Perhaps You'd Also Like to Point out to Them That According to Highland

From: Richard Greene - Member To: Graham Mackenzie - CS; Stewart Fraser Subject: FW: Letter from Highland Council Date: 15 May 2016 18:17:13

Gentlemen, For your information. I have not responded to the last two e mails as Graham you are best placed to defend the advice given on positioning of the sign.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: Sent: 15 May 2016 17:53 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: Re: Letter from Highland Council

Perhaps you'd also like to point out to them that according to Highland Council website the public road ends at NG74038713which is the turning circle at Melvaig, so the existing sign is not on the Highland Council verge.

On 15/05/2016 17:40, Richard Greene - Member wrote: Thanks for your reply I note HC officers are included in the e mail, and will defer to them for any response on the points raised.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: Sent: 15 May 2016 17:35 To: Richard Greene - Member; Graham Mackenzie - CS Cc: [email protected]; Stewart Fraser Subject: Re: Letter from Highland Council

Richard,

A sign has been there for years. The previous owners erected a sign and there is photographic evidence from ten and more years back that there has been a sign in that position. No-one from Highland Council has contacted me - as I said in my email, I wrote to Graham Mackenzie on April 21st to ask for

From: To: Richard Greene - Member; Graham Mackenzie - CS Cc: [email protected]; Stewart Fraser Subject: Re: Letter from Highland Council Date: 15 May 2016 17:50:45 Attachments: fkfogebiaidomhbe.png

Further to my previous message, it is easy to find photos on the internet showing that signage has been in place for years. For example, screenshot from youtube on 3rd June 2011 showing the sign erected by the previous owners.

On 15/05/2016 16:56, Richard Greene - Member wrote:

Good Afternoon To be clear, my verbal advice to the Gairloch Community Council last Monday night was that I was advised the sign, was positioned on The Highland Council verge without permission. The sign would have to be removed by those who erected it, or it would be removed by HC operatives and any cost incurred charged to the owner of the sign.

that regard. Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: Richard Greene - Member To: Stewart Fraser; Graham Mackenzie - CS; William Gilfillan Subject: RE: Trespassers Date: 25 April 2016 13:14:40

Stewart, Graham and William Much appreciated. My problem has been the various forms of pressure over the past six weeks and was beginning to weigh heavy. Much of it I have to say generated within social media! I was being probably ultra careful to the point of appearing not to be interested, indeed the very opposite is the case. If I begin every sentence with the words "As I understand it" that then does not implicate anyone or any body? I believe that is correct! I understand answers 1-9 are in "general terms" In Independent Room at HQ for the next hour or so if you wish to discuss further. Thank you, Richard.

-----Original Message----- From: Stewart Fraser Sent: 25 April 2016 12:01 To: Richard Greene - Member; Graham Mackenzie - CS; William Gilfillan Subject: RE: Trespassers

Thanks

I think we need to try to be clear about our locus or rather lack of locus in this issue- easy for me to say I appreciate. We are not the arbiters and cannot make 'public pronouncements' to any effect as might be suggested on Facebook or elsewhere.

The Council is the Roads Authority in terms of the 1984 Act and as such has a number of statutory duties placed upon it. In terms of the 1984 Act there are two types of road in Scotland - public roads which are the responsibility of the Roads Authority and private roads which are not the responsibility of the Authority. The road serving Rua Reidh is not on the adopted list of roads therefore is not a public road and accordingly - in the view of the Roads Authority- is a private road. Individuals are at liberty to take issue with and disagree with that assessment - ultimately the Roads Authority have expressed a view but the opinion of the Authority on the status of the route serving the lighthouse is not definitive or binding. Given we believe the road is a private road we essentially have no or very limited locus and this is then an issue between those who assert a right to use the road and those who do not.

Turning to letter to Graham I would offer the following thoughts:-

The first point I would make is that a number of these issues are ones which require independent legal advice and can only be answered by the Council in general terms.

1. The public right of passage will extend over the length of the private road. 2. The public right of passage extends over the private road. There is no requirement for it to connect two public places - this is one condition for the establishment of a public right of way. 3. The public right of passage will extend over the private road. A private road would not normally extend to side tracks and accesses. 4. The public has a right to pass along the private road by virtue of the right of passage. The Council cannot offer a view on the use of passing places, parking areas and private land. 5. This is an issue upon which independent legal advice would be required. 6. The Council has undertaken an assessment and determined that no work was required. 7. The Council has no responsibility and accordingly liability for private roads. 8. The Council has no responsibility to erect signage for a private road. The Council is not required to delineate the commencement and termination of the public road through the erection of signage. 9.

Graham - not sure what you would want to say about the cycle of inspections in response to point 9.

Hopefully this is helpful

Stewart

-----Original Message----- From: Richard Greene - Member Sent: 24 April 2016 11:35 To: Graham Mackenzie - CS; Stewart Fraser; William Gilfillan Subject: FW: Trespassers

Graham and Stewart and William This is all getting quite serious with the interpretations being put on the advice given. I am forwarding two further e mails I have received today, I really feel my answer to them all is to stop now and get the main players together for a meeting otherwise I believe this could get really nasty. Seems to me the Law is too vague on all of this, and misconception abounds as a result. I am wary of saying anything though in case it sparks legal action, but also my lack of input then appears as if I am not concerned! I am heavily committed to meetings all next week and can do without all this additional hassle. Stewart, is there a form of words which clearly removes us from assumed inclusion?

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 24 April 2016 09:58 To: Graham Mackenzie - CS; Richard Greene - Member Subject: Trespassers

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

Following your 'announcement' to Gairloch Community Council that the lighthouse road is a 'public right of passage' (allegedly) I thought you would like to know about two incidents yesterday. Various individuals have posted your letter on social media and urged people to drive out to the lighthouse,

I hope you will understand why I need a very prompt response to my letter of April 21st (which I have attached again for Richard's benefit as I am copying him in to this email) clarifying exactly where the 'public right of passage' starts and ends (if indeed it actually exists). I trust that you will give this your urgent attention first thing on Monday morning.

