Judicial review into the handling of the Academy Street revamp to move ahead in blow for Highland Council

Scotland’s highest court has dealt a blow to Highland Council’s hopes to avoid facing a potentially embarrassing judicial review into its hugely controversial proposals for Academy Street.

The Court of Session Judge hearing the case, Lord Sandison, dismissed arguments from the local authority's counsel that a judicial review sought by the Eastgate Centre at this stage was “incompetent” and “premature”.

The council’s case centred on the issuing of a Traffic Road Order (TRO) to allow the reduction by about 70 per cent of vehicles on Academy Street as well as the rerouting of traffic there and leading on to it.

The council claimed 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.

In his 18 page written judgement, Lord Sandison said: “The respondent [council] argues that the only remedy available to a person aggrieved by a TRO is an application to the court within six weeks after the order is made.

“As a straightforward matter of statutory construction, the respondent’s argument in this regard is unfounded.”

And on the issue of the call for a judicial review into the project being premature the local authority claimed that the initial consultation was simply an “optioneering” phase.

That is despite decisions in August and September last year being formally agreed by the Inverness committee with elected members being clear at the time they were progressing plans for the redevelopment of Academy Street.

Lord Sandison said: “I do not consider that the petition is premature once its true nature is appreciated.”

He continued: “Properly viewed it does not seek to challenge any TRO; rather, what it challenges are decisions which, in the ordinary course of things, may reasonably be expected to affect the future design of Academy Street.”

Should that further hearing find that the council has erred in law then it would be a significant reputational blow for the local authority’s reputation – something that would call into question numerous issues.

Those issues include how much defending itself against the judicial review cost the taxpayer and perhaps more significantly why the local authority did not listen warnings from many who are against the plans.