish f an site can face. The Solway Fish Farm, although a beautiful and historic site, has little in its favour as a fish farming facility. The difficulties it has always faced are :

0

acidification of the water supply, drastic water flow mctuations, and shortages in the summer, antiquated farm infrastructure, design and layout of rearing ponds.

The more recent financial problems facing the trout farming industry, well described by Jonathan Jowett in his report ‘Assessment of the viability of the Solway Fish Farm -January 2009. problems that have plagued the trout farming industry latterly, are the final straw.

We fully endorse the nine points he makes under ‘Assessment of Viability’, and the final conclusion.

Martyn Haines (Depute Principal - Curriculum and Head of Aquaculture and Fisheries Section)

Barony Cailege Parkgate. Dumfries DGI 3NF

Tei 01387 860 251 Far 01387 860 395

Email adminObaronyac uk

Wrt. www baronyac uk

SJ SMITHSCORE ,

sc; SMITHSGORE

Request for the Discharge of a Section 75 Agreement and Occupancy Condition imposed on Application 04/P/30527

Tannoch House and the Solway Fishery. New Abbey

Contents

1.0 Summary

2.0 Planning History

3.0

4.0

Viability of the Solway Fishery

Marketability of the Tannoch House and The Solway Fishery with the Section 75 Agreement

5.0 Conclusion

i i .

Appendices

1) A Report on the Marketing of Tannoch House and the Solway Fishery by Kay McClelland, of Smiths Gore the selling agents for the property,

2) A Report on the Viability of Solway Fish Farm by Jonathan lowett BSc (Hons) Brow Well Fisheries,

3) The accounts for the Fish Farm for 2005/06/07 prepared by Carson and Trotter Chartered Accountants.

Request for the Discharge of a Section 75 Agreement and Occupancy Condition imposed on Application 04/P/30527

Tannoch House and the Solway Fishery. New Abbey

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Summary

On 23 September 2005, planning permission was given to Mr and Mrs Robert Mackie for the erection of a new house at the Solway Fishery, New Abbey as an operational requirement of the Solway Fish Farm. A Section 75 Agreement was put in place and an occupancy condition was placed on the notice of approval. Construction commenced on Tannoch House in 2005.

Mr Mackie was gradually building up the fish farm business while also running two further fish farms at Yarrow and Ae. He was achieving some economies of scale by doing so.

However a number of incidents have happened which have challenged the viability of the Solway Fishery. These incidents are detailed further in this document and in the accompanying reports. I n summary they include;

Mr Mackie died intestate. The Ae Fishery, also in his ownership, had to be sold to repay secured debt on the combined businesses and pay out the other claimants on his estate. The Solway Fishery is now in the executory ownership and Tannoch House remains in Mrs Mackie's ownership.

The Solway Fishery has however become less and less viable as a business. This is due partially to the loss of Mr Mackie's knowledge, contacts and experience, combined with the loss of the other Fish Farms. However it is also due to the marginal and challenging nature of the site and the escalating costs of fish farming (all of which are detailed later in this report and in the accompanying reports). Indeed, even the ongoing and continuous levels of expenditure required to keep the fish farm in its current mothballed state are proving prohibitive to Mrs Mackie who is unable to run it herself. The accounts attached as appendices illustrate graphically the losses which the fishery is making and indeed was making prior to Mr Mackie's death.

Mrs Mackie has therefore sought to sell the house and fish farm. The property was put on the market in August 2007. However despite a significant amount of interest being shown in the property, and its

.

An outbreak of disease at the Yarrow fish Farm which caused it to be sold thereby causing Solway to loose economies of scale. Higher levels of maintenance and expenditure at Solway than expected The death of a self employed local man on 2 March 2007 who assisted Mr Mackie with grading and maintenance. The sudden death of Mr Mackie on 16 March 2007

2 3 N

s SMITHSGORE

competitive price, no purchaser has been found. Prospective purchasers have made known that the existence of the section 75 agreement and occupancy condition is deterring them from buying the property. Details of the marketing undertaken are outlined in the accompanying Marketing Report.

1.7 Mrs Mackie is therefore not only going through a traumatic time personally but is also faced with the ongoing financial stress of seeking to maintain the fish farm while trying to sell both it and Tannoch House. Her monetary losses are considerable and growing. Therefore she is faced with a bleak financial future should the present situation continue.

In the light of these circumstances and the evidence submitted, it is considered that a strong case has been articulated, in this document and its accompanying reports, to have the section 75 agreement discharged and the occupancy condition removed in order to make the property marketable.

The basis on which the section 75 agreement should be discharged is in summary;

1) There have been material changes of circumstances since the original planning application which renders the Solway Fishery no longer economically viable.

2) The property has been marketed for 19 months at an appropriate price and has not been sold. The existence of the Planning Condition and Section 75 Agreement is deterring buyers and there is no interest in taking on the business.

Information is supplied in this report and its appendices setting out the reasons why the fishery is no longer viable and explaining the marketing which has occurred to promote the sale of the house and the fishery.