Regards

From: Richard Greene - Member To: Stewart Fraser; Graham Mackenzie - CS; William Gilfillan Subject: FW: Rubha Reidh Road Date: 24 April 2016 11:42:14

Yet another! Am I at liberty to copy them in to Graham’s inspection letter and the subsequent 3 pointer note approved by you Stewart?

Alternatively, should I now advise everyone who contacts me to send their complaint direct to Legal.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: Sent: 22 April 2016 17:31 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: Rubha Reidh Road

Dear Mr Greene,

I am fairly sure that you may have heard rather too much about his subject, but I would request that you clarify something for me.

The Gairloch Community Council have issued a Press Release of a fairly optimistic nature. Despite my enquiries via the Facebook pages on the subject, no-one has been able to confirm that the Highland Regional Council has issued a formal pronouncement.

Are you able to confirm that HRC have published a formal document confirming the position, and to point me to where I may see it?

Yours sincerely

From: Richard Greene - Member To: Stewart Fraser; Graham Mackenzie - CS; William Gilfillan Subject: FW: RR Road Date: 24 April 2016 11:38:06

Gents, Note the direct question to Highland Council. Is it on our land. Can we get a definite decision on this pronto!

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: Gairloch Community Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 April 2016 09:32 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: RR Road

Any news yet from Highland Council about sign removal? I am some what worried by the deafening silence from all except the MacLachlan's who appear not to accept the decision and are threatening court action to as many as they can! (certainly Sophie has heard from the MacLachlan's solicitor on a charge of Harassment!) After our good meeting with Mark last Wednesday we have heard nothing but are working away on new signs which were agred at the meeting. Elspeth Urqhart, Melvaig Crofter, was attacked on Friday afternoon by the pair of them whilst out checking sheep. Tracy sat on the bonnet of her car whilst Roger laughed and heckled. Needless to say, even ex policewoman Elspeth was pretty shaken up. She reported the incident to the police who told her this was the second incident report they had received that day about aggressive confrontation from the MacLachlan's. This whole situation is fast becoming a public nuisance! Fran

-- Fran Cree Secretary, Gairloch Community Council From: Stewart Fraser To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: RE: press query Ross-shire Journal Date: 21 April 2016 13:51:00

Richard

I have adjusted just slightly…

Regards

Stewart

From: Richard Greene - Member Sent: 21 April 2016 13:06 To: Stewart Fraser Subject: FW: press query Ross-shire Journal

Stewart Sorry bothering you with this but I must ensure that anything given out on this matter is hopefully free from challenge. I intend to respond as below.

Hello Hector,

The Highland Council have, as empowered under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, examined the road and found that current traffic use is not over stressing the structures This is believed to be a private road over which there is a public right of passage and as such the Council has a duty to ensure it is safe for the public to use but no responsibility to maintain it. From a Highland Council perspective there remains a question over the positioning of a sign at the Melvaig end of the B8021, and our officers are looking into this matter presently.

Although I am aware of other meetings having taken place (Estate owner/CGCC) I don’t think it is for me to include?

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 April 2016 09:43 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: RE: press query Ross-shire Journal

Hello Richard - I gather there’s been a bit of a breakthrough re the road with Highland Council indicating it remains accessible to members of the public, regardless any signage put up. Just wondering if you had a comment on that turn of events?

Kind regards,

Hector

From: Richard Greene - Member [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 March 2016 21:21 To: Hector Mackenzie Subject: RE: press query Ross-shire Journal

Hector I attach my comment for the Ross shire Journal. Trust this is useful.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 March 2016 14:47 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: press query Ross-shire Journal

Hello Richard,

I’ve picked up something from the Gairloch Community Council Facebook page that I plan following up for this week’s Ross-shire Journal.

I gather there’s very strong feelings about this (there’s a lengthy riposte on the page from Tracy McLachlan at Rua Reidh, which I believe she has copied to you along with many others.

Something you might be able to give me a comment on? Working to a deadline on 10am tomorrow (Thursday).

Kind regards,

Hector

From Gairloch CC:

Thanks to all who attended the Gairloch CC meeting on Monday - although some may have thought they were attending the Melvaig CC! The Scottish Water Planning application will go to Council planning committee next week and SEPA still has not received an application to change the quality of discharge to the sea so this is now a period of waiting for something to happen. After this Melvaig road problems dominated discussion ending in the very sad news that one of the official road users, the Mclachlan's who own the Keepers House have taken things into their own hands and closed off the road to the public - a very sad day indeed! The CC is writing to land owner Mark Williams to ask for a meeting to discuss this negative and aggressive move.

Hector Mackenzie Editor Ross-shire Journal Dochcarty Road Dingwall IV15 9UG

T: 01349 863436 E: [email protected] W: www.ross-shirejournal.co.uk

Twitter: @Rossnews

DISCLAIMER: Internet communications are not secure, therefore Scottish Provincial Press Ltd. does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this email are those of the individual sender and not of Scottish Provincial Press Ltd. Scottish Provincial Press Ltd. checks outgoing e-mails with anti-virus software that is regularly updated; however this does not guarantee that any files attached to this e- mail are virus-free. You must therefore take full responsibility for virus checking. Scottish Provincial Press Ltd. reserves the right to monitor all email communications through their networks.

Scottish Provincial Press Ltd, New Century House, Stadium Road, Inverness, IV1 1FG. Registered in Scotland, Company Number: SC126102, Registered office as above. For further information please visit our website:- http://www.spp-group.com

Unless related to the business of The Highland Council, the views or opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect those of The Highland Council, or associated bodies, nor does this e-mail form part of any contract unless so stated. Mura h-eil na beachdan a tha air an cur an cèill sa phost-d seo a' buntainn ri gnothachas Chomhairle na Gàidhealtachd, 's ann leis an neach fhèin a chuir air falbh e a tha iad, is chan eil iad an-còmhnaidh a' riochdachadh beachdan na Comhairle, no buidhnean buntainneach, agus chan eil am post-d seo na phàirt de chunnradh sam bith mura h-eil sin air innse. Listening * Open * Valuing * Improving * Supporting * Partnering * Delivering Èisteachd * Fosgailte * Luach * Leasachadh * Taic * Com-pàirteachas * Lìbhrigeadh From: Richard Greene - Member To: Graham Mackenzie - CS; Stewart Fraser; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton 30/01/2017 Cc: Tracey Urry Subject: FW: Rua Reidh Road Date: 19 April 2016 21:22:41

