First, I apologise for my lateness in arriving this morning. As many of us will be aware, having three small children in the house often jeopardises your plans for when you intend to leave, and it was no different this morning.
I have drafted my thoughts in my notes, and I will read from them. I will be as concise as I can be.
I thank the committee for inviting me to give evidence. This is new to me—I have not done it before. As I say, I have gathered my thoughts in my notes and will refer to them throughout the meeting. I acknowledge the work that Jo Guest and Hugh Grierson have undertaken and their commitment to the maintenance of their land. Similarly, I take seriously my responsibility to protect my modest ownership, which is why I am sitting here today, setting out my objections.
I live in my property on Eden Square with my wife and three small children, having moved there in 2010 after having lived in Dunblane for some time. I was unaware of the pow and of the Pow of Inchaffray Drainage Act 1846 when we moved in, but, like the committee, I have become very familiar with the pow, its purpose and some of the history associated with its inception, construction and subsequent maintenance.
I am not a farmer or a landowner like Jo and Hugh, but I worked in a land-based industry for more than 20 years, dealing with land use change on a significant scale and its consequential effects on the water environment. Although I am not a hydrologist, nor do I pretend to be an expert on such matters, I have knowledge and experience of drainage and flooding matters.
Before I set out my objection in detail, I wish to make some broad points in summary. I maintain my objection to the bill and believe that it would require substantial amendment before it could be considered acceptable to be passed into law. I consider the bill to be unfair, disproportionate and lacking in any evidence base. It will confer significant power on a small group of landowners who are very much the minority of those covered by the bill.
Two very different types of people appear to be affected by the bill: the landowners, who run businesses on their land and who undertake a range of agricultural activity that is supported by Government subsidy, and the householders, who own modest plots of land and likely have no or little knowledge or interest in land management issues. That is a key problem with the bill and the process up to today. There are two very different types of owners but the bill attempts to take a one-size-fits-all approach.
It is my understanding that 73 per cent of the heritors live on the Balgowan estate, so I am part of the majority. The valuation amounts under the current act amount to approximately £20,000 per year, and the Balgowan householders are charged £8,100, which is 40 per cent of the total amount. My neighbours and I make up 73 per cent of the heritors and are charged 40 per cent of the total cost, yet the balance of power in the bill is retained by a small group of landowners.
10:15
I will now address in detail my objection and the reasons for it. The bill details the land that is identified as benefiting from the pow, but there needs to be a complete and detailed reassessment of the “benefited land” so that it is clear who benefits and how they benefit. Only once that has been done can the cost of the identified benefit be calculated. The promoters have stated that they consider that the original survey of 1846 remains valid in its identification of the benefited land, but I disagree with that. There have been three obvious changes since 1846 that will have affected the pow, which I will detail briefly.
First, there have been housing developments in the vicinity of the pow since 1846, with varying degrees of mitigation. For example, the Balgowan housing estate was constructed only after the land was built up—the level of the land was raised—as committee members will have seen on their site visit. The Balgowan houses are obviously higher than the top of the pow bank and the fields to the north, downstream and upstream.
Secondly, agricultural practice has changed radically since 1846, and the benefits and impacts of agricultural practice are now very different. For example, intensive ploughing of the fields will have a greater impact on the pow, as significant volumes of silt enter the pow after ploughing takes place.
Thirdly, the pow itself has changed significantly since 1846. For example, the bed of the pow was lowered at Dollerie bridge in 1995. The committee may remember that we stopped at that bridge on the public road during the site visit and looked over it to see a tremendous drop into the pow—a much bigger drop than you would have expected. Members may also remember that we had to dodge the cars as they drove over the bridge. That is certainly ingrained in my memory.
The note for the heritors’ meeting on 2 March 2015 details the changes that have been made to the pow since 1846. It states:
“The availability of powerful 360 degree excavators has enabled the Pow to be significantly improved, particularly over the last 25 years”.
