Indication that Highland Council is unlikely to pursue an appeal after losing Academy Street court case amid claims there are ‘several significant shortcomings’
The first suggestion of how Highland Council may react to losing a high-profile court case over its plans to completely remodel Academy Street has emerged with the local authority appearing unlikely to appeal the verdict.
The company representing the owners of the Eastgate Shopping Centre took the council to court over what it saw as serious failings in its consultation over the plans for the city centre street.
Lord Sandison found the consultation was “unlawful” so the council, having lost the case, now has until August 30 to lodge an appeal based on a point of law but that now looks unlikely.
Speaking after an Inverness BID breakfast, a Highland Council spokesman said: “The council has noted the judgement and will consider the best way forward at the meeting of the full council in September.”
That meeting is on September 19 and is clearly well after the deadline to challenge the verdict so overturning the verdict does not at this stage look like a viable option.
The development emerged after a blistering technical analysis of the council’s economic impact assessment (EIA) by AMION Consulting’s Tim Millard that in a number of ways supported the critics of the scheme.
The report stated: “There are several significant shortcomings of the EIA, which are largely directly traceable to the EIA brief prepared by the Highland Council, more so than the technical work undertaken by WSP.
“These include confounding economic impact analysis with economic appraisal, only assessing one option and flaws in methodology that likely lead to an overstatement of benefits and an understatement of disbenefits.
“The cost benefit analysis, which does contain much high quality analysis, is not considered to provide a complete picture on the welfare change provided by the scheme.
“With a benefit-cost ratio of 0.51 [51p benefit for every £1 spent], a “poor” value for money category could be inferred based on the Department for Transport’s Value for Money framework (2017). Whilst the BCR is likely an overestimate, this category is considered appropriate.”
It added: “The non-transport analyses conducted, which should not under any circumstances be combined with the cost-benefit analysis, on balance, are not relevant for the scheme or in line with current guidance and best practice.”