Good Evening everyone, As you can see from the e mail below this issue just will not go away! Graham can we establish the situation with this sign urgently. Is it on our land? If so, can you set things in motion for its removal. Please note the observations made by Fran Cree in relation to the “road end” demarcation. You will also note that the Gairloch CC are meeting with Mark Williams, Estate Owner tomorrow.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: Richard Greene - Member Sent: 19 April 2016 21:16 To: 'Gairloch Community Council' Subject: RE: Rua Reidh Road

Good Evening Fran I trust you are completely rested! I used the words” If the sign is on HC property etc” advisedly, given that I have not in fact yet had confirmation from Community Services that the said sign is on the HC verge. From what you say it does appear to bear this out but before we move on this it must be correctly established. The Engineer who examined the road will get back to us, but meantime I will press again to get this ascertained.

Like you I would wish to see this entire matter resolved, preferably amicably, and in the near future.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: Gairloch Community Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 April 2016 20:29 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: Re: Rua Reidh Road

Hi Richard, I am back from holiday and have a meeting with Mark Williams tomorrow morning to discuss 'The Road'. Can you tell me if any notice has been served on The Maclachlan's' to remove the sign in Melvaig? Tracy (Liz Lamont) seems to say HC has the actual Public Road boundary as at the burn but Land Registry certainly has the boundary at the old village headwall where the cattle grid used be as does our large scale Ordnance Survey map! Even so mandatory signs such as the one used here are only for authorised use! Therefore, either way, Highland Council should be serving notice? We are really anxious to conclude this whole debacle with an open road policy and Mark is coming to see us on route to discuss things with Tracy & Roger - God help him! Nearly 2,000 signatures now for universal support to stop this illegal road closure some relating stories of access dating back to the early sixties! Fran

On 18 April 2016 at 22:55, Richard Greene - Member wrote: Good Evening Kenny and Fran Kenny, I am directing this to yourself as well , as not sure if Fran has returned from holiday yet.

There were three questions raised at the GCC meeting last week and I sought answers to them. These were common to other query raised with me in this regard.

My advice is as follows

The sign at the beginning of the road (which is apparently on the public road)

If the sign is on HC property, those who erected it will be asked to remove it immediately, and if not Highland Council will remove it, but at the expense of those who placed it there. • The signs at the borrow pit

That the sign at the borrow pit is not within our realm of responsibility • The stones blocking various roads and paths

That the stones blocking various side roads and paths ,were not considered a danger at the time of inspection.

Kind regards,

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

-- Fran Cree Secretary, Gairloch Community Council From: Stewart Fraser To: Richard Greene - Member; Graham Mackenzie - CS; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton 30/01/2017 Cc: Douglas Miles Subject: RE: Cc meeting Date: 14 April 2016 10:44:00

Thanks Richard

Individuals on both sides do appear to have focussed on the question of the existence of vehicular public right of way and indeed this is seen as the key to the entire disagreement. However I don't believe that is the question that should be asked. To my mind the first question is 'what is the status of this route?'

I believe it is a 'private road' as defined by the Roads (Scotland) Act. As a “private road” the solum of the road is in private ownership - in this instance the Estate. But the public right of passage remains. It is private only as regards maintenance. The responsibility for maintenance is probably set out in the deed of servitude between the Estate and NLB. It is not a private road in the ordinary sense of the words that the owners can restrict passage over the road.

I have been looking at a case this morning and have picked out a few quotes,(sorry)

' ...It is important to note that the distinction between the expressions ‘public road’ and ‘private road’, as those expressions are used in the 1984 Act, has nothing to do with the existence of a public right of passage: public roads and private roads, as defined, are all alike ways over which there is a public right of passage. The distinction relates solely to the question whether the roads authority have a duty to maintain the road in question. A ‘private road’ within the meaning of the Act is therefore entirely different from what, in ordinary language, would usually be described as a private road: that is to say, a road over which the public have no right of passage. In the language of the Act, such a road is not a ‘private road’: it is not a ‘road’ of any kind...'

I suspect this last sentence would apply to a private access.

'...The essential point being made by the court, properly understood, is however one with which we respectfully agree: namely, that the expression ‘road’, as defined by sec 151(1) of the 1984 Act, is not confined to public rights of way constituted by usage. As we have explained, the expression also encompasses roads which are constituted by grant or by statute. There is in addition no logical necessity that roads in the latter categories must necessarily begin and end at a place which is in some sense ‘public’. In those respects, the statement that ‘the “right of passage” mentioned in the definition of the word “road” involves less exacting considerations than those which govern the existence of a public right of way over private land’ is consistent with the authorities, and we do not take issue with it. It is however important to understand that the point which the court was making, when it referred to ‘less exacting considerations’, was that a ‘road’ as defined by the 1984 Act need not necessarily meet all the requirements relevant to a public right of way constituted by prescriptive usage. The court was not suggesting that the 1984 Act had created a novel concept of a ‘public right of passage’, which could be constituted in some (unspecified) manner that innovated upon the previous law. Unfortunately, however, that is the interpretation which was placed upon the passage in some subsequent cases...'

This highlights the issue I feel might exist. There are four conditions needed to meet the test for establishing a public right of way and the first of these is that the route connects two 'public places' - I think there is scope for argument about the status of the lighthouse - if it is not a public place there can be no right of way...I don't think it is necessary to become embroiled in that issue if we treat the road as a private one.

'...The rights of the public, where a public right of passage exists, are no less extensive, and no less enforceable, than where a public right of way (in the narrow sense) exists: indeed, a public right of way (in that sense) is one example of a public right of passage...'

In terms of the form of the right of passage I cannot see how an argument could be advanced that it would not include vehicles - the road was constructed in the 1960s to serve vehicles and has been used by vehicles along with pedestrians and cyclists ever since.

Hopefully of assistance and happy to discuss further if that would be helpful.