The report contains as appendices,

1.

1.8

1.9

1.10

1.11

A Report on the Marketing of Tannoch House and the Solway Fishery by Kay McClelland, of Smiths Gore the selling agents for the property

2. A Report on the Viability of Solway Fish Farm by Jonathan Jowett BSc (Hons) Brow Well Fisheries

3. The accounts for the Fish Farm for 2005/06/07 prepared by Carson and Trotter Chartered Accountants

2.0 Planning History

2.1 The planning application for Tannoch House was approved on 23 September 2005. The following is an extract from the Planning Report

“The proposed new home will lie adjacent to an existing 1 and a half storey granite outbuilding. This was subject to an application for change o f use to dwelling house (04/P/3/0001) approved 13/2/2004. Following this application a further application was submitted for alterations and extensions to ,

bring about the change o f use (04/P/30367). However following discussions with applicant indicating this proposal was an overdevelopment and out o f keeping with the building, the applicant decided to submit an application for a new dwelling house (his current proposal) with associated justification on the basis o f need for the fishery business. The fishery has been well established for many years, though site was gradually being run-down by previous owners. The new owners (the applicant) intend to improve the facility and expand the business. He also owns and runs other fisheries. As a result o f this current application, a business plan was submitted in support of the proposal. This was then forwarded unto Stirling Aquaculture, University o f Stirling who acted as consultants on behalf o f the Council. ”

2.2 The report goes on to say later;

“In terms of the justification, the consultant‘s opinion is that the home is seen as essential and justified in terms o f operational point o f view and in keeping with the Structure Plan Policy 04 (5). However conditions will need to be imposed in regards to occupancy. “

2.3 The following condition was imposed with regards to the occupancy of the dwelling house;

“That the dwelling house hereby granted planning permission shall not be occupied by any person or persons other than the owner, manager o r other full time employee o f the Fishery and any immediate family or dependants o f such person or persons. “

2.4 A Section 75 agreement was also entered into between Dumfries and Galloway Council, Mr Robert Mackie and Mrs Colette Mackie. The key elements of the section 75 agreement were that the whole of the subjects;

”shall be owned and occupied as a single unit and no part o f those subjects shall be owned and occupied as a single unit and no part o f those Subjects shall be sold, let, occupied or otherwise alienated from the remainder o f those Subjects; and

4 5

SMITHSCORE

the occupier o f the dwelling house shall a t all times be the occupier of the remainder o f those subjects"

and that;

"The dwelling house to be erected pursuant to outline planning permission issued or to be issued in respect o f the said application shall not be occupied other than by a person or persons employed full time in the business known as "The Solway Fishery" on the subjects owned by Robert David Mackie and the Subjects owned by Colette Mackie (whether as proprietor, tenant or employee) together with any immediate family o f such person or persons. "

2.5 Therefore, the house and fish farm cannot be sold separately and the house must be occupied by a person employed full time in The Solway Fishery.

I

3.0

3.1 When Mr Mackie first applied for planning permission for Tannoch House, he was building up the Solway Fishery in conjunction with two other fish farms, the Ae Fishery and the Yarrow Fishery. He was able to achieve savings between these sites by bulk buying feed, having the back-up of equipment on other sites should any be damaged, and enabling holiday cover for staff across the sites. This gave obvious advantages in terms of economies of scale to the smaller Solway Fishery.

I n 2005 the Yarrow fishery suffered serious disease through;

Viability of the Solway Fishery

3.2

'a very rare explosion in the population of snails in the reservoir above the Yarrow farm resulting in the release o f millions o f cercariae (the larvae o f the fluke worm) which rendered most o f the stock on the farm worthless" (See appendices for Report on the Viability of the Solway Fishery)

3.2 Mr Mackie had to sell the Yarrow fishery which had an impact on the rate at which he was able to build up the Solway Fishery to the level of profitability which he had projected. The combined businesses, Yarrow, Ae and Solway had considerable overall secured borrowings to service, these having at least partly been incurred in an attempt to develop and expand Solway into a viable and then profitable unit in its own right.

On Mr Mackie's death, the Ae fishery also had to be sold as part of the settlement of his estate as he had died intestate. The loss of the two fisheries has had a significant impact on the ability to operate Solway as a viable business enterprise.

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.10

The report on the viability of the fishery is included in the appendices to this report. I n summary it states that the fishery is no longer commercially viable. This is because of a combination of factors including;

. Intrinsic problems with the site which make it difficult to manage as a separate entity. Loss of economies of scale with the Yarrow and Ae fisheries. Loss of Mr Mackie and his knowledge, skills, experience and contacts. Significant and largely unexpected Increases in the running costs of trout farms since 2004. Challenglng trading conditions and outlook for the fish farm sector. An ever more complex environmental and regulatory framework. Lack of alternative fish species which could be grown on the site or activity which could be undertaken on the site. Difficulties in raising finance.

