A CAMPAIGN group has disputed claims made by Fife Council and Forth Ports regarding access to Burntisland Harbour.
In 2022, the harbour was fenced off by owner Forth Ports in the interests of "public safety" despite being a scenic spot for decades.
A letter sent to Fife Council leader David Ross questioned the legality of the fence and called for it to be removed.
In response to a request by The National, Carol Connolly, executive director of place at Fife Council, said alternative access had been created by Forth Ports.
She added that the area was in the "commercial ownership" of Forth Ports, appearing to distance the council from responsibility over access rights.
READ MORE: Fife: Anger at 'illegal' fence blocking access to Scottish harbour
But the campaign group Burntisland Harbour Access Trust (BHAT) claimed locals were only able to walk past the northern side of the east dock, which they said failed to qualify as "alternative access", and that the commercial ownership of the harbour did not absolve the council of responsibility.
In a letter sent to The National, BHAT said:
"The fact that land at Burntisland Harbour is commercially owned has no relevance to the matter of public rights of access.
"These rights apply to all land, regardless of ownership.
"The reference to alternative access routes through the harbour (if indeed they existed - which they don't) is also irrelevant.
"Burntisland Harbour is a public place in accordance with the 1937 House of Lords ruling, where it was stated 'an area of the shore becomes a public place from the first moment when a harbour is there opened to the public' (Marquis of Bute v M’Kirdy & M’Millan, House of Lords 1937).
"As such, there exists a clear right of access to the harbour.
"Blocking this access by the erection of a fence is an illegal act.
"Furthermore, there is a clear duty imposed on local authorities (in this instance Fife Council) by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, to assert, protect, and keep open and free any route, waterway, or other means by which statutory access rights may be reasonably exercised.
"To ensure compliance by landowners, Fife Council has the power to require a landowner to take remedial steps to undo any action which contravenes statutory access rights.
"To ensure public rights of access to Burntisland Harbour, Fife Council simply needs to issue a Compliance Notice."
The letter also takes issue with Forth Ports' claim to have "consulted widely" with the local community.
READ MORE: Ramblers Scotland speak out in Taymouth Castle right-to-roam row
"Forth Ports are also quoted in the article as stating that there has been wide community consultation in regard to the fence. This is incorrect.
"The public have not been consulted in any meaningful way by Forth Ports over this matter, and the health and safety case presented by Forth Ports as justification for depriving the community of its right of access, in the company’s application for Listed Building Consent, is incompetent.
"It fails to take account of the probability of a risk occurring or of its likely impact should it occur, simply suggesting the risk is avoided by the erection of a fence.
"In doing so it fails to take account of the industry's own guidelines in respect to public safety at working harbours.
"The Community of Burntisland asks nothing more of all parties than that they obey the law, and in the case of Fife Council lives up to its statutory responsibilities under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to issue the appropriate compliance notice to Forth Ports, thereby ensuring that the public rights of access to Burntisland Harbour enjoyed by generation upon generation, are again respected."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel