Remote [Building] Control

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

More than 80 applications for building control warrants lodged by developers with Scottish Borders Council were processed by local government officers based 170 miles away in Lochgilphead, Argyll & Bute.

The "somewhat unusual" arrangement which covered a three month period from October 2018 through to January 2019 was reached in a bid by SBC to overcome a staffing shortage in its Building Control section. 

As a result, the Borders local authority paid Angus & Bute Council more than £28,000 to handle 82 warrants - equivalent to £341 per individual case.

In a Freedom of Information response earlier this year, SBC revealed it had made two payments to Argyll & Bute of £17,080 and £11,253 on January 4th 2019 and March 1st 2019 respectively, but did not specify why the money had changed hands.

Subsequently, Argyll & Bute Council, in response to a FOI submitted to them, confirmed the two payments were for ‘Processing of Building Warrants’.

SBC was then invited to supply details concerning the payments in a follow-up FOI request. That request asked: 1- Please supply details of any other payments made by Scottish Borders Council to Argyll & Bute Council for the processing of building warrants. 2 – When did the arrangement with Argyll & Bute for this service begin and how long is it expected to last? 

3 – How many building warrants have officers from Argyll & Bute processed for SBC so far? 4 – Why was it necessary to outsource building warrant work in the first place, and why was Argyll & Bute Council selected when its HQ is 170 miles from St Boswells – an excessive distance for site visits with considerable travel costs?

Scottish Borders Council answered each question in turn, as follows:

1 – None other than listed previously.

2 –The first Building Warrant file was sent to Argyll and Bute Council on 25.10.2018. The last file was sent on 10.01.2019 and as such, effectively the service ended on the 10th January this year. 

Two files do however await conclusion and will remain with Argyll and Bute until they are either resolved or refused. Unresolved Building Warrant applications remain open for a nine month period following issue of the first technical report.

3 – 82.

4 – At the time of engaging Argyll and Bute Council, SBC had gone through an extensive period of staff loss and recruitment. This had culminated and resulted in Building Warrant application turnaround times that did not serve our customers well and were failing national targets.

Using another local authority to undertake warrant processing resolved the issue until such time as the service was back up to a full complement of staff.

Argyll and Bute Council were selected as they were an experienced local authority who could provide the service required. Using a local authority also meant the assessments were still independently carried out.

The location of the provider chosen has no bearing on time or cost. It was only the warrant assessment process being contracted out.

No site visits were necessary and post approval site inspections on these files are still undertaken by Scottish Borders Council. File transfer was all carried out electronically through the Scottish Government national portal.

A council insider commented: "This somewhat unusual temporary arrangement came at a time when building warrant applications were taking an age to process with a risk that developments could be seriously delayed.

"Perhaps this type of inter-council co-operation is something which could be looked at again in future although perhaps any link could be with a local authority a bit nearer to hand than Argyll & Bute".

SB Cares is only the latest 'business' failure

by OUR INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

The recommendation to kill off SB Cares, the arms length company set up by Scottish Borders Council to deliver adult social care follows an almost identical debacle in faraway Buckinghamshire with a similar range of services having to be rescued from potential meltdown.

And the link between the Borders and Bucks is much closer than appears at first sight. For in both cases the plans which led to out-sourcing with such far-reaching consequences were partly hatched by the same firm of consultants, Care and Health Solutions.

Within the last few weeks companies called Buckinghamshire Cares Ltd. and Buckinghamshire Supports Ltd have been dissolved, their functions having been taken back in-house by Buckinghamshire County Council who 'externalised' them in the first place.

On Thursday of this week members of SBC are expected to approve taking back services currently run by SB Cares Ltd and SB Supports Ltd with both companies - formed by the council in 2015 - to be dissolved like their Bucks counterparts. It seems setting up special vehicles to handle some of the most sensitive and vital services in local government is fraught with risk and uncertainty.

