Chamber of secrets questioned in Peebles

A letter has been sent to all SBC councillors signed by five Peebles organisations, slamming the sole members of the management board – Tweeddale councillors Shona Haslam, Robin Tatler, Kris Chapman, Heather Anderson and Stuart Bell – for their alleged “procrastination, complacency and abrogation of responsibility” in managing the trust.

It also accuses the local authority and trustees of ignoring the wishes of William Chambers, who gifted the iconic buildings to the people of Peeblesshire.

However, the community council had its knuckles wrapped for failing to include the Tweeddale councillors in correspondence regarding the discussion of the letter.

Councillor Stuart Bell said: “Can I remind you that SBC councillors are full members of the community council. If I had been circulated a copy of that [letter] I would have chosen not to comment on it. That went out in the name of the community council, and the SBC councillors who are represented here and are members of the community council were not informed of it before it was circulated.”

During a recent meeting of the Chambers Institution, attended by community councillors Les Turnbull and Peter Maudsley, trustees entered into secret session.

Mr Turnbull asked the SBC councillors why this happened when the agenda was about Placemaking and Levelling Up Funding.

The community council was reprimanded by Councillor Bell for failing to include the Tweeddale councillors in a brief that was sent out summarising the Chambers Institution meeting.

He said: "I feel a little disappointed that I’m responding to something and I don’t know what it is. However, officers recommended that there were commercially confidential matters in relation to possible contractual arrangements and they advised that it should be considered in private.”

The full letter is below

Sirs, – We the undersigned, as representatives of community organisations in Peebles, appeal to Scottish Borders Council to engage more positively with the Peebles community in reforming the management of the Chambers Institution, and in restoring community representation in line with the original conditions of William Chambers’ gift of the property in trust for the benefit of the people of Peebles and Peeblesshire.

We are aware of recent correspondence between Council officers, Peebles Community Council (PCC) and Peebles Civic Society (PCS), and it has now become clear to us that the Council as Trustee of the Chambers Institution, including our elected local councillors, is intent on ignoring the wishes of the Institution’s principal benefactor and the rights he bequeathed to his native district.It is also clear that the Chambers Institution Trust (CIT), which was set up to independently manage this historic and iconic community asset, is not fit for purpose.

The Council decision of November, 2021, did not recognise the distinction between trusteeship of the CIT, created by the Council in 2010, with that of the original public trust created by William Chambers in 1859, and only referred to property-owning trustees.Both PCC and PCS have repeatedly requested the return of community representation to the independent CIT, but Council officers have consistently argued that there is no legal basis for the Council to do this.However, there should be no need for the Council to find legal excuses for not honouring the spirit of William Chambers’ wishes.Both William Chambers and the later benefactor, the Carnegie Foundation, recognised the importance of having local people involved to ensure the continuation of community benefit and the best interests of the Trust beneficiaries.

It should be considered why both PCC and PCS have felt it necessary to argue the case to restore community representation to the CIT.Following earlier approaches from community representatives, welcome steps were taken by the Council in 2010 to revive the proper management of the Chambers Institution through the establishment of the CIT as a separate management board which from 2012 had equal numbers of Council and community representatives.However, that was short-lived, as the community representatives subsequently resigned in 2014 in dubious and unclear circumstances after our local Councillors unilaterally reneged on earlier decisions to seek charitable status for the CIT.

From that time to this, our elected Tweeddale councillors have remained the sole members of the management board, and we regret that their record appears to be one of procrastination, complacency and an abrogation of responsibility.Virtually nothing has been done since the (second) public consultation in 2016 and the options appraisal report received from Page Park in the same year. In 2017 there was one Trustee meeting of 45 minutes duration.

In 2018, three meetings averaged 30 minutes each, and one lasted just 10 minutes. Meetings only began to last longer when PCC began to ask questions.The only actions in more than seven years have been to fell the quadrangle trees, controversially without advance community consultation, and to commission a kitchen refurbishment that failed to take into account any master plan for the long-overdue holistic development of the Institution buildings.Meanwhile the Institution cries out for basic repairs and refurbishment. What faith can we as the community of Peebles, and as the beneficiaries of the Trust, have in the present management?

Councillors have asked what benefit the appointment of community representatives could bring to the management board.It should be obvious that this could hardly achieve less than the meagre accomplishments of the CIT over the last seven years.

However, it would surely respect the wishes of the benefactors, alleviate the burden of responsibility on councillors and Council officers, and enable the beneficiaries of the Trust to have a significant say in the running of this community asset in line with the objectives and aspirations of the Community Empowerment Act.

It is worth quoting from the 2014 report from the Council’s Chief Financial Services Officer and Service Director Regulatory Services regarding the appointment of non-council trustees (to the CIT): “… this can be seen as representing the wishes of Dr William Chambers, the terms of the Public Libraries Consolidation Act 1887 and the Chambers Institution Confirmation Act 1911”.The same report warned of potential conflicts of interest for councillors and Council officers. We ask why this advice was dismissed, and what has changed since 2012? We are also compelled to ask: the interests of which separate body, the Council or the CIT, do councillors and Council officers represent in making management decisions to do with the Chambers Institution?

We the undersigned firmly believe that community representation is essential to enable the Chambers Institution to achieve its full potential at the heart of our community.

Furthermore, to avoid potential conflicts of interest, and to ensure that management of the Chambers Institution is not constrained by the Council’s other financial and administrative priorities as local authority, we do not believe that is desirable for this valuable and much-loved asset to be managed solely by councillors and officers.

We call on the Council to cooperate with PCC and PCS in putting matters right. – Yours, etc.,

L.W.TurnbullChairman on behalf of the Community Council of the Royal Burgh of Peebles and DistrictAnthony NewtonSecretary to and on behalf of Peebles Civic SocietyDavid KilshawClerk to and on behalf of the Guildry Corporation of PeeblesLaura ScottOn behalf of the Pensioners Association of PeeblesAndrew WilliamsonChief Callant on behalf of the Callants Club of Peebles