Scottish island divided over future with calls to 'heal' rift of islanders

A Scottish island trust said it is committed to “healing division” in its community caused by a split over its future direction and spending on key projects.

Bernera, which is linked to north west Lewis by road bridge, has been the scene of fractious meetings and a growing “aggressive mood” as questions are asked over the use of some public funds by the Great Bernera Community Development Trust and how it reflects the wishes of islanders.

Central issues are the planned development of a disused fishing hatchery as a community and enterprise centre – for which the trust has been awarded £101,000 by the Scottish Land Fund – and long delays in getting six e-bikes bought using NHS Western Isles funding on the road.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A survey carried out by Bernera Community Council found 83 per cent of respondents had concerns about projects proposed by the GBCDT with 68 per cent not having confidence in the trust to represent the community.

The road to Bostadh on Bernera. The island has become divided over spending of public funds and its direction for the future. PIC: John Lucas/geograph.orgThe road to Bostadh on Bernera. The island has become divided over spending of public funds and its direction for the future. PIC: John Lucas/geograph.org
The road to Bostadh on Bernera. The island has become divided over spending of public funds and its direction for the future. PIC: John Lucas/geograph.org
Read More
The decaying Scottish castle at the heart of the battle for an island’s future

The results led to a hostile public meeting last month during which a distinction was made by one audience member between the “supportive” crofting community and the ambitions of new trust members from “different cultural backgrounds”.

The survey, which was sent to 140 residents with 90 responses – the most ever received by the community council – also found that 74 per cent did not support the hatchery plans and over half of residents (53 per cent) had not received information about the proposals.

Callum Macaulay, chairperson of the trust, said a “mis-step” in announcing the SLF funding for the hatchery led to a belief that a “deliberate attempt” had been made to hide the fact that the project was going ahead.

He added: “This was not the case. We feel that if the (community) council had brought these concerns to our attention in enough time for us to respond before sending out their survey, we feel many of these questions could have been addressed immediately and without delay, which would have helped bring clarity to the situation and could have avoided a more protracted and aggressive mood growing within the community

He added: “We have communicated with all our funders and agreed that a transparency pack should go out with all information in it, and should be distributed to all members and residents of the Bernera estate and its surrounding communities. It has been decided that this will go out by recorded delivery to each home, so as to ensure that all residents have access to it at the same time and that no person can feel that they have been missed out. We are committed to healing this division.”

An independent survey for the trust found 71 per cent (58 people) supported the hatchery development. Around 10 per cent of respondents were not from Bernera.

Mr Macaulay, who replaced long-serving chairman John Porteous, who resigned last month along with several other trust directors, said the e-bike scheme had been delayed due to securing electricity supply and staff training.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A Scottish Land Fund spokesperson said funding for the hatchery followed “due diligence measures” including assessment ov community consultation. The funds have yet to be released.

Madeleine Macaulay, chair of Bernera Community Council, said: “The survey and subsequent public meeting gave the community a voice on these issues and concerns with the GBCDT, which they felt were not representing their democratic views.”

Comments

 0 comments

Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.