Our research reveals that Borders and Buckinghamshire followed very similar paths to failure.

Buckinghamshire Care was established in October 2013 as a limited company known as a Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Buckinghamshire County Council. It employed 394 staff (approximately 250 Full Time Equivalents). 

Council members were assured in a report dated June 2013 that: "The LATC is forecast to generate a cumulative surplus of £600,355 at the end of the fifth year of trading. The total investment cost is circa £400,000 for set-up costs. The total cumulative benefit to the Council over 5 years of establishing the new company is £2,354,692."

So how did that pan out?

The last full accounts for the Bucks LATCs covering 2016 stated: "As a result of continuing losses, additional funding was provided by the company's sole ultimate shareholder, Buckinghamshire County Council in the form of a working capital loan. The balance of the loan stood at £1.749 million on 31st December 2016.

"In late 2016 the county council decided that it was in the best interests of clients, staff and suppliers to retake direct control of all of the services that were transferred to the group in October 2013." 

Financial returns for Buckinghamshire Supports showed a loss of £1.234 million had been incurred for 2016 and £1.210 million in 2015.Yet when the fledgling Buckinghamshire Care Ltd advertised for senior staff in 2013 potential applicants were told the managing director's post would command a six-figure salary while the finance and commercial director would receive between £75,000 and £85,000 a year.

County councillor for Ryemead and Micklefield, Julia Wassell, called the move to return the services in-house a “good example of a crisis” and said it had the potential to be “disruptive” to staff, service users and carers, despite reassurances from the council that it would not be.

She said: “It is a good thing that the county council has taken it back in-house but the question remains whether it should have been outsourced in the first place." 

The sheer scale of the issues facing Buckinghamshire's social care LATCs was set out in a report to the county council by Trevor Boyd, its managing director for Communities, Health and Adult Social Care.

He wrote: "The Council has lost confidence in Buckinghamshire Care Ltd’s ability to manage and deliver services to the high standards it requires. It decided that it was in the best interests of service users and their families to bring the services and eligible staff back 'in-house', while a longer term solution is considered.  Notification of the termination of the contract needed to be provided immediately to enable the Council to take the necessary steps to ensure that the appropriate governance and financial arrangements are put in place to secure the sustainability of services."

Mr Boyd added : "Over the last year there have been a number of operational issues related to leadership, financial management and more recently service quality.

"Service Quality - The Council lost confidence in Buckinghamshire Care Ltd’s ability to work to its required standards when, in November 2016, it was made aware that a number of operational and quality issues first raised by the Care Quality Commission during an inspection of one of their regulated services run by Buckinghamshire Care Ltd in April 2016 (Seeleys House) had not been satisfactorily rectified and were still in evidence.

"Despite the Council taking decisive remedial action to ensure services were able to continue in line with the standards it expects (this included additional staffing and training) the Council does not have the confidence that quality services will be delivered consistently. This poses a potential risk to the safety and wellbeing of our service users. With this knowledge the Council feels unable to leave delivery of care services under the management of Buckinghamshire Care Ltd."

"Resource Implications - There will be some one-off costs (£364,000) relating to bringing Bucks Care back in-house. These costs mainly relate to ICT expenditure which had been capitalised and was being charged to the profit & loss account over a 5-year period. Additional gross recurrent costs (£594,000) will be incurred relating to pension costs. Although no disruption to services is anticipated we have sent reassurance letters to all service users, carers and parents explaining our decision to terminate Buckinghamshire Care Ltd’s contract and transfer services to Buckinghamshire County Council."

Scottish Borders Council has taken similar steps within the last few days. But to claim the switch to in-house is merely administrative must surely be challenged.

The Buckinghamshire 'model' was one of those included in a 2014 options appraisal report which SBC commissioned from Care and Health Solutions. The firm of specialist consultants had previously been involved in the set up and implementation of Buckinghamshire Cares.