Carson and Trotter, Chartered Accountants, have prepared the accounts for the Solway Fishery and have provided the statement and schedule attached in the appendices.

It is clear from the accounts that the fishery was experiencing a loss prior to Mr Mackie's death and that the losses have increased significantly since that time.

Many costs were as a result of the fishery being in a poor state of repair and these are covered in the report on viability.

Mr Mackie very much ran the business himself and therefore it is difficult to fully understand the issues which he was facing. It is however clear that prior to Mr Mackie's death, the business was not making a profit. After Mr Mackie's death, the losses have increased significantly and the business is no longer viable. The report on the viability of the fishery outlines the reasons why a fishery of this type will struggle to operate profitably. I t s success was very much dependent on it being run as part of a wider enterprise and on it being managed by Mr Mackie with his contacts and expertise and the fact that he lived on site.

In addition to the loss of Mr Mackie, just two weeks before his death a self-employed local man who assisted Mr Mackie with grading and maintenance also died. This tragedy also created significant disruption in the running of the fish farm.

As set out in the report on Viability, the combination of the loss of Mr Mackie, the loss of the economies of scale with the other fish farms,

6 7 N

si SM ITHSGORE

3.11

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

5.0

5.1

together with the severe issues being experienced by the fish farm industry, means that the Solway Fishery is no longer a viable business.

The Viability Report also deals with alternative options for the fish farm such as a commercial fishery and explains why such an option is not viable. I n addition a restrictive covenant exists on the access to the Solway fishery to limit its use as a commercial angling opportunity to avoid significant increases in traffic past neighbouring houses.

Marketability of the Tannoch House and The Solway Fishery with the Section 75 Agreement

Tannoch House and the Solway Fishery have been marketed now for 19 months. A marketing report is attached to this report setting out the measures which have been taken to achieve the sale of this property.

It is clear that the property is virtually unmarketable in the current circumstances with the existing occupancy condition and the section 75 agreement.

The comment has been made, in discussions with the Planning Department, that the size of the house was greater than appropriate and that this may have affected the sale of the fishery. However, planning permission was given for the house and it was built t o be the long term main family residence of Mr and Mrs Mackie, from which they would be based while running the three fish farms for the foreseeable future. Mr Mackie used the house as his office. The Mackies were completely committed to taking forward the Solway fishery and the other fish farms as long term family businesses. The house was therefore appropriate to their requirements and the size of their overall operation. The tragic and unforeseen events which befell them have created a completely different set of circumstances. There is no evidence that the sale has been affected by the value of the house while there is clear evidence that the section 75 and occupancy condition are deterring potential buyers.

It is also clear from the Marketing report that the sale price has been heavily discounted by 26% from an open market value to reflect the Section 75 agreement. I n addition, Mrs Mackie was prepared to accept a further reduction of f50,OOO when given an offer on this basis in 2008. Unfortunately this offer was withdrawn due to the section 75 and occupancy condition restrictions.

Conclusion

Through a combination of factors, the most significant and tragic being the death of Mr Robert Mackie, the Solway Fishery has not been able to achieve the business success which was anticipated.

5.2 The vulnerability of the business together with the occupancy condition on the planning approval for Tannoch House and the accompanying section 75 agreement have resulted in the property being unmarketable.

The future for Mrs Mackie, should this situation continue, is very bleak both in financial and personal terms.

There is therefore a clear and highly justifiable case for the planning condition to be removed and the section 75 agreement to be discharged in these unusual and tragic circumstances.

5.3

5.4

8 9

Report on the Marketins of Tannoch House and The Solwav Fishery

Smiths Gore (Sellins Aaentsl

200712008

The following report has been drafted for submission to Dumfries & Galloway Council Planning Department in support of the application by Mrs Colette Mackie to have the Section 75 planning restriction at Tannoch House and the Solway Fishery discharged.

1.

Smiths Gore became involved in the marketing of Tannoch House and The Solway Fishery on gth August 2007 when terms of business were signed for the sale of both Solway and Ae Fisheries. At that time an initial marketing appraisal was conducted and the recommendation to market Tannoch House and The Solway Fishery at offers over f650,OOO (apportioned f 5 1 0 , O O O to Tannoch House and pertaining grounds, and f 140,000 to The Solway Fishery). Our initial market valuation of Tannoch House, cottage, and woodland (ie. All within the ownership of Mrs Collette Mackie) was €670,000, whilst the Solway Fishery element (within the ownership of Robert Mackie), was valued at f150,000 - making a combined total of €820,000. We then discounted the asking price by over 26% to reflect the restrictions on title imposed by the section 75 agreement with Dumfries and Galloway Council (we consider the rule of thumb to be 20 - 30% discount on value where a property is encumbered by restrictions on use).

The property details were prepared for marketing and the property was launched on 14 September 2007. The Ae Fishery was marketed concurrently at offers over f 3 5 0 , O O O and was under offer very quickly and sold for the asking price, settling on loth January 2008.

