A CHARITY dedicated to protecting Scotland’s architectural heritage has urged Scottish Borders Council to avoid demolishing an historic country house.

Last month it emerged that the local authority’s “preferred” option was to flatten Lowood House, situated on the banks of the River Tweed near Melrose.

But in a letter to all Borders councillors, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (AHSS) says every effort should be made to “retain, repair and adapt” the 19th century building.

The letter, signed off by James Seabridge-Cooper, convener of the Forth and Borders cases panel, states: “The AHSS urges Scottish Borders councillors to continue the item regarding the proposal to demolish Lowood House, a non-designated historic environment asset and postpone making any decision on the future of the Lowood House, pending the preparation of a conservation plan and exploration of other options, for example, retaining the house for letting to groups.

READ MORE: Gala born Antiques Roadshow expert Judith Miller dies aged 71 after short illness

“Lowood House is presently a local asset, presumably worth at least £1m even without its wider estate, and to spend £450,000 destroying a £1m asset seems a significant waste of taxpayers’ resources.

“This is exactly the kind of place large groups of tourists seek to rent by the week, so if the report does not mention using it as single occupancy accommodation, it is a serious omission from the research.”

The council bought the estate nearly five years ago as part of its expansion plans in Tweedbank. The local authority is considering a number of options for Lowood House.

But its favoured choice is to demolish the building to free up land for much-needed housing.

The current annual running costs for Lowood House, not including the cost of repairs, is approximately £20,000.

At a meeting in March, Leaderdale and Melrose councillor John PatonDay suggested it might be worth putting the house on the market with a fixed cut-off date.

READ MORE: Reports ordered into Borders man who admitted stalking former partner

He said: “There would be nothing to lose in doing that and if a private developer has got the courage to take it on, then why not? The building has not been extended sympathetically but I think it deserves just a little respect for its life and what life has been in it.”

Fellow councillor David Parker said: “The house is not a particularly great architectural feature. The original house is nice but it was extended on two occasions and it’s one of those times when someone has improved their house and yet they haven’t improved it.

“If you were to go inside it is a strange mixture of rooms and in many respects demolition as an option would be worthwhile because the land you would free up and the land it is linked to could provide more social housing or more community facilities or create a much better environmental area.”

A report last month stated that the sale as a private house would result in the “loss of control of a key area”. An all-options report on the future of Lowood House is set to be brought to the council’s executive committee.