SBC was told by the consultants: "The [Borders] review and analysis is based on the knowledge and expertise within the CHS consultancy and our experience of alternative service delivery model implementations with other Local Authorities in both Scotland and England. This assessment is based on our extensive experience in designing and implementing alternative delivery models such as LATCs and comparing these successful externalised bodies with those in scope in this appraisal."

And this was another message included in the appraisal report: "Historic attempts to reduce costs have often resulted in reducing service provision. This “salami-slicing” of services has been seen to reduce quality and capacity of services to the point of extinction and is generally accepted as a non-viable option. Experience in implementing and managing recently launched vehicles evidences a cultural change in the new company that leads to a “team environment” and a sense of individual responsibility towards colleagues and the organisation as a whole."

Perhaps Scottish Borders Council and Buckinghamshire County Council should compare notes...while external auditors might wish to investigate the circumstances surrounding the SB Cares collapse.

SB Cares still a winner, according to designers' website

by DOUG COLLIE

The directors of the firm which convinced Scottish Borders Council it should transfer adult social care services to a soon to be liquidated arms length organisation continue to promote SB Cares as a successful case study in a bid to win business from other clients.

Care and Health Solutions (CHS) devote an entire page on their website to their part in the creation of the Borders Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) including a glowing quote from a senior officer at SBC who describes the project as "a major success".

It seems news of the impending demise of SB Cares - Borders councillors are expected to vote it out of existence this Thursday - has yet to reach Russell Thompson, director of CHS, and the consultancy's associate director Clive Dove-Dixon who worked on the business case and implementation of the SBC's malfunctioning ALEO.

As reported here and in the local media the problems and issues facing SB Cares is forcing councillors who voted for its establishment in 2015 to now sanction taking the services back in house, a move which can only be regarded as embarrassing for all involved.

But that is certainly not the impression given by the project's drivers at CHS who claim to have carried out similar appraisals and carried out other work on social care for 24 councils throughout the UK.

The story of SB Cares is portrayed in a very upbeat manner and tells how the project team dealt with "challenging media enquiries and challenging trade union relationships" along the way.

According to CHS: "In late 2013 the commissioners and directors of Adult Social Care in the Scottish Borders were facing serious problems in relation to their In-House Provider Services, which included, Older Peoples Residential, OP and LD Day Centres, a Homecare Service and a Community Equipment Store with telecare monitoring.

"The problems that they were facing were not untypical of most councils, including drastic budget costs to be made, increasing numbers of personal budget-holders, a weak private sector that was vulnerable to failure and an expensive workforce with low morale from continual service re-designs and management reorganisations. The senior management team recognised that the Members needed to see a comprehensive and independent appraisal of how these services could be transformed so they could continue to be delivered for the benefit of residents and at best value to the Council."

The Council decided to commission Care and Health Solutions Ltd to prepare and deliver an independent appraisal of the options available to their services. It is claimed CHS were selected for this work as their experience in this area of adult social care was extensive and they and had worked with over 10% of the councils in the UK on the future of their adult social care services.

CHS's report recommended that the services be transferred into an LLP and also included an indicative timeline and project plan for the implementation of the selected option. 

"The recommendation was accepted as the LLP option provided the following: • The Council would still have ultimate control of the services through 100% ownership • The transfer would allow a cultural change in the services to enable better working practices and develop efficiencies • The services could provide/sell services to budget-holders and self-funders.

"Full-time senior management would provide focus and scrutiny of costs and productivity not experienced before. • All efficiencies, cost savings and income from new services would benefit the Council through reduced service costs, additional service provision or profit-share. • The LLP would be the “Provider of Last Resort” commissioned by the Council in the event of a market failure."

The web page goes on to explain"The Business Case (BC) was written for the preferred option (LLP) and involved working with a wider group of stakeholders over several months, investigating the preferred option in more detail and building a report that was robust enough for the Members to be able to justify their decision to implement and launch the LLP.

"The detailed BC was scrutinised and tested by the Corporate Finance team, the Commissioners, Procurement and the Legal department. The ultimate sign-off was given by the Section 95 Officer (equivalent of S151 Officer in England and Wales) and was a legal requirement before implementation could be started."

In SBC's case the so-called Section 95 Officer happens to be the council's head of finance whose report to council this week recommends the radical move to bring the SB Cares functions back under full control of the local authority.

CHS go on to write: "The project created, registered, named and branded a new company, written and signed complicated Partnership Agreements, undertook detailed consultation with 800 staff and created almost as many new email accounts. The project team designed, built and published a new company website and moved into a new head office, wrote new leases and sent letters to over 3000 clients."

Philip Barr, Interim Managing Director of SB Cares and Depute Chief Executive at SBC is quoted as saying: "The implementation of SB Cares has been a major success from both the Council’s and the Company’s point of view. There is no doubt that this result would not have been possible without the advice, knowledge and involvement of Clive and Russ from CHS. Their experience helped the project make the right decisions at the right times and their continual reminder of timelines and deadlines ensured the project was delivered on schedule.” 

Will councillors vote for 'not viable' option?

by EWAN LAMB

The continued in-house provision of Borders adult care services is not viable in the medium and longer term, concluded a firm of consultants hired by Scottish Borders Council back in 2014.

Wolverhampton-based Care and Health Solutions [CHS] warned the council's direct provision of home care by its workforce of 850 carers with an annual budget of £17 million "would be likely to lead to an ongoing rationalisation of services and these services would therefore be vulnerable as a target for savings through service reductions."

The quality of service was bound to deteriorate and there could be a requirement to close facilities and possibly a need for 'reactive externalisation'. The CHS written appraisal of the in-house set up contained a bright red-coloured warning that it was 'not viable'.

However, it looks as though all of those dire predictions will be conveniently ignored later this week when SBC's elected members are being invited to plump for the in-house option to rescue the service. It follows the failings of SB Cares, the arms length company handed the adult care contract when councillors voted for its formation on the recommendation of their senior officers.

As we reported a few days ago virtually the same management team is now advocating the taking back of the crucial service into full council control after predicted savings were not achieved and the promised upgrade in services never materialised. And the malfunctioning business - known as a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) - which emerged from CHS paperwork seems certain to be dissolved before the end of 2019.

Based on the CHS appraisal there could be serious issues ahead should council members sanction the in-house option.

Here's what the consultants had to say about in-house in their appraisal report setting out the choices available in January 2014: "In the current climate and given the service has already undergone reconfiguration and cost saving exercises, this option is unlikely to achieve value for money and will struggle to achieve savings and cannot generate external income. 

"Whilst this option allows flexibility in terms of policy initiatives and allows the Council to maintain ultimate control, it is inherently unsustainable and commercially inflexible. This option is preferable to most staff and service users, as there is a perceived level of job and service security. Achieving future savings will require significant reconfiguration of services which is likely to require the closure of some existing provision."

 And there was much more in the CHS document. It continued: "Financial and demographic pressures and consequential top down Government policy means that to continue in-house provision is not viable in the medium to longer term.

"As the Government follows its ambitions to increase the number of Direct Payment service users, the Council will ultimately bear the cost of both running a service and paying out Direct Payments which service users may not be prepared to pay the high cost. Eventually, the need to make savings will result in a stripped down service where quality is compromised and service user needs are unmet. 

"The benefit of this option would be a continuation of ‘business as usual’ and this enables the SBC to remain a direct provider and could continue to facilitate the management of the modernisation agenda. However, this would be likely to lead to an ongoing rationalisation of services and these services would therefore be vulnerable as a target for savings through service reductions. 

"This in turn could lead to a reactive externalisation not necessarily in a planned or productive manner which may not be in the best interests of the Council. Creating an internal business model either through zero based budgeting or creating a Direct Services Organisation will not deal with the inherent structural issues of providing the services from within the Council nor provide the appropriate commercial culture needed to achieve the required outcomes."

So clearly a high risk option, in CHS's view. As one local government observer put it: "If the in-house set-up was close to meltdown in 2014 then surely it must be far more dangerous now as demand grows and the number of elderly folks living in Scottish Borders rises. Will clients be faced with service cuts in the not too distant future, as forecast by CHS?"

It should be remembered that the council was told in no uncertain terms: "Doing nothing is not an option - without significant change the results will be increased costs and reduced service provision to residents of the Borders.

"The new organisation (SB Cares) will be more business focussed. It will not have to pay any Corporation Tax and will be able to maximise VAT opportunities available to SBC.

"The additional benefits from the new service are not available to the Council services as it is illegal for any council to deliberately sell its services at a surplus. The LLP has a legal right to sell services at a surplus."

Then came another panning for the in-house system in June 2014 when a full council meeting approved the LLP Business Case which included the following: "Without a significant change in approach and the application of a more balanced business-focussed approach to these service areas, costs will continue to increase, efficiency opportunities will not be maximised and fewer people will buy Council Services through Self Directed Support. This in turn will lead to reductions in service quality and availability and less future choice for service users and carers." 

The thick volume of evidence virtually outlawing in-house provision of adult social care surely makes it difficult if not impossible to justify the complete U-turn now being contemplated.

SB Cares - an abject failure in all but name?

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

SB Cares, the much troubled arms length company (ALEO) set up by Scottish Borders Council to deliver adult care services only four years ago will be wound up in December with its functions taken back in-house if councillors rubber-stamp recommendations at a meeting next week.

A fair sprinkling of those elected members will have previously voted on three separate occasions in 2014 and 2015 to set up the ALEO with 850 staff who transferred from SBC to join SB Cares which required £1.8 million in set-up and marketing costs.

The bombshell report to next Thursday's full council meeting from the chief executive's department falls short of admitting the ALEO set up has been a dismal failure. But questions should be asked as to why it was set up in the first place with all of the accompanying upheaval for staff and clients.

Heavy emphasis is placed on the contents of a recent report on the function and performance of Scottish ALEOs by Audit Scotland, the spending watchdog.

The SBC report says: "Audit Scotland noted that the operating context under which ALEOs deliver services does change, and that the original rationale for their establishment may weaken over time.

"Audit Scotland also concluded that the establishment of an arms-length ALEO is a major strategic consideration for any Council. Elected Members should therefore have a clear understanding of how their ALEOs are performing and how they fit with the Council’s culture, its overall strategic priorities and those of the local community.

"These priorities can change over the years in response to changing demographic, financial, market and political considerations. It is essential therefore that Councils regularly review their ALEOs to ensure they deliver the benefits expected and that their continued operation delivers demonstrable best value. Where this is not the case alternatives should be considered."

A detailed case is made for taking the vital adult care services back under direct council control.

According to the top officials who recommended setting up the ALEO only four years ago:"This report assesses the current operational performance, the management structures, and the effectiveness of the governance mechanisms in place to monitor SB Cares. 

"The report evaluates the additional costs and financial benefits directly attributed to the current service delivery model, with SB Cares operating as a separately managed LLP. It also identifies and evaluates the mechanisms in place to review how SB Cares is performing, to oversee the quality and safety of its services, and how the current arrangements fit with the Council’s culture and priorities and those of its partners and communities."

It concludes: "After careful consideration it is the view of the Council management team that the benefits of the ALEO structure for SB Cares no longer outweigh the challenges and risks now facing the business. These risks, which are likely to increase in future, make it appropriate for the Council to now reintegrate SB Cares LLP and SB Supports LLP into the Council."