Marketins Instructions and launch of oroDerty

2. Marketinq Strateqy

The property was placed on the Smiths Gore website (www.smithsaore.co.uk), Primelocation website (www.orimelocation.com), and also appears on home.co.uk (www.home.co.uk). A press release was prepared and distributed to a wide range of publications (the press release and list of publications can be found at Appendix l ) , and from this we have received excellent editorial coverage in Country Life, Agri-Mart, The Scotsman, and potentially other publications which we have not picked up on. The property was also featured for a period of many months on the Country Life website (www .coun trv1ife.co.u k) .

At the launch of the property, we directly targeted a range of fisheries and other similar businesses within Scotland (details have not been provided for confidentiality reasons, but could be produced on request). We also distributed particulars to any direct matches within our local Smiths Gore mailing lists (A copy of the particulars can be found at Appendix 2). Although marketed directly through the Dumfries office, particulars have been displayed and distributed from our Carlisle office, with further details being sent to all our other offices throughout the UK (18 at the time), including Edinburgh.

Although we have listings for 30 particular requests, we are aware that a great many more have been distributed (over the counter) between the two offices as we only have a few copies remaining out of the original 100 printed. Many of the parties receiving particulars reverted to us in due course requesting further details such as business accounts and details of the Section 75 Agreement which were distributed on demand.

3. Viewinas

We have records of 12 individuals who have viewed the property since September 2007, and of these, 7 individuals have made repeat viewings Two surveys were commissioned on the property by different parties, however we understand that each party was advised that the Section 75 Agreement was particularly restrictive from the point of view of linking the occupation of the house directly to the running of the fish farm I t should be noted that of the 12 viewings there was a good mix between parties interested in the property for the residential aspect, and parties interested in the business aspect

4 Offer

Early in 2008 we received a formal offer for Tannoch House and The Solway Fishery at the level of €600,000 which, after consultation with our client, was deemed to be acceptable. The property remained under offer for several weeks before the offerer’s solicitors wrote to our client‘s solicitors explaining that their client was going to have to pull out of the sale citing the Section 75 Agreement as the principle reason. A copy of this letter is attached at Appendix 3 This was a great disappointment to our client who had shown extreme willing to sell by agreeing to a figure below the asking price.

5 Comparable Evidence

We understand from initial contact with the Council Planners that it is regarded that the asking price on the property is prohibitive We do not agree with this statement and the marketing history of the site has proved that people have not been put off by the price tag

Although it is difficult to provide direct comparable evidence for Tannoch House and the Solway Fishery due to the uniqueness of the property, I feel that a very similar property marketed and sold at the same time as Tannoch House, IS Barhill, Borgue (particulars attached at Appendix 4 ) This property was marketed by CKD Galbraith in early 2008 and was sold very quickly for €750,000, settling in June 2008. The property is similar to Tannoch House in that it is a new-build country house in a rural location, and finished to a high standard I t is similar in size to Tannoch House, although there are 2 more bedrooms, and two garages The garden and grounds include a pond and extend to approximately 10 5 acres Both properties have been assessed by Dumfries and Galloway Council as Council Tax Band G Barhill has shown that this type of property, with an unencumbered title, IS highly desirable in this area.

1u

http://home.co.uk

SMITHSGORL 6. Feedback

Feedback from all viewing parties has indicated that the principle reason for losing interest IS the restrictions placed upon the occupation of Tannoch House by the Section 75 Agreement, given that it is generally regarded that the fishery business could no longer sustain a full-time employee. This, coupled with the fact that the section 75 specifically links the occupation to a fishery business, and no other rural enterprise, severely restricts the use to which the site could be put. Many of the interested parties have asked for us to keep a note on file of their interest if the situation should change in the future As it stands, we feel that this property is virtually unmarketable with the present restrictions that have been placed on it.

PRESS RELEASE CIRCULATION

Farms Farms Magazines Magazines Magazines Magazines Magazines Magazines NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Shooting Shooting SP SP SP SP SP

Farmers Weekly Irish Times Country Life Country Living Period Ideas House Beautiful House & Garden Period Living DailylSunday Telegraph Sunday Telegraph Financial Times Guardian Weekend The Sunday Times Sunday Times/ Times Money Week Mail on SundaylSunday Times Sunday Times Moving On Independent Financial Times Financial Times Daily Telegraph Evening Standard The Times The Times The Field The Shooting Gazette Scottish Field Scottish Home & Country Scots Magazine The Scotsman The Herald

A large country residence and brown trout fish farm in a popular rural location in south west Scotland The Solway Fishery was established circa 1880 and is situated in a private location near to New Abbey in Dumfries and Galloway. It is currently being run as a brown trout fish farm producing fish for restocking purposes. Adjacent Tannoch House is a recently constructed substantial country residence within approximately 11 acres of woodland. There is a section 75 agreement under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 linking the occupation of Tannoch House to the fish farming business.