Regards

Stewart

-----Original Message----- From: Richard Greene - Member Sent: 13 April 2016 10:51 To: Stewart Fraser; Graham Mackenzie - CS; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton Cc: Douglas Miles Subject: RE: Cc meeting

Good Morning Stewart Thank you for your reply. In your fourth paragraph commencing "In our discussion I sought..." the question of vehicular public right of way is key to the entire disagreement, and as far from any solution in my view, as on day one. Indeed the Act does not specify the form of "right of passage" Be it walking , cycling, horse drawn or motor. Not a criticism just an observation!

The remaining urgent issue however is in relation to Graham Mackenzie's responses to the queries raised to me by the Community Council on Monday evening. Can I take it you are content that I can publicly respond as he advises? I would however be inclined not to include Grahams last sentence in response to question, and commencing "However since it has now been raised..." because I believe that raises expectation! Would you agree?

This if approved by yourself, will be my final public response and any future query will be directed to Legal and Community Services, as there is little further I can contribute.

Thanks to both yourself and Graham for your patience and forbearance in this difficult issue.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

-----Original Message----- From: Stewart Fraser Sent: 13 April 2016 09:17 To: Graham Mackenzie - CS; Richard Greene - Member; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton Cc: Douglas Miles Subject: RE: Cc meeting

Thanks all

Richard - in our conversation he acknowledged your efforts in this issue and that you had encouraged the various interests to sit down to discuss matters.

Regards

Stewart

-----Original Message----- From: Graham Mackenzie - CS Sent: 12 April 2016 13:48 To: Richard Greene - Member; Stewart Fraser; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton Cc: Douglas Miles Subject: RE: Cc meeting

Hi Richard

1. I am investigating whether the sign is on the adopted road and should have a conclusion by the end of the week and yes they would be instructed to remove it if indeed it is on our road verge. 2. If the No Entry sign is on private land then no we will not enforce removal 3. The stones in the verge may be a safety risk but when I drove the road the speeds were such that they did not raise any concerns from a safety point of view. However since it has now been raised we will have to intervene when resources allow.

Graham

-----Original Message----- From: Richard Greene - Member Sent: 12 April 2016 12:34 To: Graham Mackenzie - CS; Stewart Fraser; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton Cc: Douglas Miles Subject: RE: Cc meeting

Hello Graham, I am still standing! I spoke briefly with Stewart this morning and will expand on the points I raised with him. I stuck as rigidly as possible to your advice note which was approved here by Legal However the following questions I did accept and said I would make further enquiry on.

1. Have we (HC) decided whether or not the sign just at the end of the B8021 is on our land or not.? If so will we remove it? I suggested we would expect the person who put it there would be instructed to remove it and if we had to we would be looking at cost involved. It was pointed out it is covered in "anti- theft paint" so use caution if our guys involved. 2. The no entry sign at the borrow pit further along the private road. Will we instruct the McLachlans to remove it given that some believe we have that power under the Act? 3. Stones placed at "side roads" and parking places along the private road which it is claimed are a safety hazard. It is believed again under the Act that we have the power to advise removal of the stones?

I really need answers or clarification of these as the local press were in attendance and I would wish to advise the GCC before their minute goes to the paper.

I am pretty sure Stewart these questions were included in e mail which I passed to you.

Thanks Richard

-----Original Message----- From: Graham Mackenzie - CS Sent: 12 April 2016 10:27 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: Cc meeting

Hi Richard - how did you get on last night From: Richard Greene - Member To: Stewart Fraser; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton 30/01/2017; Graham Mackenzie - CS Cc: Robbie Bain; Tracey Urry; Robbie Bain Subject: RE: Signs on the RR road Date: 14 April 2016 10:38:18

Thanks Stewart Are you contacting the parties involved, McLachans, Community Council and Visit Wester Ross, or am I to contact them? Not back west tonight as at external meetings until tomorrow afternoon. Richard

From: Stewart Fraser Sent: 14 April 2016 09:41 To: Richard Greene - Member; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton; Graham Mackenzie - CS Cc: Robbie Bain; Tracey Urry; Robbie Bain Subject: RE: Signs on the RR road

Thanks Richard

I had a discussion with Graham yesterday around some of these issues.

I am content with the terms of the proposed responses on those issues.

Regards

Stewart

From: Richard Greene - Member Sent: 13 April 2016 14:33 To: Stewart Fraser; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton; Graham Mackenzie - CS Cc: Robbie Bain; Tracey Urry; Robbie Bain Subject: FW: Signs on the RR road Importance: High

Good Afternoon Stewart Please see below an e mail from Douglas Gibson of Visit Wester Ross the local area tourist body. Can I please ask that clarification of the answers given by Graham in my earlier e mail today are agreed by yourself. To confirm 1. If the sign is on HC property, those who erected it will be asked to remove it immediately, and if not Highland Council will remove it, but at the expense of those who placed it there. 2. That you confirm the sign at the borrow pit is not within our realm of responsibility 3. That the stones blocking various side roads and paths are not within our powers of removal.

There is a growing underlying view locally that I am not moving matters on as I should, and in truth no one has spent more time and effort trying to get all parties to come to resolution. I am the point now where I feel I can do no more.

I will be attending the Torridon And Kinlochewe Community Council at 6.30 this evening and like previous CC’s I have attended the subject will no doubt rear its head again.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: Douglas Gibson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13 April 2016 12:51 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: Signs on the RR road Importance: High

Richard, hello:

Regarding the situation on the Lighthouse Road, can I ask for clarification on whether (and if so - when) the following are going to be removed by the council? If not - then who has the authority to do so?

The sign at the beginning of the road (which is apparently on the public road) The signs at the borrow pit The stones blocking various roads and paths

In the case of the signs, I am sure these could be replaced by new ones that are worded more appropriately, and I understand that suggestions have been made by the local community to the landowner in that respect.

We absolutely MUST be able to inform visitors clearly as to whether the road can be accessed or not. It is the work of moments for the signs and the stones to be shifted, and indeed these could probably all be removed in the space of one trip down the road by person or persons "x". The local visitor industry cannot suffer another season where people are confronted by the messages that are given out, both by the signs and by the Maclachlans. Already, there are indications that the Gairloch section of the industry is suffering a backlash due to this ongoing situation by comparison to other areas of Wester Ross. This situation has gone on for far too long - it should not be allowed to continue a minute longer than neccessary.

We do understand that this has been a difficult situation, but the resolution IS within our grasp.

Regards DG

-- Douglas Gibson Visit Wester Ross www.visitwester-ross.com www.facebook.com/Wester.Ross From: Stewart Fraser To: Subject: FW: : Rua Reidh Lighthouse Road Date: 12 April 2016 16:20:00

Roads – in Scotland ‘roads’ may be either public or private. A public road is one maintained by a roads authority ie on the list of adopted highways. Any other road is a private road ie the local authority is not responsible for its maintenance. There is no relationship between a public right of passage and the status of a road ie the status of the road only relates to responsibility for its maintenance. There is a public right of passage over private roads and the owner of the solum over which it passes is obliged not to obstruct the public’s free passage along such a road. I do not believe that such passage would be obstructed by the simple erection of signage stating ‘Private Road’.

Separately from a private road there is ‘private access’ – there is no public right of passage over such an access.

Public right of passage- the public must have the right at all times to pass along the road without let or hindrance. This would appear to reflect the position in respect of the road since its construction in 1964. The public right of passage is distinct from a public right of way which has four essential requirements 1. Route runs from one public place to another 2. There must be a definite route 3. The public must have used it openly and peaceably, without the permission, express or implied, of the landowner 4. The public must have used the route for a period of 20 years or more.

As far as I am aware the Council has not offered a view on the existence of a vehicular public right of way. I believe a view could only be offered following a much greater exercise examining the four essential requirements set out above.

My initial thoughts having previously driven the road personally and having had a brief look at the correspondence and the emails from both the Estate and the NLB is that the road to Rua Reidh is likely to be considered a private road ie the public are entitled to make use of the road and there is an obligation upon the owner to ensure the road is not obstructed. This appears consistent with the opinion offered by Inverasdale Estate.

However as you note and I have stressed to colleagues and the local Councillor this is not my decision and ultimately a court may be invited to decide the issue. I do not believe such an action would be raised at the instance of the Council. If the road is indeed a private road authority then responsibility to ensure unobstructed access would appear to lie with the Estate as the owners of the solum of the road.

I hope these comments are of assistance and happy to discuss further if that would be useful.

Kind regards

Stewart

Stewart Fraser Head of Corporate Governance Highland Council 01463 702112

Any internal legal advice provided herein is for the Client Service only. Written permission must be sought from the author prior to any disclosure to an external organisation or third party

From: Sent: 12 April 2016 08:59 To: Stewart Fraser Cc: Richard Greene - Member; Tina Luxton; William Gilfillan; Graham Mackenzie - CS Subject: Re: : Rua Reidh Lighthouse Road

Dear Mr Fraser,

Richard Greene has suggested I contact you to find out the Council's view on the private road from Melvaig to Rua Reidh Lighthouse.

am copying this to Graham Mackenzie adn Richard Greene to follow up the email I sent to them at the weekend.

I have reviewed the letter from the Highland Council ("Report on the Rua Reidh Road" dated 8/4/16 from Graham Mackenzie) and I am really not clear on what their position actually is. It seems to me that all the Council have said is that if the road was a public right of way then they do not consider that they need to carry out any maintenance on the road. I think all the Council may have been doing was just checking what the road was like in case there was some liability that was going to fall upon them. From their perspective, I suppose they wanted to check that the road was safe. The road is not listed with Scotways as a public right of way for vehicle access. To establish a right of way the only question that matters is whether the test for the for the road being a public right of way is met or not. (Please note: in my previous email to Graham Mackenzie I have challenged whether the road can be declared a public right of way for vehicle access since it does not meet the criteria that it must connect two public places. The lighthouse keepers house is not a public place; it is a private residence which is not open to the public and has no public facilities, and the tower is a working aid to navigation which has never been open to the public).

Should there be disagreement it would have to be brought to a head one way or another, most likely by some kind of Court Declarator. It just places a responsibility on the Local Authority to carry out certain repairs ensure the road is safe but for them to do so first, I think they would need to be satisfied that the road was indeed a public right of way and I think you need to try and clarify if that is indeed their view.

Please could you clarify what the Council's position is with respect to whether the road is a public right of way for vehicle access or not. I am aware that the road is designated as a core path for pedestrian access only (the core path does not however go to the lighthouse but turns off along the cliffs at the top of the hill above the lighthouse).

On 10/04/2016 23:21, Graham Mackenzie - CS wrote:

Can I first of all apologise for not providing you with a copy of my letter to Councillor Greene now attached. I am not back in my office until Tuesday afternoon at which time I will provide you with a full reply to your letter.

Graham Mackenzie BSc., CEng, MIHT Assistant Area Manager The Highland Council Community Services Drummuie Golspie Sutherland KW10 6TA

Telephone 01408 635303 Fax 01408 634041 Mobile 07785 512330 E-mail [email protected] The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Council. ======This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential information and/or copyright material. The e-mail is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee only. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. You should not disclose its contents to any other person. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender named above immediately. The Highland Council does not accept respons bility for changes made to this message after it was sent. ======

From: Richard Greene - Member To: Cc: Stewart Fraser Subject: Solicitors call Date: 11 April 2016 16:49:41

Hello again I received your call on my return home a few minutes ago. In light of further issues raised I suggest you ask your solicitor to contact our Highland Council, Head of Corporate Governance, in Inverness. He is Stewart Fraser and his e mail is .@.. His telephone number is 01463 702112 I trust this suggestion is helpful.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: Graham Mackenzie - CS To: Richard Greene - Member; Stewart Fraser; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton 30/01/2017 Cc: Tracey Urry; Robbie Bain; Douglas Miles Subject: RE: Rua Reidh road Date: 10 April 2016 23:11:06

Richard

I am investigating the end point of the public road but as I am on a day off tomorrow I am not likely to have a definitive answer until later in the week. I will get back to you as soon as I can

Graham

-----Original Message----- From: Richard Greene - Member Sent: 10 April 2016 20:19 To: Stewart Fraser; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton; Graham Mackenzie - CS Cc: Tracey Urry; Robbie Bain; Douglas Miles Subject: FW: Rua Reidh road

Evening Stewart and everyone, Apologies for filling up your mailboxes with further input to the Rhu Reidh road issue, this from Sophia Shafi, who has spearheaded the Facebook campaign. Graham there appears to be some contention over the siting of the sign. Is it on our (HC) verge?