It is recommended that It is recommended that Elected Members agree to voluntarily terminate SB Cares LLP and SB Supports LLP on 1 December 2019 and reintegrate all of the services presently directly delivered by the ALEO into the Council from that date; authorise the Chief Executive to take all necessary steps to reintegrate SB Cares within the Council management structure; including the necessary changes to personnel, financial, pensions, procurement, IT, property and legal agreements.

In a section dealing with quality of services the report explains: "Recently concerns have emerged with regards to the safety of (sic) individual some services, and the challenges of meeting the requirements of the Care Inspectorate.

"One example was exposed in 2018/19 report on Homecare Service South where the Care Inspectorate were required to repeat a previously un-actioned requirement from a previous inspection. This failure may suggest that SB Cares are increasingly struggling to maintain consistently high standards and improve services across the Borders in all of its care settings while managing the day to day requirements of this complex front line service.

"Recently visits by senior management to care homes operated by SBcares has identified that the quality of the fabric, and furnishings is not being maintained at an acceptable standard in all instances. Consequently, the Chief Executive has instructed a variety of direct interventions, including additional management capacity and instructing immediate action to improve the quality and cleanliness of the environment within care homes."

Hidden Borders Railway issues brought to light

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Scottish Government ministers do not have powers to construct a cross-border train link by extending the Borders Railway from Tweedbank to Carlisle while the UK Department for Transport (DfT) doubts the extended route with its 'slow, un-electrified' trains would do much to reduce pressures on the West Coast Main Line (WCML).

These are two of the revelations to emerge following the Scottish Government's decision to release correspondence - some of it marked 'sensitive' - relating to discussions it has had with its Westminster counterparts about an extension to the Borders rail line to Hawick and eventually into England.

A Freedom of Information request to ScotGov asked for any correspondence and documentation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government regarding a feasibility study for the extension of the Borders Railway.

The collection of emails and documents include a so-called Transport Position Paper, dated September 2018 which includes the following: "  It should also be noted that Scottish Ministers do not have the powers to construct a cross-border railway line as they only have the powers to construct a railway which starts, ends and remains in Scotland.  Accordingly, the power to construct a railway line from Tweedbank to Carlisle in its entirety would rest with the UK Government."

Any new transport infrastructure to be developed locally will be closely associated with the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal partnership made up of five local authority areas, namely Cumbria County Council, Northumberland County Council and Carlisle City Council on the English side of the border, and Scottish Borders Council together with Dumfries & Galloway Council in Scotland.

The newly released papers show the partnership wrote in June 2018 to Hamza Yousaf, then Scottish Transport Minister regarding the Borders Railway extension.

According to that letter: "The Settle-Carlisle line shows the benefits of having alternative routes to support the resilience of the rail network. The line was threatened with closure in the 1980’s but following a successful campaign to keep it open the line was reprieved in 1989. Since then the line has played a key role for re-routed main line passenger services when the West Coast or East Coast Main Lines have been closed and for freight services between Scotland/Cumbria and the rest of England.

"The Borders Railway between Carlisle and Edinburgh could be equally successful in providing this vital role as an alternative route to the West and East Coast Main Lines for freight and passenger traffic and through this help maximise the growth of the Scottish and UK economy."

However, that suggestion appears to have received short shrift from the DfT. Feedback provided by the Department in July 2018 declares: "We are not convinced an extended Borders Railway would help with capacity issues on the WCML.

"Assuming any such extension would have similar characteristics to the existing line i.e. slow and un-electrified, it would not be attractive for re-routing any of the existing services using the WCML.  Diesel hauled trains not in a hurry already go via Dumfries so having another diversionary/alternative route would not add much."

There has been a long standing proposal that each of the governments would contribute £5 million to pay for feasibility studies of rail infrastructure options.

In April 2019 Borders MP John Lamont issued a press release announcing the UK Government's commitment to the studies.

Mr Lamont said at the time: "“We need to improve transport links across the whole of the Borders and extending the Borders Railway is part of this. A full feasibility study will look in detail at the costs and benefits of bringing the railway to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle.

"I’d expect this to look at things like impact on businesses, jobs and tourism as well as the implications of getting freight off our roads. “With the UK Government now publicly backing the study, the ball is now very much in the SNP’s court."

However, the latest FOI releases suggest the UK Government at least had reservations over £10 million worth of expenditure for the feasibility study.

One of the documents contains this comment from UK officials: "Under the “Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline“ the focus of activity at the Determine Stage is to establish the case for an intervention, which means identifying both the outcomes sought for customers and considering the range of potential interventions which could deliver those benefits. This places emphasis on establishing a strategic case and £10m sounds a lot of money for the production of what amounts to a Strategic Outline Business Case."  

SBC's lamentable landfill legacy

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

Scottish Borders Council's place among the country's highest landfillers of rubbish was cemented in 2018 when the amount of waste buried in the ground even exceeded the 2011 tonnage and stood at a distinctly unimpressive 58.4% of all garbage generated by the region's households.

According to figures just published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) the Borders' 2018 percentage was the second highest in mainland Scotland, only exceeded by Glasgow City Council on 68.3%.

The Borders' consistently high annual landfill tonnages - 30,671 tonnes buried last year - should come to an end following the recent decision to award a multi-million pounds contract which will involve transporting all waste out of the region for treatment and disposal in Lanarkshire. However, hundreds of lorry movements each year will do little for air purity and will generate a significant volume of harmful emissions.

The SEPA data reveals that neighbouring councils managed to landfill far less than SBC. The table of statistics for all 32 local authorities includes Midlothian 29.4%, East Lothian 42.9%, Dumfries & Galloway 44.2%, City of Edinburgh 52.1%, Fife 42.6% and West Lothian 24.4%.

A trawl back through the numbers for previous years shows SBC landfilled 28,688 tonnes of household waste (53.3%) in 2011. The figures for the last two years were: 2017 30,593 tonnes (57.2%); 2016 30,702 tonnes (59.1%).

On the other side of the waste management coin, when it comes to recycling the Scottish Borders remains rooted close to the bottom of the national recycling league. Performance has been hampered ever since councillors sanctioned the scrapping of garden refuse collections. And the recent cut in opening hours for local recycling centres cannot have done much to boost the drive.to divert waste away from the landfill option.

In 2018 only 20,365 tonnes of collected waste (38.8% of the total) was recycled, more than a full percentage point less than was achieved in 2017 (39.9%, 21,234 tonnes). Next door Dumfries & Galloway diverted 28.4% of waste from landfill and recycled a further 22.1%.

The recycling statistics for other nearby councils included East Lothian 51.8%, Midlothian 51.4%, City of Edinburgh 44.7%, Fife 54.7% and West Lothian 48.5%.

Now it is all change after a major procurement exercise by SBC which followed the well documented and costly collapse of a waste management project in 2015.

The council announced in July that around 42,000 tonnes of municipal waste produced in the Borders each year was to be hauled by road the 50 miles from Galashiels to Forth, on the West Lothian-Lanarkshire border to be treated for disposal.

A contract award notice published by SBC informed readers "A decision was taken not to expand the Easter Langlee landfill site once its current capacity is exhausted (by mid-2019) but instead develop a new Waste Transfer Station in its place." The new station has cost £5.5 million.

The notice added: "This will enable the Authority to comply with the ban on sending biodegradable municipal waste to landfill which comes into effect from 1st January 2021 by exporting waste out of the Borders for treatment and disposal. The Authority reserves the right to take responsibility for haulage for part of the Contract Waste to the Contractors Delivery Site in order to gain benefits through utilising its own Authority Haulage Vehicles."

The contract won by Forth-based Levenseat is worth £47 million.

 As well as the multiple trips which will now be needed to Levenseat's treatment centre SBC sends its dry recyclabes on an even longer journey - to J B Recycling's premises in Hartlepool, 108 miles from Galashiels.