New Abbey is situated in a conservation area on the main A710 route to the Solway Coast. The village is a thriving community with many amenities including 2 hotels, coffee shop, village shoplpost office, doctors surgery, bowling club as well as various attractions such as the imposing and renowned Sweetheart Abbey, the Corn Mill and the Scottish National Museum of Costume. There is a primary school in the village and secondary schools are available in Dalbeattie and Dumfries.

The area is striking in terms of i t s

scenery and lies within the Nith Estuary National Scenic Area. There are many trails/walks in the locality, and nearby Criffel provides a challenging climb to the keen hiker. There are several beaches nearby on the Solway Coast and a variety of outdoor pursuits available locally such as sailing, gliding, riding, mountain biking, fishing and golfing.

Tannoch House

Ground Floor

Radiator Solid oak staircase leading upstairs Two radiators Double doors to

8 9m x 57m Open fireplace with sandstone hearth and antique wooden surround North-west facing. Solid oak flooring

57mx89m Natural stone flooring Open fireplace with granite hearth and surround Two sets of French doors leading outside Reclaimed antique island unit with solid sycamore worktop, sink and integrated dishwasher Free standing Smeg stainless steel cooker (Opera range) with 4 ceramic hobs, 2 multi-function ovens, plancha, storage drawer and extractor hood Recessed lights Three radiators Windows facing northwest and southeast

3 9m x 27m Free standing workbench with large sink.. Plumbing for washing machine French doors leading to outside Radiator

Upstairs

8 9m x 4 9 (plus passage to dressing room) 'L' shaped Windows facing northwest and southeast. Three radiators Passage to

Leads to

3 5m x 30m 3 piece BC Sanitan suite with free standing bath Mains powered shower Radiator Heated Towel Rail

-c" 8 . - .* '" 4 4m x 4 Im Radiator

~~~~~~~

3.1 m x 4.4m Three piece suite with free standing bath. Mains powered shower. Heated towel rail. Radiator.

~~~~ 3 S.3m x 4.4m Two radiators.

~~~~ 4 x 3.5m

Radiator.

1.9m x 2.2m With WC, Wash Hand Basin and mains powered shower. Radiator.

Outside Boiler room and oil tank house. Approximately 11.09 acres of natural woodland and swimming pond. Old sand mill outbuilding.

General Information

~~~~~~~

Oil Fired Central Heating. Double glazed sash and case windows with hardwood astragals throughout. Mains Electricity. Mains water through a private pipe with the appropriate servitude rights for maintenance and repair of that pipe. Private drainage. Floored attic with potential for further conversion subject to obtaining the appropriate planning

Access There ore servitude rights of access over the access road from the public road to the boundary of the fish farm. This road is owned by a third party.

The property is sold subject to and with the benefit of any existing rights of way or servitudes.

~~~~~~~ Tax Band G.

~~~~~~~

Building shell re-roofed ready for renovation. Services have been taken to the site (water, electricity and telephone).

Fishery 5.51 acres incorporating eleven large ponds and nine smaller ponds, all of which are linked by a gravity feed from the intake source on the Glensone Burn. Long outbuilding of traditional stone and slate construction with electricity, water and telephone utilities. The farm is protected by a perimeter fencelotter fence and heron netting which require some repairs. Appropriate servitude rights exist for access to the inlet which is understood to be located on Forestry Commission land. There is existing SEPA consent for the extraction of one million gallons of water per day.

. - . . - ..

Stock and other fixtures and machinery are available by separate negotiation.

local AUThOri tY Dumfries and Galloway Council Council Offices English Street Dumfries DGI 2DD t 01 387 260000

%&c/8.01.5

Grieve, Grierson, Moodie and Walker 1 4 Castle Street Dumfries DGI IDR t 01 387 269260

ethod klf Sala The property is for sale by private treaty. Offers should be submitted in proper Scottish legal terms to the selling agents. A closing date for offers may be fixed and prospective purchasers are advised to register their interest with Smiths Gore following inspection. The owners reserve the right to sell without imposing a closing date and will not be bound to accept the highest. or indeed any, offer.

Date CBf Entry By mutual agreement.

Genide Price Offers over €650,000,

Dire< t,io n s To Solway Fishery - from Dumfries head south on the A71 0 Solway Coastal Road heading to New Abbey. When reaching the outskirts of the village, turn right signposted to Beeswing. Travel for just over a mile, then take the left turning signposted for Solway Fishery. Foilow the track along to the left past the cottages, and continue up towards Tannoch House.

Viewing Strictly by appointment with Smiths Gore.

