A wrangle over maintenance of a popular Mearns coastal footpath is showing no sign of abating, with a landowner and the local authority at odds over who is responsible for the upkeep of two footbridges.
Miltonhaven caravan park owner Stewart Scott has hit out at the neglect of the footpath between St Cyrus and Inverbervie, which he claims is in danger of disappearing altogether unless Aberdeenshire Council takes urgent steps to tackle erosion.
The council has confirmed that flooding has damaged the bridges and other areas of the path. But questions have arisen over who is responsible for maintenance of the path and repairs cannot be undertaken until these are resolved.
A council spokesman said, “The bridges were damaged by flooding in 2009 along with other incidents of severe damage to the coastal path.
“Damage was assessed by our officers and we are looking into who is responsible for their maintenance. We will remain in touch with Mr Scott throughout this process.”
He added that repairs to the path had been highlighted as an issue during consultation with local communities on an area of the coastal strip designated as a regeneration area.
However, that further inflamed Mr Scott, who has said it would be “criminal” if any of the initial allocation of £75,000 regeneration money was used for repairs that could have been done at a fraction of the council’s estimate if action had been taken sooner.
He said, “At the rate of erosion, repairs to the footpath could gobble up all the money earmarked for regeneration. My argument is that this is not the purpose of this new money.”
The council has estimated around £15,000 for the work needed on a bridge over the Finella burn and £8000 for work on the Mill of Mathers bridge over the Lauriston burn, and they left copies of their plans with Mr Scott.
The bridges sit on the boundaries of his property, and he claims he lost a caravan pitch when the banks to the Lauriston bridge were eroded.
He said, “A good few years ago I was obliged to pay £1000 to then Grampian Regional Council as a contribution towards the cost of repairs to the bridge access. I paid up because in my view it enhanced my property and business.
“A contract was then drawn up between us, of which I have a copy, saying the council was not obliged to clear the banks. But nothing was agreed about the approaches.
“However, after a lot of pressure from me, the council did send down engineers and the cost of around £23,000 is the total they have come up with for the work that is needed.
“My argument is that if they’d cleared the drains at the time of the flooding and cleared a tree from under the Finella bridge which washed down then all this cost could have been avoided.
“I was given an option of calling in a mediator. After that if we still couldn’t agree over who was responsible for the bridges, I was told I could go to the sheriff court and present my case.
“In my view all that would achieve would be to waste still more money.
“All this could be avoided if the council would send somebody with a bit of common sense to do a good temporary repair job, which could possibly last for years.
“I recently had a 40 feet stretch of banking that had eroded infilled with rock armour at a fraction of the costs the council is talking about.”