Campaign groups force hearing over right of way
Scotways senior access officer Eleisha Fahy has now told the Scottish Government: “Scotways is very concerned that the diversion process was pre-empted by closure of the path before the alternative was in place and available for use.
“In effect, because the level crossing was closed ahead of the order being confirmed, this order process has been retrospective. However, this should not mean that an order be confirmed by default.”
Perth and Kinross Outdoor Access Forum has claimed in a separate objection NR “took advantage” of railhead works being carried out at the nearby Highland Spring water bottling plant “to push through the bridge installation” in a way that “short-circuited the normal procedures, making use of permitted development rights and crucially prejudging the bridge design.”
But denying that claim Network Rail said in paperwork filed with the government: “A full planning application submission was made and planning consent was obtained for the footpath and bridge. The involvement of, and oversight by, the planning authority continued through the imposition and discharge of conditions and has included post completion site visits by council officers.”
However PKC’s planning department has also been dragged into the dispute as Ramblers Scotland reckons a statement its staff sent to the government concerning the case fails to explain why it didn’t cross their minds to ask NR to consider installing a ramped bridge instead.
It has told the government: “Surprisingly, the council’s statement makes no mention whatsoever of the reason why it was seen in the first place as appropriate to provide only a stepped footbridge rather than a ramped one.
“[It] argues that it would be unreasonable to seek a modification of
Angus and Alex are now getting ready to head off to university the design because that would require a further planning application.
“In the context of the overall costs and time involved in all the administrative steps, a further application would have been a very small step to have taken.
“The action that has taken place, however, has obviated that possibility in a manner that might justifiably [be] regarded as devious in the extreme. It is interesting that there is no suggestion that the greater cost of a ramped bridge was a factor in the decision, which makes the series of events which has preceded this process even more unsatisfactory.”
Responding to those remarks NR said in its paperwork: “We would refer the objector to the points made in the hearing statement ... which set out the decisionmaking process and options considered by NR in detail.
“Cost was a factor, as it must be in the decision-making of any public body.
“The eventual decision on bridge