Based on this evidence, SMAG’s approach to the treatment of contamination would be as far as possible to leave well alone. The logic behind this is that any contaminants are leaching away in a harmless dilution, and should continue to do so. Any disturbance to the site would pose the threat of mobilisation of chemicals currently buried under mature and semi-mature woodland, and consequent pollution of ground water, which may find its way into the North Esk.

The TJP report does highlight inadequacies of the 1992 survey. Issues of concern are the presence of asbestos on the site, contamination associated with the former gasworks and ground water contamination. The report addresses all of these, but points to the need for further modest survey work to ensure the method statement proposed is adequate for dealing with contaminants.

The use of the site for housing would appear to increase the likelihood that contaminants would be mobilised. In this case, the threat to the river, and the need to ensure homes & gardens were safe, would require a far more substantial, and costly, de-contamination exercise.

It seems likely that SEPA will prefer SMAG’s proposal, since it gives the minimum total environmental impact. Aware of the broad support the project is receiving, SEPA (Ian Fossard) have asked for a copy of the TJP report (which we will supply) in order to give written feedback.

An undeveloped site continues to represent a safe containment area for flood water in the event of further slippage from Hewan Bank SSSI. We note that some of the bund proposals needed for a housing development may, if implemented, protect a new development, but could be detrimental to the existing housing of Polton village and other parts of the valley.

Again, it appears that SEPA will prefer the SMAG proposal, especially in the light of the new guidelines in NPG 7, since it retains the existing flood plain for the North Esk AGLV.

SMAG foresee future management of the site being undertaken by a partnership. The letters attached detail the many organisations who have already offered their support for our project. Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Edinburgh Green Belt Trust have indicated the possibility of financial aid, and an interest in future advisory roles; whilst SWT have also offered practical help through their training teams. SWT (Alistair Somerville) have verbally indicated their willingness to enter into a site management agreement.

SMAG believe we have a capable team, and our work so far demonstrates this. Our vision is of a partnership where we combine our strengths with those of the Council, SWT, SNH, EGBT and other interested parties.

We do not feel we can proceed much further with our ideas here without the credibility provided by the Council’s backing.

The ownership of the former Springfield Mill site will be a matter for negotiation. The area not owned by the council has little value in isolation.

SMAG is formalising its structure, so it can attract charitable status and become the site owner for the initial phase of the work, if necessary. We have attached a description of the steps in the SMAG organisation. We currently have 72 adult & 19 junior fully paid up members.

The plan for the future management of the site is included. It is very long term, with an eventual goal being in common with the priority for the Biodiversity Action Group, namely to recreate an oak/elm woodland in a few hundred years time. Footpaths and woodlands on the site must be maintained to ensure they do not become dangerous. Local interest, co-ordinated through SMAG, regular tree surveys with funding through the community grants available for footpath work & woodland management will ensure long term safety.

These are contained in the Turnbull Jeffrey report. They may open out the scope of the project to include a wide range of community interests. We have found one "funder" who will supply topsoil.

Dealing with the contamination, along with more extensive landscaping has increased the cost, relative to our initial proposal of £100k. Using a phased approach, to match the level & timing of funding attracted, a sum in the region of £140k would be adequate to address the most urgent work.

Approximately £10-15k of this amount is to deal with the area not owned by the council.

We have attached a table listing the many potential sources of funding we have identified. As we are sure you appreciate, it is difficult to pursue this issue too far when we are unable to say if / when we will get ownership of the land. Several major funders have expressed interest, even though their immediate budgets have been allocated.

We hope that you can see from the material we have provided, that we have the enthusiasm to pursue funding once the project has been given the green light.

As recent press coverage indicates, there is a lot of interest in sites associated with the North Esk Valley. Letters of support have been received from the following organisations:

Scottish Wildlife Trust
Scottish Natural Heritage
RSPB
Edinburgh Green Belt Trust
The Woodland Trust
Lasswade District Civic Society
Loanhead Conservation and Environment Group
Roslin Heritage Society

These seven issues are those you asked about, and largely focus on the potential problems with the SMAG proposal. We’d like to take the opportunity to re-state that we consider our proposal to be a better deal than housing, both for the people and wildlife of Midlothian. The proposal is aligned with the April 1999 EGBT report "The River North Esk Way", which has designation of the whole valley as an AGLV as its top priority. This is what the local community want.

The concerns over road safety associated with housing on this site remain.

This package represents a concerted effort from a number of people within SMAG, supported by a growing number of local people & supportive groups. We hope it provides sufficient information to result in the Springfield Mill / Glenesk House policies to be removed from the Local Plan as being zoned for housing development.