28 Castle Street Dumfries DGI 1DG

e [email protected]

De& of ~~~~~~~~~~~

Particulars prepared August 2007 Photographs taken: August 2007

t 01 387 252857

mailto:[email protected]

2. I"?* * ..

d n m U -

.% N m * % a U a

s a

a 9 3

U

D v

6 B z 2 N w

9 3

h .. U 3 e

a 9 s

C s v, 4

2 c

i

LI P

U 5 U 5

Y E

L k

W .G U

Lu E 8 a

E & Lr! O

0 01 W .G U

3

C

'2 I

FL W

(r: U U

3 Y U

v

U m Y

i" e 3

i--i 0

W - 8 w

P

5 i

i hi 3 N m U U? cd

5

Assessment of the viability of the Solway Fish F a r m - January 2009 Report by Jonathan Jowett of Brow Well Fisheries Ltd BSc Hons Introduction

I have been asked to undertake an assessment of the viability of the Solway Fish Farm as a viable business in the current and future fish farming climate. This report is being undertaken in the context of the current request by Mrs Colette Mackie to Dumfries and Galloway Council for the discharge of the section 75 agreement relating to the fish farm and Tannoch house restricting the , occupancy of the house to someone managing the fish farm.

In the course of this assessment I have; Conducted a Site Visit

Assessed the accounts spoken to the current owner

Considered the operation of this business in the light of the current and projected fisb fanning market.

Background and Credentials

A brief history of my career in trout farming will support my credentials as someone who is able to make valid comments on the current difficult situation. I first started helping at our local angling club hatchery at the age of twelve and it took very little time before I realised that this would become my vocation. After obtaining an Honours degree in Zoology in 1980, I managed a large commercial farm in Yorkshire before setting up Brow Well Fisheries Ltd, producing rainbow trout, brown trout and salmon. Over the next 27 years the company has grown organically and by acq on to become one of the UK's largest hatchery and restocking businesses and now operates from five sites, the latest purchase being The Ae Fishery, the previous sister company of the Solway Fishery. During this time I have been very active in the British Trout Association acting as a regional and sector representative for over twenty years, including several years as vice Chairman. One of the oldest aquacultural organisations is the British Trout Farmer's Restocking Association of which I have also recently been Chairman. On a EU context, our company is also active as the only UK SME to be involved in the current multi- million euro h d e d Finetish project.

I have been familiar with the operations of the Yarrow, Ae and Solway fisheries since Mr Mackie bought the Ae Fishery in 1990.

History of Solway Fishery

The Solway Fishery was built by Armistead in 1868-1873, which makes it one of the oldest trout farms in the country. However, in commercial terms this is not necessarily a good thing. The rearing requirements of young trout were not fully understood in those times, so the initial site selection by modem day standards, was poor. An entirely spring fed site, or one where sufficient quantities of spring water was available for the delicate egg and fry stages, would have been far better suited for brown trout production. Over a century of agricultural change and afforestation, has contributed to the acidification and general downgrading of the water quality resource, further

1

hindering the site’s future development and potential. The age of the farm also means that the majority of farm structures and pondskanks will require extensive maintenance, repair or renewal.

The lack of suitable hatching and early rearing facilities at Solway were not an issue when part of a larger farm grouping. The farm hatchery at Ae could provide the fry or larger “growers” to Solway and therefore considerably reduce the labour requirement at Solway. The support of other larger farms is proving to be crucial in the survival of small farms in the current economic climate.

Mr Mackie attended the first fully dedicated fish farming course developed in the country, at the Barony College, Dumfries, and after practical experience on several commercial farms initially bought the Ae Fishery at Parkgate. As a very well respected and knowledgeable figure within the industry, he then went on to acquire the Yarrow Fishery and finally the Solway Fishery in 2004. Unfortunately, a very rare explosion in the population of snails in the reservoir above the Yarrow farm resulted in the release of millions of cercariae (the larvae of the eye fluke worm) which rendered most of the stock on the farm worthless, an event that has never happened before or since. Unfortunately, the wording in the stock insurance cover also meant that this unexpected loss was not covered because the fish did not actually “die”. The resultant heavy losses then resulted in the reluctant sale of the farm.

The tragic early death of Mr Mackie in 2007 then resulted in the unavoidable sale of the Ae Fishery in 2008. This has considerable implications for the viability of the Solway fishery as a “stand alone” unit.

Comment on Solway Fishery Accounts (See Appendices)

Since Mr Mackie applied for Tannoch house in 2003/4, there have been significant and largely unexpected increases in the mnning costs of trout farms. This is reflected clearly in the accounts. The cost of fish feed has gone up roughly 40% since 2005, electricity 130%, fuel 30-50% and similarly most other expenses. Our fish prices have gone up 7% in the same period, but with fierce competition and large order discounting, the average sale price has barely moved. Placed in the context of normal inflationary pressures of 3-5% this has had a catastrophic impact on margins and profitability throughout our industry.

2006-7 proved that gross profit margins were good. However, substantial repairs and additional expenditure fundamentally undermine this situation. On old sites, repairs are often essential and cannot be readily budgeted for. I believe the inlet channel is still in need of repair. When significant volumes of water are conveyed through large underground pipes, civil engineering operations to rectify problems can prove enormously expensive. However, should the water flows be interrupted by a collapse it could easily kill all the stock on the farm.

The main farm access is a significant distance from the main road and will require constant maintenance. It is at present also in need of repair.

