AN eyesore fence on a picturesque quayside is still spoiling the view for residents despite being deemed an unlawful obstruction in Supreme Court a year ago.
A 1.8-metre high metal fence was put up by TW Logistics along the Mistley Quay in 2008 after the Health and Safety Executive raised concerns people could fall into the water.
It sparked years of legal battles with quayside resident Ian Tucker who challenged the development saying it obstructed views of the River Stour.
Following the Supreme Court decision, Free the Quay campaigners announced their intentions to work with TWL to find an aesthetically acceptable replacement of the fence but say the company “has declined every invitation” so far.
READ MORE:>>Supreme Court rules on 'freeing' picturesque quayside after 12-year campaign
Simon Bullimore, who is a chairman of the campaign group, said: “Since we have had the judgement for the quay we have been in correspondence reminding them of the fact the fence is an obstruction on the village green.
“We have been requesting meetings with them to discuss how we can go ahead from here to produce a solution which is acceptable from the health and safety point of view, planning point of view and all other interested parties.
“So far TWL have rejected every invitation we have had to a meeting.
“We will now have to go forward with the steps available to us under the law to remove this unlawful obstruction from the village.”
ANGRY RESIDENTS: Protesters at Mistley Quay in 2008
Alan Carter,63, lives in the Barley Store which backs onto the Quay.
He said: "I bought my apartment two years ago and was hoping the fence issue would be sorted out quickly.
"It seems to me that there are so many possibilities to make the quay attractive to residents and visitors alike.
"Think of the Wet Dock in Ipswich and how good that looks. But will it ever happen ? I am not so sure now."
In a statement, a spokesman for TW Logistics said: “Clearly, as the landowner, occupier and operator of the Port of Mistley TWL has also been, and continues to be, the relevant duty holder, with significant legal obligations with which we must comply.
“Ultimate responsibility and liability for what occurs on our land rests with us.
“Under relevant health and safety legislation we have pre-existing rights and a duty to ensure that persons not in our employment aren’t exposed to risks to their health and safety whilst on our land. A breach of this is a criminal offence.
We’re not in a position to make concessions or compromises with regards to port users’ safety. Neither does any legislation require us to do so.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here