New twist for Ardersier Port’s fence at beach which has been cut by an unknown person allowing access to a cut off peninsular after a Highland Council spokesman says the fence was currently contrary to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
Opponents of a fence which has cut off a peninsula near Ardersier Port have welcomed news that the operator had no right to do so.
Bosses at the port caused outrage among local residents when they put up the barrier opposite their site at the former Whiteness oil yard.
But by the end of last week someone had taken matters into their own hands and cut the wire so access was possible.
At a stormy meeting in Ardersier village hall, attended by 70 members of the public, representatives of the company claimed they had the power to close off the landspit for security reasons.
This was challenged by locals angered at the haste and lack of consultation when the fence was erected in March.
The company’s marine director Steve Gobbi, who is also responsible for security at the site, admitted the company should have consulted the public.
However, in a statement, a Highland Council spokesman said the fence was currently contrary to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
He added: “Land managers cannot fence off paths or large areas of open country without providing gaps, gates or other access points. If and when they are doing work such as dredging, any precautions need to be reasonable and practicable keeping the area and duration to a minimum.
“Ardersier Port does not yet have the authority to define and secure a restricted area, to deter the public from going on to the spit.
“Delineation of a restricted area and advice on how to secure it will come from the department for transport, who we understand are due to visit the site in April.
“In the current circumstances, Ardersier Port has been asked to remove the signs and install a gate or gap in the fence to accommodate public access on foot, bicycle or horseback.
“Furthermore, they have been advised to signpost the gap or gate to acknowledge that the public are welcome and to discourage people from damaging the fence.”
Gordon Main, a coach with Nairn Road Runners, welcomed the news and said he thought access should have always been maintained.
He said he had recently visited the site and there was no change with the fence. He added: “I’ve been using the area all winter because I’ve been doing a lot of long-distance training.”
James Ross, from Sunnyside in Culloden, is also opposed to the fence. He said: “There’s no reason to exclude the public from it at all.”
Highland councillor Glynis Campbell-Sinclair said she had been aware for quite some time that it was contrary to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
She said that a report by Stewart Easthaugh, the council’s access officer, was rubbished continually by Mr Gobbi at the recent meeting, adding: “Local residents from Ardersier, Nairn and the surrounding areas attended the meeting in force, to demand answers to not only the unlawful erection of the fence but also to the erection of the ‘Ardersier Yard Entrance Gate’ – which is straddling across a crossroads on the Ardersier to Nairn Road.
“If this is not moved it will inevitably cause a catastrophic accident, should there be a queue of traffic waiting to access the yard.”
She said she had not been impressed by a presentation given by Mr Gobbi and added: “Nor was I impressed that a very well respected officer of Highland Council was accused by Mr Gobbi ‘of not knowing his brief’.”
When approached by the Courier for comment about the council statement, Mr Gobbi said: “I have no desire to get into a three-way conversation with any council via the press.
“If they have something concrete to say, I suggest they do it directly with us by letter or meeting request perhaps through their legal representatives.
“If any party feels we are acting unlawfully, then the correct process is through the court system.”
Speaking at the meeting, he said: “The site will be closed. It’s not negotiable and it’s not in our hands. We are complying with UK law.
“One of the issues is security and that is never more important than now in the current world political situation.”
He also dismissed comments from Mr Easthaugh that signage preventing public access was premature because the UK government had not decided what category of port it would be.