Predation to a value of €10-20,000 is not uncommon within the sector and I am led to believe this also had a seriously detrimental impact on sales in this period. To prevent predation by birds and mammals (principally mink and otters) requires a significant investment in stringing, netting and electrified fencing.

All these issues undermine the potential successful sale of this business.

2

Market Context and Assessment of Viability

The current trading conditions and outlook for our sector continue to be extremely challenging in the face of the current economic slowdown. This fact that Scot Trout, the largest trout farming operation in the UK consisting of twenty five farms, has recently gone into administration, bares stark testament to this fact. The Solway Fishery has been on the market now for over a year and although we (Brow Well Fisheries) purchased the Ae Fishery, our evaluation of this site was that it was no longer economically viable, even as part of a larger group. Economies of scale are becoming more important to all small businesses and in our sector can best be achieved by the sharing of labour and equipment costs and most importantly, through the bulk buying of feed. Without the cost saving synergies of a combined business operation (which it originally had when part of the Yarrow and Ae Fishery grouping), I feel that is extremely unlikely that a buyer will be found for this business. There are approximately 10 fish farms in the Dumfries and Galloway area and none have shown a serious interest in purchasing the business.

I have detailed below further problems any purchaser will face.

.

1. The fish production available from a fish farm site is intrinsically linked with both the available water flow and its quality. The low summer flows and its acidic water characteristics make the Solway Fishery a marginal site with very limited production and in the context of other modern farms it is unlikely to successfully compete in the future.

2. Trout farms require 24 hour cover every day of the year and this is yet another good reason why small stand alone sites are very costly to manage without being part of larger business groupings. In pure economic terms this means that every farm has, as an absolute minimum, to produce enough income to at least cover one full-time and one part time employee and additional cover in the inevitable case of illness. Brown trout are probably the only high value species that can be successfully grown on this site and fulfil this requirement. However, after the tragic death of Rob Mackie and subsequent loss of his knowledge, skills, experience, contacts, and ultimately moth balling of the site resulting in the loss of the existing customer base, I feel it is totally unrealistic to expect the site could be revitalised if and when the site were to start operating at a greater level again.

3. Additional accommodation for full or part time employees needs to be provided and at present no such accommodation is available. Suitable buildings exist on the site but this would require considerable additional investment.

4. Trout farms require totally dedicated, trained staff that know the site, and all likely farm problems. If the flow of water or oxygen fails, because of leaves blocking a screen, or mechanical failure for example, a very costly ‘fish kill’ results. Bear in mind that it takes 2-3 years to grow brown trout to saleable size; this could prove disastrous to any future business. Lack of personnel with experience of this site will undoubtedly have an adverse affect on any perspective buyer. It is common, in the trade, to hear experienced fish farmers talk of disaster striking every 7 years or so. Rewards therefore have to justify the risk:

5. The environmental and regulatory framework within which trout farms operate gets progressively more difficult every year. The water framework directive has massive

3 N

implications for the future operation of farms, especially with respect to abstraction, discharge, impoundment, screening and water quality parameters. All these issues will impair the farm from operating with the same freedoms and in the same way as before. Quality assurance schemes, risk assessments, and health and safety issues, all put huge cost and time burdens on small operators like Solway Fishery.

6. 1 cannot think of an alternative high value fish species that could be successfully grown on the site that would transform its present economic outlook. The use of the ponds as an angling opportunity, seems very limited, due to the large number of surrounding fisheries, and the severe predation problems once experienced in the adjacent fishery, which combined with poor angling numbers, ultimately resulted in its closure. In addition, it is my understanding that a restrictive covenant exists on the access to the Solway fishery to limit its use as a commercial angling opportunity to avoid significant increases in traffic past neighbouring houses.

7. The difficulty our group of companies had in raising finance to purchase the Ae Fishery highlights not only the current banking problems but also the risk adverse nature of lenders in the current climate. In 2006 our own business was weeks from collapse after the imposition of a potential four year quarantine zone following the discovery of a list two disease on a trout farm in our neighbouring river catchment. Fortunately, political pressure lifted the original zone designation and prevented some 30 farms, including our own, from bankruptcy. Through no fault or mismanagement of his own, Rob Mackie had several disease outbreaks in the years prior to his death, not just at the Yarrow Fishery but also at the Ae Fishery and this necessitated the reluctant sale of the Yarrow Fishery, much to the detriment of the rest of the group.

8. In addition to the cost of mortalities from fish diseases, the imposition of statutory health movement controls (as previously mentioned) by the authorities can have catastrophic impact on aquacultural businesses and poses a major risk from a lenders perspective. Compound this with the length of time it takes to grow a marketable product and I suggest that raising money from traditional sources for such an enterprise would be extremely challenging.

9. Profitability of trout farming has been severely hit this year due to huge price increases in fish feed, electricity and fuel. A continuing oversupply situation in the trout market limits scope to fully pass on these increased costs to the customers in the near future. Poor profit margins, coupled with the lack of experienced and qualified farm stockmen, and eager personnel wishing to enter the trade, would make it very hard to re-establish a small trout farm.

