Legal challenge over planned revamp of Academy Street in Inverness heard in Court of Session
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
A legal challenge over Highland Council’s controversial plans to revamp Academy Street in Inverness has been heard in the Court of Session.
The owners of the city’s Eastgate Shopping Centre, who are seeking a judicial review, believe they have forced the council to make concessions over the plans which aim to reduce traffic in the city centre and make it more welcoming for walkers, cyclists and wheelchair users.
They launched their legal challenge following the council’s decisions last September, arguing the local authority had failed to carry out a fair and proper consultation and had also failed to take into account the impact of the current proposal on businesses in the city centre.
A decision following Wednesday’s court hearing is now awaited but the owners believe the move has set an important marker for future discussion and development of any proposals to alter the layout of Academy Street.
Eastgate bosses are willing to challenge Academy Street plans in court
Academy Street revamp is ‘poor’ value for money
The controversial proposals seek to cut traffic movements on Academy Street to just 2000 a day, a drop of around 70 per cent.
Bus lane sections would also be added between the junctions of Union Street and Queensgate to reduce congestion.
The council’s Inverness city committee approved plans by 12 votes to 10 in August last year and gave the go ahead for officials to finalise the proposed design and consult on a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).
But the owners of the Eastgate Shopping Centre challenged the decision on the basis that changing from the original option (Option A) - which had been put out for public consultation in May 2022 - was unlawful.
After the case was heard on Wednesday, Julian Diamond, of Scoop Asset Management representing the owners, explained their arguments.
"They challenged the council’s decision on the basis that in changing from the original option that was put out for public consultation in May 2022 (Option A), they had failed to carry out a fair and proper consultation,” he said.
"They had also failed to take into account the impact of the current proposal on businesses in the city centre.”
Finally, the council had pre-determined the matter on the basis of the funding criteria of the walking, wheeling and cycling charity, Sustrans, he said.
He said the council opposed the judicial review in the Court of Session on the basis the decision was 'premature' and 'incompetent'.
"This is on the basis they argue the initial consultation leading up to the decisions in August and September last year were simply an 'optioneering' phase in a process which would ultimately result in the council making a TRO,” he said.
"They say that no 'real world' decision has been taken and if anyone has a concern about the lawfulness of the council making a TRO, they can challenge that in due course."
The judge hearing the judicial review, Lord Sandison, has ordered that the question of the competency of the petition for judicial review should be considered before the court considers arguments on the lawfulness of the process that resulted in the decisions in August and September 2023.
The result of the hearing will either be the court decides that the petition is competent and will then go on to hear arguments about the lawfulness of the procedure at a future date.
Alternatively, if the court finds that the petition for the challenge is premature and incompetent, it will dismiss the petition.
While the owners have not yet secured a full judicial review, Mr Diamond believes this week's proceedings have set an important marker for future discussion and development of any proposals to alter the layout of Academy Street.
"In arguing that the petition is premature and incompetent, the council have expressly and explicitly stated that all of the grounds of challenge that have been taken to date may be taken at the end of the TRO process," he said.
"This would be in addition to any further grounds of challenge that may emerge between now and the council making the TRO, if it chooses to do so.
"This means that the making of the application for judicial review and the challenge of the decisions in August and September 2023 has forced the council into a position where it cannot claim that it has closed its mind to alternative proposals.
"However, this appears to be at odds with comments made by officers in reply to members of the public and in meetings that the 'optioneering' process is over. It also cuts across previous statements that it is effectively 'this or nothing'."
He expected the Court of Session to make a swift decision.
An economic impact assessment of the proposals found the Academy Street proposals provided poor value for money and a negative return in benefit to cost ratio terms – 51p back for every £1 invested - but the wider economic impacts could range from £1.5 million to £4 million in the longer term.
The assessment, commissioned by the council, was carried out by WSP consultants and presented to councillors last month.
