A ‘war of words’ continues as a Rosehearty reader has slammed Aberdeenshire Council for failing in their duty by neglecting urgent seawall repairs.
Jim Taylor, has expressed his serious concerns over the current state of the “Souter’s Dyke” seawall at Rosehearty Harbour.
Mr Taylor said: “The independent engineer’s report and the letters I hold from the executive throughout the years all agree with me that this seawall must be kept in good order for the safety of this community.
“The seawall was restored entirely from shore to seaward point some years ago with the aid of councillor Joe Mitchell and Albert McQuarrie MP, while today it lies on death row through intentional neglect and with impending danger to this Burgh.
“Two years ago the Tories said there is money available but now they simply ignore all letters and emails which implies they are again not interested in anywhere outside their Banffshire Coast.
“This also lies with a determination of the councilors in this Banff Buchan group who are only interested in their own backyards and all else is worthless to them.
“What they always say is there is no money and they just have to prioritise and this has always been their argument.
“However, they found a spare £1m for Banff’s seawall and an apparent bottomless pit for Banff’s harbour, which was taken out of private ownership into the hands of the ratepayers.”
Jim Slater, historian and writer who was born and bread in Banff said: “Banff was never a harbour! It was useless and Macduff was always our local harbour.
Commenting on the situation, Aberdeenshire Council’s Projects Manager, Gavin Penman, told the Herald: “We have no plans to carry out major repair works to Rosehearty’s Port Rae Pier at the current time.
“Monitoring is carried out regularly to ensure the structure is not deteriorating at a critical rate, with the original 200m section of breakwater prioritised for any potential maintenance works.
“We have not ruled out the possibility of some work being undertaken in future, but it will be based on protecting the shoreline rather than on re-establishing a harbour facility.
“Any proposed works would be considered alongside competing demands for limited resources and would be subject to approval by the relevant Committees as appropriate.”