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 10 April 2016 17:28 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: Rua Reidh road

Dear Richard

Please see attached.

My number is should you need to get in touch.

Good luck!

Kind regards

From: Richard Greene - Member To: Tina Luxton 30/01/2017; Graham Mackenzie - CS; Stewart Fraser; William Gilfillan Cc: Tracey Urry; Robbie Bain; Douglas Miles Subject: RE: Rua Reidh Road Date: 09 April 2016 13:51:21

Dear Tina Thank you for your e mail and that action is appreciated. I have heard nothing further from since the e mail below.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

-----Original Message----- From: Tina Luxton Sent: 09 April 2016 11:23 To: Richard Greene - Member; Graham Mackenzie - CS; Stewart Fraser; William Gilfillan Cc: Tracey Urry; Robbie Bain; Douglas Miles Subject: Re: Rua Reidh Road

Dear Cllr Greene we will issue an apology and copy of original correspondence to but based on Graham's response we will take no further involvement at this point this is a civil matter. TL

----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Greene - Member Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:41 PM GMT Standard Time To: Graham Mackenzie - CS; Stewart Fraser; William Gilfillan; Tina Luxton Cc: Tracey Urry; Robbie Bain; Douglas Miles Subject: FW: Rua Reidh Road

All, The e mail which awaited me on returning home this evening. I will forward any further e mail received in regard to this matter in due course.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 08 April 2016 13:39 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: Rua Reidh Road Importance: High

Richard,

I understand a report on the Rua Reidh road has been issued from Graham Mackenzie. This has been posted all over social media.

From: Stewart Fraser To: Richard Greene - Member; Robbie Bain Subject: RE: update Date: 27 March 2016 14:39:00

Thanks

I am not quite sure where to start…

Roads – in Scotland ‘roads’ may be either public or private. A public road is one maintained by a roads authority ie on the list of adopted highways. Any other road is a private road ie the local authority is not responsible for its maintenance. It should be noted though that there is no relationship between a public right of passage and the status of a road ie the status of the road only relates to responsibility for its maintenance. There is a public right of passage over private roads and the owner of the solum over which it passes is obliged not to obstruct the public’s free passage along such a road. Such passage is not obstructed by the simple erection of signage stating ‘Private Road’.

Separately from private roads there is ‘private access’ – there is no public right of passage over such an access.

Public right of passage- the public must have the right at all times to pass along the road without let or hindrance. This is distinct from a public right of way which has four essential requirements 1. Route runs from one public place to another 2. There must be a definite route 3. The public must have used it openly and peaceably, without the permission, express or implied, of the landowner 4. The public must have used the route for a period of 20 years or more.

My initial thoughts having had a brief look at the correspondence and the emails from the estate and the NLB is that the road to Rua Reidh is likely to be considered a private road ie the public are entitled to make use of the road and there is an obligation upon the owner to ensure the road is not obstructed. This is consistent with the opinion offered by Inverasdale Estate. However I should stress this is not my decision and I cannot offer legal advice to the various parties. I do believe that, on the face of it, authority and responsibility to ensure unobstructed access lies with the Estate as the owners of the solum of the road.

The Notice of Intended Action

I have read the purported notice to . I believe the Notice is fundamentally flawed.

There is no prospect of ASBO proceedings being raised against her. Such proceedings may only be raised by the Council and/or a housing association. It follows that there is no prospect of any criminal proceedings following on from such an action.

In reality if individuals were aggrieved by the obstruction of the road the remedy that they should seek is one of interdict. I suspect such proceedings would need to be raised against both Ms McClachlan and the Estate.

The notice makes reference to the ‘Public Rights of Passage Act 1984’ – there is no such act. The 1984 Act that is relevant is the Roads(Scotland) Act 1984.

There is reference to the SPSO – the SPSO would have no locus in this matter.

Adoption

The 1984 Act provides a mechanism for the adoption of roads by the roads authority where the requisite number of frontagers apply to the authority to adopt. The authority is obliged to adopt within 12 months if the road is of a requisite standard. The obligation to adopt does not arise if the road is not of the requisite standard although there is scope for arbitration on any dispute.

In the current case the situation is a little unusual given the nature of the road and the absence of frontagers.

As we discussed I see no justification for the Council’s adoption of the road.

I hope this is of assistance.

Please be aware that I am on annual leave week commencing 28th March and am back in the office on 4th April.

Regards

Stewart

Stewart Fraser Head of Corporate Governance Highland Council 01463 702112

Any internal legal advice provided herein is for the Client Service only. Written permission must be sought from the author prior to any disclosure to an external organisation or third party

From: Richard Greene - Member Sent: 24 March 2016 21:55 To: Stewart Fraser; Robbie Bain Subject: update

Hello again Both This is the latest in the saga although my wife tells me that the conversation is continuing on FB with an assortment of views and opinions. You are right Robbie, there are folk hiding their hand here and until I have a clear steer I have advised that I am unavailable for daytime meetings until 7th April. Evening meetings after the 1st I can consider, but I think all involved are more concerned with what suits them than the whole!

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: Gairloch Community Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 March 2016 18:58 To: Subject: Lighthouse Road

Given the last few emails of today from NLB and Inverasdale Estate I am suggesting it might be a good idea for us, Community Council, Visit Wester Ross, Melvaig Graziers and Highland Council to look at the problems of the road access in the last couple of years and come up with sensible way forward which will be acceptable to the community and to present to the estate. At present the Estate only gets demands from Tracy and we react to them and Mark hides from them! A sensible plan for future use involving all seems the long term way forward? We really do not want to go through this again in another two years time. We need to remember that the McLachlan's bought the Keepers House with no prohibition on access and have spent three years gradually trying to take over control of who uses the road. This must be stopped! I am away on the 3rd April for 10 days and before that would be good but I know you, Richard, are busy until the 7th. The next CC meeting is the 11th April and the Council would like to invite Mark then. Mark is up in the area in April and it would be really good to get something drawn up to present to him while he is here? Get back to me if you think this is a good way forward and can informally meet together.

-- Fran Cree Secretary, Gairloch Community Council From: Robbie Bain To: Richard Greene - Member; Stewart Fraser Subject: RE: Meeting to discuss private road to Rua Reidh Lighthouse Date: 24 March 2016 16:46:36

Richard,

Thanks for this, I suspect that there is actually an element of agreement between the Estate and NLB but it lies in what they are not saying and presumably not willing to say!

Regards,

Robbie

Robert K. Bain

Ward Manager (Wester Ross, Strathpeffer & Lochalsh) Chief Executive's Service, The Highland Council, Council Offices, High Street, Dingwall, IV15 9QN.

Tel: (01349) 868626

-----Original Message----- From: Richard Greene - Member Sent: 24 March 2016 15:50 To: Stewart Fraser Cc: Robbie Bain Subject: FW: Meeting to discuss private road to Rua Reidh Lighthouse

Hi Stewart Apologies for burdening you with additional info on this matter. I think though it sensible you have the Estate and Lighthouse Board view. Regards Richard

-----Original Message----- From: Mike Bullock [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 March 2016 15:26 To: Mark Williams Cc: Rua Reidh Lighthouse; [email protected]; [email protected]; Janet at GALE; [email protected]; Richard Greene - Member; Philip Waite Subject: RE: Meeting to discuss private road to Rua Reidh Lighthouse

Dear Mark,

Many thanks for your email to Christine of today which we have discussed with our lawyers. As you may know, our previous repairs to the road caused us to review the legal position in detail some time ago. Our lawyers have therefore had the opportunity to become totally familiar with the deeds and they are confident that their understanding is correct.

They are unequivocally advising us that NLB does not control the road and has no power to grant additional rights of access over the road. Our lawyers are also very clear that NLB having a right of access does not imply that NLB has a power to exclude others from also taking access. They further tell me that the maintenance provisions are irrelevant and it is not unusual to find an obligation for one party to maintain property that is controlled by another. Finally, the obligation on NLB to erect the gate has been extinguished and NLB would decline to erect it again.

You will appreciate that I say this to advise all involved that NLB has no power to intervene in this matter.

Best Regards

Mike

Mike Bullock Chief Executive Northern Lighthouse Board 84 George Street Edinburgh EH2 3DA dd: 0131 473 3112 email: [email protected] Visit our Website www.nlb.org.uk The Northern Lighthouse Board is the General Lighthouse Authority for Scotland and the Isle of Man

-----Original Message----- From: Mark Williams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 March 2016 10:50 To: Rua Reidh Lighthouse ; [email protected]; [email protected]; Janet at GALE ; Christine Clyde ; [email protected]; Richard Greene - Member ; Philip Waite Subject: RE: Meeting to discuss private road to Rua Reidh Lighthouse

Dear All I set out below the estates position below. The tarmac track to the light house was constructed by the NLB in 1964.Permission was granted for this road by the estate by way of a Deed of servitude. This deed allowed the estate access for the following purposes , personal , normal estate ,agricultural and/or sporting, subject to speed and weight restrictions which may be agreed from time to time. The maintenance of the road is solely the responsibility of the NLB and therefore it follows that it is they who can decide who can and who cannot use the road . The estate cannot grant permission beyond what is allowed within the deed of servitude. However "sporting " in my view includes sea fishing and the estate is happy for folk to use the track to access the sea fishing providing they park at the borrow pit above the lighthouse. Also, within the deed is a requirement for the NLB to provide and maintain a gate at either end of the road. If the NLB wish to renew the gate the Estate would not object, but it must not be locked or restrict access in any way to those with a right to use the road. As the road is a private road the NLB have a right to erect such a sign stating only "Private Road". Any other signs, apart from highway signs such as weight restrictions and speed limits would need the permission of the estate. I do not think that camper vans are suitable for this narrow road and I should like to suggest that they are banned. The Car parking at the Melvaig end is very limited and should be increased, but this will have to be agreed by the crofters and council. The car parking at the light house end needs to be signed and enhanced . I fear that a meeting would achieve little. Regards Mark Williams MRICS Factor Inverasdale estate ______

______This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.claranet.co.uk ______

This email has been virus scanned by MailControl - www.mailcontrol.com

********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The content of e-mail and files transmitted may not belong to or be the opinion of the Northern Lighthouse Board and the Northern Lighthouse Board cannot be responsible for such.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.clearswift.com **********************************************************************

Please think green, do not print out this email unless it is necessary.

This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com www.clearswift.com **********************************************************************

Please think green, do not print out this email unless it is necessary.

This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com From: Richard Greene - Member To: Stewart Fraser Cc: Robbie Bain Subject: FW: Gairloch Community Council March Minutes Date: 24 March 2016 00:21:04 Attachments: Notice to Tracy McClachlan.docx

Stewart, Sorry to burden you with more, but this is copy of the notice sent to , as forwarded to me by Gairloch CC.

Regards Richard

Richard Greene Independent Councillor Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh

From: Gairloch Community Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 March 2016 11:10 To: Gairloch Times Subject: Gairloch Community Council March Minutes

Minutes attached Updates: SEPA have since confirmed they have not yet received an applaction from Scottish Water to change their CAR license As of today there is no decision on the planning web site on Scottish Waters application.

Also attached is a notification of Intended Action which has been served on Tracy McLachlan by a member of the public. Since the CC meeting there has been a lively public response on social media and via a petition resulting in over 1,600 signatures to date to make the road available for all to drive.

