Home   News   Article

Highland Council bans public from crunch meeting discussing Academy Street appeal funded with taxpayers’ money





Academy Street has been at the centre of a major saga over its redevelopment. Picture: James Mackenzie
Academy Street has been at the centre of a major saga over its redevelopment. Picture: James Mackenzie

The future of controversial Academy Street revamp plans will be decided next week - in secret.

The public will be banned from a Highland Council debate on using taxpayers’ money to fund an appeal against its “unlawful” consultation about the project.

The move is likely to anger some people who have already accused the local authority of not being open about its plans that are aimed at reducing traffic in the city centre.

Concerned traders are worried the project will deter customers - while it is designed to make the area more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists.

Last month the council decided to appeal Lord Sandison’s verdict in order to keep options open for councillors to choose what to do next when they meet on Thursday.

It reached this stage after representatives of the Eastgate Shopping Centre challenged the consultation process then last month Lord Sandison ruled it had not only been “unfair” but strayed into “unlawfulness”.

The agenda for next week’s meeting revealed “the public should be excluded from the meeting” as it “involves the likely disclosure of exempt information” as councillors consider a “confidential report” by assistant chief executive Malcolm MacLeod.

Despite the secrecy surrounding the meeting, The Inverness Courier has discovered that councillors will be presented with four options. They are: continue with the appeal; disregard the judicial review and launch a traffic regulation order; relaunch the consultation process on the current options; or abandon the scheme altogether.

The Eastgate Shopping Centre launched a judicial review, which it won, over the Academy Street scheme consultation. Picture: James Mackenzie
The Eastgate Shopping Centre launched a judicial review, which it won, over the Academy Street scheme consultation. Picture: James Mackenzie

Yet holding the session behind closed doors prevents interested parties from hearing the deliberations, even as some say their livelihoods depend on it.

It also means the public are shut out from a decision with material consequences on their lives - not least how an elected body is spending public funds and whether a major infrastructure project should proceed or not.

That is something that will be raised as a point of principle in a question from the public at an earlier stage in next week’s full council meeting. Mr R Thompson is set to ask council leader Raymond Bremner about the use of taxpayers’ cash on an Academy Street appeal.

He will ask: “In the midst of a funding crisis, will individual councillors take responsibility for their decision to use taxpayers’ money to appeal the judicial review of the unfair and unlawful Academy Street redevelopment plans, instead of using those funds for supplying essential services cut from the most recent budget?”

Scott Murray, boss of Cru Holdings which operates several city centre businesses, said: “If there was ever any doubt about Highland Council’s unwillingness to consult and communicate in a transparent and open way, they have clearly demonstrated that they have no interest in what anyone outside of their inner circle has to say.

“One would raise the question as to what they are so afraid of that they feel they need to behave in this manner.”

Inverness BID was approached with the information about the closed-door meeting. A spokesperson for the board said: "We are awaiting the publication of the relevant papers to ascertain the reasons behind the decision to hear the Academy Street item in private, and also so that we can finalise our overall response.

“This matter has been ongoing for nearly two years, causing significant uncertainty for many of our stakeholders. Many businesses will be very concerned that decisions which could impact them will be made behind closed doors.

“While private discussions may be necessary at times, we encourage that consideration be given to including at least some public elements if possible, which could be a more balanced approach to take and would moreover help to also uphold the principles of open, transparent, and accountable decision-making."


Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.



This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More