A Freuchie couple say they are unable to protect their home from serious damage after being given a “broken” flood bridge.
Fife Council provided funds to Freuchie Community Council to upgrade the bridge as part of work to beef up defences after serious flooding damaged village homes in 2008.
But nearby residents Jim and Diane Mullen claim to have been unaware they owned the original bridge during the work and have now been left responsible for its upkeep.
The bridge is part of the Fife core path network. That means the couple are unable to make the improvements they would like to see.
Flooding in 2020 demonstrated the barrier’s limitations. Gushing water “overtopped” the bridge, “bypassing the barrier”.
And straight into the Mullen’s front room.
Jim Mullen said: “None of this is of our making.”
“We are stuck with a broken bridge we didn’t buy, on a right of way we can’t change, waiting for the next flood.”
A bridge too far?
Freuchie Community Council requested the £10,000 bridge upgrade from council funds to protect the village from flooding.
The community body no longer operates after all its members resigned in 2021.
The Mullens says they only became aware of their bridge ownership after the community council informed them.
A Fife Council report on the matter from 2010 states the ownership of the bridge is “unknown”.
The couple claim the community council promised to take responsibility for the bridge ahead of the upgrade.
They say minutes from community council meetings at the time support their position
How can the Mullens protect their home?
The couple claim the floodgate often does not work.
“The most effective option would be to build a 1.3m by 1.5m wall.
“However, the access legislation does not allow this.”
Jim feels frustrated at the hurdles preventing him from taking action.
“All that is asked is for a little help to have obstacles removed that we have no authority or responsibility over so we may protect our home.”
‘Discussions continuing’
Nobody from the Freuchie Community Council of 2008 was available to comment.
But a member of the most recent version of the body suggested they did not agree with the Mullen’s version of events.
They said they had gone through meeting minutes from the time and cannot find record of Jim’s claim the community council would take responsibility for the bridge.
Fife Council service manager Ross Spiers said: “Discussions are continuing in relation to the footbridge which also forms part of the core path network and is therefore subject to this legislation.”