-- Fran Cree Secretary, Gairloch Community Council From: Richard Greene - Member To: Stewart Fraser; Robbie Bain Subject: FW: Meeting to discuss private road to Rua Reidh Lighthouse Date: 23 March 2016 13:00:55

Stewart and Robbie This was invitation to which I have only seen one acceptance from GALE . I have not as yet responded. Richard

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 22 March 2016 09:07 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Janet at GALE; Christine Clyde; Mark Williams; [email protected]; Richard Greene - Member; ; Philip Waite Subject: Meeting to discuss private road to Rua Reidh Lighthouse

Dear all,

I would like to invite you all to a meeting at Rua Reidh to discuss the situation with the private road. The vitriolic campaign and threats of legal action on facebook and elsewhere are helping no- one. The campaign to adopt the road, while laudable, is not going to succeed with the current financial restraints at Highland Council. We need to come to a sensible solution quickly that will allow visitors to visit the area around the lighthouse while ensuring the road maintenance and our privacy.

Our business commitments mean that the best time for a meeting for us would be on any weekday between 11am and 3pm. We are happy to host it at Rua Reidh so that attendees can see the problems for themselves.

I do hope that you will agree that this is the way forward. Please 'reply to all' by the close of business this Thursday (24th March) to indicate whether or not you are prepared to attend a meeting. Once we have heard from everyone confirming that we can work together, we can arrange a mutually convenient date.

Kind regards From: Richard Greene - Member To: Stewart Fraser; Robbie Bain Subject: FW: An invitation Date: 23 March 2016 12:56:54

Good Afternoon Stewart and Robbie This is the latest invitation to a meeting on the Rua Reidh situation. As you can see every effort is being made to drag Highland Council into the mix..even though the road is presently unadopted. I have no actually seen the petition so cannot ascertain the wording used. I will also forward the invitation from . I have not accepted any invitation and as I said yesterday I am becoming ever more reluctant to do so given the legal threats being bandied about. This is becoming quite urgent and the issues raised by in the e mail I forwarded yesterday have added quite a bit of pressure toward Highland Council. Regards Richard

From: Gairloch Community Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 March 2016 11:18 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: An invitation

We are hoping to get a meeting together to discuss the Rua Reidh road access problems with NLB, Estate, HC , CC and Graziers. Tracy as sent us a demand to meet at the lighthouse at a time to suit her along with several other parties and some of these parties would rather meet without Tracy and not at Rua Reidh, to try to get consensus before approaching her. The petition flying around has over 1,600 signatures and urges the HC to get involved - actually it urges HC to adopt the road! I don't know if its something you would want to handle or send another representative but it would be good to get around the table to try to sort out this mess. Fran

-- Fran Cree Secretary, Gairloch Community Council

defeatist about this, and there should be rigorous investigation of the options for adopting it as a restricted byway without bringing it up to full adoptive standard - that would be more in the public interest than leaving the status quo.

I know it is Highland policy to require roads to be brought up to the full 'adoptive standard' before adoption, but it isn't set in law - it's there to protect the council against being lumbered by developers and housebuilders, but that isn't the situation here. There are adopted roads that are not currently up to full adoptive standard (such as my own!) and they don't seem to have caused a historical problem as a result.

The NLB is already committed to repairs currently needed to the road as is, and the costs for adoption without changing the overall standard of the road should be minimal (inspection, legal costs, some signage, and perhaps a couple more passing places).

Since I wrote my previous email, I've also looked at the waste collection policy, and it appears the policy and the law allow the council to decline to serve a place it regards as unreasonably expensive owing to its remote location, so any ongoing expense there might be a non-issue too.

Thanks again for your thoughts - I'm sure this will be a topic running for some time!

On 21 March 2016 at 13:23 Richard Greene - Member wrote:

As the Local Member I would be pleased to see the road improved and adopted, but there are many improvements I would like to see come forward to fruition in our area but the harsh reality is that in the present financial climate that will not happen.

Were the road to be adopted it would have to be brought up to Highland Council standard prior to adoption. Who would bear the cost given that there appears to be no answer as to who is the actual owner?

In our own Ward 6 at present there are pressures to find Capital funding for the Stromeferry bypass, the Lair to Balnacra improvement and of course the second phase of the Slattadale to Kerrysdale section. These are just the main road sections!

On cyclical maintenance which funds the general maintenance of roads and side roads, it would cost at last estimate £156 m to bring the HC road system up to standard!

Over the next 9 years we will have about £50m available, so already a shortfall of about £100m! And you can add further recurring problems over that time span.

It is a depressing picture, but that is the reality of the situation.

I am through in Inverness at meetings and will be again tomorrow and Wednesday

Regards

Richard

From: Sent: 21 March 2016 12:14 To: Richard Greene - Member Subject: Adoption of Melvaig to Rua Reidh road

Hi Richard

Apologies if I have already sent you this, but I found it still sitting in my drafts folder, so maybe I didn't hit the Send button!

You may have seen there is a public petition calling on Highland Council to adopt the Melvaig to Rua Reidh road, and it's been gathering signatures at a huge rate – over 500 in its first 24 hours, and now well over 1,000 after two days.

Doubts have now also arisen over whether the NLB had any legal right to incorporate road user rights in the deeds for the Keepers Cottages except for their own servants and purposes, or whether the deeds are now defective without there having been a new sharing agreement between all the main users.

We are waiting for comment from the NLB on that.

Thanks

-----separately----- Speaking purely personally as a resident, , I realize the council is bound to be hugely resistant to this idea, given the potential financial implications, but I think it would be strongly in the public interest for it to be done, and seen locally as a very positive decision by the council. The road surface is currently in better condition than the public road, and while clearly the road doesn't meet the usual construction standards called for by the council's policy on road adoption, as I understand it that policy is not a matter of law, and I think this should be treated as an exceptional case in the public interest.

The road surface condition may well be in better condition in some parts, but what are the foundations like. Also there are two bridges which I understand are showing the ravages of time!

Presumably, given the right will in the Highland Council, it could be adopted as a restricted byway with, just for example, limits of 7.5 tonnes, 2.2 metres width and 20 mph speed limit - I think it already has similar privately-applied limits. Maybe there is also a provision that would avoid it creating any obligation for weekly waste collection, since that would clearly be difficult for the full-size wagon. Just my thoughts!

Listening * Open * Valuing * Improving * Supporting * Partnering * Delivering Èisteachd * Fosgailte * Luach * Leasachadh * Taic * Com-pàirteachas * Lìbhrigeadh