The landscape has changed radically since 1846; therefore, a new assessment is required to see who benefits and how they benefit.
I have come to the conclusion that my property receives no direct benefit from the pow and that, therefore, it should be removed from the benefited land identified in the bill. I do not have any direct relationship with the pow and I do not receive any direct benefit; therefore, my property should be removed from the benefited land and I should not be charged. Numerous other properties do not have a direct relationship with the pow and should also be removed from the benefited land.
I do not release anything into the pow—there is no discharge from my property that goes directly into the pow. I release neither foul drainage nor surface water into the pow. I re-emphasise the point to the committee: I do not release anything into the pow and I have no direct relationship with it. Therefore, why am I included and to be charged? I appreciate that those points may lead to some questions, and I will be happy to discuss them later.
I do not benefit from any flood protection from the pow. I have repeatedly made that point and, so far, no evidence or information has been provided to prove my assessment wrong. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency flood map shows clearly that my house is not considered to be in a flood risk zone. The commission has stated over and over again that my house is at risk from flooding yet has not provided any evidence to support that position. I have reached the conclusion that there is no evidence to support that statement; the question remains why it was made in the first place.
Let me summarise the first part of my objection. I believe that my home should be removed from the category of “benefited land” as I do not release anything into the pow and my home is not at risk from flooding. Those appear to be the two benefits identified by the bill, yet they do not directly affect my house. Therefore, I should not be charged and nor should many of my neighbours in both new and old Balgowan, who equally do not benefit from the pow. Why should I be charged for something that I do not do?
The second part of my objection relates to funding—specifically, a cap on an increase to the annual charge. However, the issue is relevant to me only if my property is included in the benefited land, which, as I say, it should not be. I maintain that there should be a cap to prevent significant increases in annual pow charges. My objection is largely fuelled by the balance of power in the bill—the fact that all the power will be reserved to a small group of landowners—and the lack of transparency on funding and costs.
The bill will give a small group of landowners the ability to increase my annual charge to whatever they see fit without any reference to me. I will have no control over what I will be asked to pay, and I will have no ability to review the costs, let alone challenge them, which I believe is fundamentally wrong. I understand that the residents of Balgowan equate to 73 per cent of the heritors. Despite that, we—the majority—will be told what to pay and will have to blindly accept that, which is unfair.
There appears to be a lack of transparency in the process, and there is no protection against conflicts of interest. There appears to be no provision for securing the best possible deal for any of the heritors through a fair and open tendering process for the work. Therefore, I am deeply worried about what charges will be added to my annual bill. For the landowners and their farm businesses, the pow charge is a business expense that will ultimately reduce their tax burden. However, I do not have that luxury, nor can I claim the VAT back as many of the farms can if they are VAT registered.
Although the sums that are talked about at this stage might be low, there is the potential that, in the future, the commission may wish to create a very large reserve of funds and I would have to keep paying. Alternatively, it may wish to undertake some very large capital works, such as bank reinforcement, which might be unnecessary, and I would have to keep paying. There is no protection for me against the wishes of the landowning commissioners and their desires for their land. I will have to subsidise the landowners for the works on their land, which might or might not be needed. I will not be able to challenge any such decision; the matter will be decided among the commissioners, who happen to be the farmers who will benefit the most. I do not believe that to be fair, and I believe it to be wrong.
The bill is highly vulnerable to the whims of future commissioners, which might be entirely inappropriate and might result in highly expensive works that cost everyone but are not needed. I make it clear that the view that I have expressed is not a comment on any of the existing commissioners; it is about the need for future proofing.
The third part of my objection relates to previously unpaid bills. I maintain my view that, as the 1846 act is to be repealed and replaced, calculations made under that act are null and void, so those costs should not be pursued.
That concludes my explanation of the three key points in my objection and the detail of why I have objected. Thank you for listening to those points. I will be happy to take questions and to be examined on what I have said.