Sir, With regard to the story in the Peeblesshire News, ‘Carlowse crossing to come at a cost’, the people of the Scottish Borders must be made aware of certain worrying aspects of this controversial refurbishment.

The council does not need to spend £327,000 on repairing Carlowse Bridge in Tweedsmuir. It also does not need to spend £230,000 on a temporary bridge access. It could save all of this substantial expenditure by adopting the real value-for-money option - a 20T weight limit on the bridge.

This limit would protect Carlowse from its main source of damage - 40T-plus HGV traffic, mainly from three forestry plantations in the area - yet still allow bin and fuel deliveries and other vital emergency services into Tweedsmuir.

With the weight limit removing all 40T traffic from Carlowse, there would be no need for any major repair to the bridge at all.

This, in turn, would remove the need to close Carlowse for the repairs and, therefore, remove the need for the council’s proposed temporary bridge access at a cost of £230,000, work on which starts on Monday.

This is the reality of Carlowse Bridge, and I must stress that these four points are not based on a layman’s opinion. They are based on the most extensive assessment ever undertaken on Carlowse in its long 230-year history. In 2011, one of the UK’s leading experts in masonry bridge structures, Dr Adrienn Tomor, of the West of England University, visited Tweedsmuir and conducted a week-long assessment of the bridge, using some of the most modern and sophisticated technology. This was far in excess of anything ever carried out by the SBC.

She concluded that the bridge was incredibly strong for its age, and certainly capable of taking light vehicles and the usual delivery/emergency vehicle for the foreseeable future, but that it would need to be strengthened with continued use by 40T plus HGV traffic.

Dr Tomor’s full report was sent to the SBC and has been studiously ignored.

So, why has SBC never seriously discussed a weight limit - it was not even put forward to councillors as an option when Carlowse was decided upon in February - and why, instead, has it decided to spend £557,000 (£327,000 on the repairs and £230,000 for the temporary bridge) on a village of only 150 people when there is an alternative that would be a fraction of the cost?

The people of the Scottish Borders deserve an answer.

Paul Greaves Tweedsmuir