Fish firm refuses to drop objection over A9 dualling upheaval

Tay salmon beat operators stand firm against £3bn upgrade proposals

The operators of a prime salmon beat on the River Tay are standing firm against multi-billion-pound plans to upgrade the A9 in Highland Perthshire.

Bosses at Dalmarnock Fishings insist current proposals for the Scottish Government’s dualling project will damage business, and make their fishing rights “effectively unusable” during construction.

An inquiry aimed at resolving complaints about the five-mile stretch between Tay Crossing and Ballinluig was due to begin in Pitlochry yesterday.

The hearing was cancelled at the eleventh hour after most of the main opponents withdrew their objections.

These included Ballinluig-based agricultural firm Laird Contractors, which originally complained that it would have to give up arable land used for growing feed crops and straw production. Network Rail had also objected about the proposed access rights at three level crossings.

Agents for both confirmed their objections had been withdrawn after agreements were reached with Transport Scotland.

Dalmarnock Fishing has refused to drop its objection, but told Scottish ministers it would not need to be debated at a formal hearing.

Consultant Ian Kelly, representing the fishery, owners the Carr family and holiday cottage letting business FishTay, told the government’s planning and environmental appeals division: “My clients have absolutely no intention of being drawn into what is, in their view, a clearly unnecessary use of scarce public money and even more scarce private money.”

He said the remaining bone of contention is the impact on the operation of the beat.

“It is clear that there are many locations along the beat where the constructive activities will be very close to the beat, and where there will be construction vehicles using the existing tracks,” he said.

“Anglers, with a choice of where to fish, will choose a location that is quieter over a location where there are major construction activities at their backs.

“While it is accepted that diminution in the value of a business is a matter for compensation, the issue that actually concerns the objector at this stage is whether that diminution effect is something that could reasonably have been avoided had there been a design principle to that effect in the place.”

Anglers, with a choice of where to fish, will choose a location that is quieter over a location where there are major construction activities at their backs. CONSULTANT IAN KELLY