Friday March 27th 2026
Scottish Borders Council headquarters
Written by Local Democracy Reporter, Paul Kelly
A motion calling for a feasibility study into the introduction of community wardens to address dog fouling, littering and fly-tipping in the Scottish Borders has been defeated amid accusations of “political grand-standing”.
Hawick & Hermitage SNP councillor Annette Smart told members of Scottish Borders Council that concerns around the condition of public spaces was an issue regularly raised by constituents.
She asked that officers undertake a “proportionate review” of options for enhancing the council’s ability to maintain clean and welcoming towns and villages for residents, visitors, and local businesses.
An amendment against the motion was placed on the agenda by Conservative council leader Euan Jardine, who said a warden team could be costly and ineffective.
Independent Leaderdale & Melrose councillor David Parker described the motion as “nothing more than political grand-standing”.
He said: “In the last ten years this council had a warden service.
“It reviewed the service on multiple occasions and it took the decision to withdraw the warden service because it was incredibly expensive to operate, the results were extremely poor in a rural areas and the inadequate legislation on dog fouling approved by the Scottish Government meant that most of the fixed notice penalty notices issued were never paid.
“People who allow their dogs to foul aren’t too bothered about paying a £60 fine and the cost of trying to recover that in the courts were absolutely ridiculous.
“I certainly don’t think we should be bothering our officers with this grand-standing electioneering motion.”
SNP Tweeddale East councillor Marshall Douglas responded.
He said: “I am disappointed by Councillor Parker’s remarks. This motion is in no sense electioneering. It’s simply asking for a review.
“We should obviously welcome Councillor Parker’s comments on political grand-standing because he does appear to be the acknowledged expert on that.”
The amendment against the motion was passed by 18 votes to 10.
Tweet Share on Facebook
