Zoo parking fight Campaigners return to court
CAMPAIGNERS fighting to stop Bristol Zoo being allowed to have a section of the Downs as a temporary car park every summer will return to court having forced council chiefs to disclose key documents in the saga.
The campaign group Downs For People raised £2,000 in just a couple of days to keep its legal challenge going, and are now appealing to raise another £12,000 for the next stage of the protracted legal fight.
The money raised last week means the pressure group, made up of local residents and environmental campaigners, will return to court this week for the next step in the process, having successfully shown that Bristol City Council and the Society of Merchant Venturers had been less than forthcoming with regards to disclosing how it came to give a 20 year lease on land at the Downs to be used by Bristol Zoo for a car park last year.
The Downs for People group have campaigned for around ten years against the use of a section of the Downs by Bristol Zoo as a temporary car park for up to 700 cars, on as many as 28 of the busiest days of the summer each year.
That deal was done by the group that controls the Downs, known as the Downs Committee – which thanks to a Victorian Act of Parliament, has half its members drawn from Bristol City Council’s councillors, and half from the Society of Merchant Venturers.
The deal was struck to give the zoo a lease until 2039, but only came to light following a Freedom of Information request.
Downs for People has begun legal proceedings against the Downs Committee, through Bristol City Council, naming the Society of Merchant Venturers and Bristol Zoo as interested parties in the challenge.
The group raised enough funds to mount the legal challenge but at the first hearing, a judge said he was not being told the full picture by the council. In an order dated November 12 2020 by His Honour Judge Cotter QC, the court ordered the defendants to disclose information to the claimant and the court by November 2 and said: “It is somewhat surprising that...relevant copies of the licences, or indeed any detailed information as to how they came to be entered into, have not been provided. The Claimant and the Court do not have the full picture.”
As they raised more money to go
back to court this week, Downs For People said the council had since complied with the court order, and had produced the detailed information asked for.
Downs for People appealed for more people in Bristol to back their challenge, launching a crowdfunding appeal.
“Zoo parking on the Downs contravenes the 1861 Downs Act, the City Council’s planning policies, and the law on common land,” said Downs for People’s spokesperson Susan Carter.
“Legal advice has confirmed we have a good prospect of success in challenging the secret deal to licence parking for a further 20 years.
“The Downs Committee and the city council are making it as difficult and expensive as possible for us to proceed. In judicial review cases, public bodies are expected to disclose all relevant information.
“We have been denied even copies of the licences. We have had to apply to the courts at significant cost for an order to require the committee and council to provide information.
“We expect to win this case. If we do, Bristol City Council and the Downs Committee will have to give us £42,000 towards our legal costs and pay all their own. If we lose, we will have to pay £10,000 towards their costs. This means our costs will be at least £15,000 if we win and £40,000 if we lose. Council taxpayers will face a hefty bill too.
“The potential bills for Downs for People are daunting. We are grateful for the money that the Open Spaces Society, Bristol Civic Society and others have given us. We need more.
“We hope the people of Bristol will respond generously to our appeal, not only to safeguard this part of the Downs but to encourage the Downs Committee to act openly and lawfully in future. We suggest everyone should complain to their local councillors about the way the council has behaved and the shocking waste of council taxpayers’ money,” she added.
The case continues.