There's a wee war going on in our village at the moment which is raising local feelings. A local builder by the name of Mr Gow has been building a new bungalow on a patch of land in the centre of the village for the last two years (yes folks, thats really how long it has taken). He bought the land about 5 years ago from the local Hallyburton estate (No, nothing to do with Mr Cheyney, much older). The land was marked on old maps as 'The Kettins Mortification' and is adjacent to the burn which runs through the village and to the old 'Kettins Brig' (Bridge). The word 'Mortification' is an interesting one. It may mean a piece of land gifted as the result of a bequest, but it in the 17th/18th centuries it was used to signify decay or putrefaction, for example in gangrenous wounds. Since the land is directly across the burn from the Church and its graveyard, it could possibly have some significance, especially as in older times, the burn was crossed over a single stone slab bridge which was found later to be a very old Pictish symbol stone and is now preserved in the churchyard itself.

At any rate, the site is virtually the last around the village green to be developed and its historical significance seems not to have bothered either its builder or the locals, or any passing archeologist.

Construction as I mentioned has proceeded extremely slowly, with a considerable amount of it at weekends, causing a lot of disturbance to the immediate local residents in a small group of council properties behind the building site. Since the inhabitants are mostly rather old or disabled, they have been in no position to do much in the way of objecting. Nor have they been given much opportunity. Apart from being asked by the Hallyburton estate whether they objected to the sale, they have never been shown any plans or drawings of the new bungalow and its adjacent garage by Mr Gow or his architect.

But now the brown stuff has truly hit the proverbial fan. Having built the bungalow, Mr Gow went on to build an adjacent large garage, sufficient to hold at least four cars, between the bungalow and the road which crosses the bridge, and to put on top of it a pitched roof of considerable height, effectively blocking the view that the aforementioned ancient and disabled residents previously had of the village green and the bridge. Exactly why Mr Gow should want to do this is unclear when a flat roof to the garage would have been perfectly adequate and not obstructed the view.[contd]