Conclusion

In conclusion I must reiterate that in my opinion the Solway Fishery has no commercial future and as such feel that in these unusual and tragic circumstances the section 75 agreement on Tannoch House is no longer reasonable nor does it serve a useful purpose at this time.

P

4

Appendix 3

Solway Fish Farm accounts for 2005 f 06/07 prepared by Carson and Trotter Chartered Accountants.

13

123 lrish street DMlMo. DG1 ZPE

MO1 387 269595 far01387 250017

Q l l ~ ~ ~ 3 b: r h LP-19 1-l Chartered Accountants Info@carrontrotter CO uk

FIRST CLASS Mrs D Mackay Smiths Gore 12 Bernard Street Edinburgh EH6 6PY

WRREF 573lGGMlKF

YOURREF DMK/SD11014675

DATE 1 Om March 2009

Dear Mrs Mackay

I refer to your letter of 16' September 2008 and to various telephone conversations subsequent to that letter and am pleased to report that we have now been able to complete the accounts for Solway Fishery for the period up to 5th April 2008.

I enclose a schedule which shows the actual results for the various periods of trading and would draw your attention to the fact that the farm has traded at a loss throughout.

Due to the death of Mr hlackie we have been unable to determine the number of fish scld in the various periods but the accounts reflect the financial results of the trading activities.

We would bring your attention to the fact that in the period up to 5lh April 2008, the opening stock was brought in at selling price rather than cost. The accounts figures are shown in column A on the attached schedule. We have also appended as column B on the attached schedule what the figures would have been had the figures been prepared on the same basis as earlier yeas.

With regard to the general position of the Solway Fishery, we would make the following points:-

1. The expertise which Mr Mackie had is no longer available on the farm. In order to replace that expertise, it would be necessary to employ a knowledgeable manager.

2. In order to run the farm efficiently, we believe that in addition to a manager a full time assistant would be required, plus perhaps an extra half man to provide holiday cover. The farm requires man power seven days per week all year round. It is estimated that the cost of these salaries might total around f35,000 per annum.

3. In order to run the farm efficiently, the employees would need to be provided with accommodation. No such accommodation is available.

contd.. . .

f;

14.5 12.5 12.5 Year to Months to Months to Months to :1/12/2005 ---- 16/03/2007 05/04/2008 05/04/2008

A B f f f f 68,763 80.768 33,675 33,675 15,240 15.817 33,605 25.189

53,523 64,951 70 8.486

2.

I

573lGGMIKF

1 Oth March 2009

89,604 77,024 36,139

4. General maintenance is currently being carried out free of charge by Mrs Mackie and friends.

5. The intake channel is in need of repair.

6. The farm suffers badly from predation and a substantial sum needs to be spent on renewing stringing, fencing and other works in order to reduce the loss of fish to predators.

7. The access road is in need of repair.

Given the figures on the attached schedule and the foregoing facts it appears to me that Solway Fishery does not appear to be a viable business.

I trust the foregoing will he of some Essistance to you, but please do not hesitate to get back to either myself or Mrs Mackie should you require any further information.

Yours sincerely

36,139

Sales Purchases

Gross Profit

GP %

Expenses Wages Rates 8 insurance Heat 8 Light Repairs Printing, adverts. postage etc Telephone Motor 8 travel Accountancy fees Bank charges 8 interest Hire Purchase interest Sundry expenses Bank Interest received Haulage Building repairs Fencing 8 drainage Road repairs Hire of equipment De-vegetation works Medicines Oxygen Water testing Subscriptions 8 levies Protective clothing Book keeping Depreciation Bank loan interest

G G Morton Profit per Accounts

78%

7,795 1,069 3,074 14.815 718

1,523 5.017 980

1,330 533 656

80 13,704 3.302 4,902 310

10.540 1,022 303 527 100 261 590

10,150 6,303

80%

11,073 1,570 6,530 16,414 512

2.068 7,633 2.620 3,669 667 899

1,400

430 2,142 262 373 542 185 365 368

9.685 7,617

0%

9,703 2.407 4,035 584 525

1.505 3.884 407 394

159 -154

343

580

22 301 189

11,255

25%

9.703 2,407 4,035 584 525

1,505 3,884 407 394

159 -154

343

580

22 301 189

11,255

I -36,081 -12.073 -36.0691 -27,653

Notes:- The results of the final period were distorted by f8.416 representing the revaluation of opening stock to selling price. Column A shows the figures per the accounts. Column B shows what the figures would have been if the stock had not been revalued.

Accounting periods Column 1 represents accounts to the normal accounting year of 31st December Column 2 represents accounts to the date of death of Robert Mackie Columns 3 and 4 represent accounts of the Executry to the tax year end of 5th April

Copyright all rights reserved Dumfries Council LA...

Documents

Transcript of Copyright all rights reserved Dumfries Council LA...