A FOOTPATH which councillors pushed to have created when new houses were built in Prestonpans was a mistake, council leader Willie Innes has admitted.

The path, which is on Cameron Way, was designed to allow access between Appin Way and Gardiner Road.

However, residents said it had led to years of misery due to anti-social behaviour from youths who use it.

A petition was put before East Lothian Council’s petitions committee last week by resident David MacLeod, on behalf of people living on Cameron Way, calling for the path and the wall to be “stopped up”.

It said: “Anti-social behaviour is impacting on the quality of residents’ lives as the wall opening is also being used as an escape route. There have also been incidents of criminal damage to property.” Mr MacLeod told the committee that his own house had been targeted by youths throwing eggs, stones and causing damage.

Council leader Willie Innes, a local ward councillor for Prestonpans, spoke to the committee in support of the petition.

He said: “When the houses were built local ward members, myself included, did see the footpath as an important link between the new houses and ones already there, but it was a mistake.

“We do not keep mistakes.The police are supporting the closure of this footpath, the community wardens are supporting it and the anti-social behaviour teams are supporting it.” Mr Innes highlighted that three anti-social behaviour orders had been granted by the courts against youths involved in some of the trouble relating to the path.

He said: “We do not allow the animals to run the zoo.” Initially council officials had insisted there was no legal premise for closing the path, pointing out that it was covered by roads legislation which required the path to be either dangerous or unusued.

However, the committee agreed to ask the council’s head of infrastructure to liaise with their legal department to see if they could find a way to close the path.

Committee convenor Provost Ludovic Broun-Lindsay said: “If people are using it for dangerous purposes then that could be an argument, we need to define dangerous.”