Playing fields battle Council bosses refuse to answer questions
COUNCIL bosses have refused to answer questions about why their lawyers tried and failed to fight both sides of a court case about playing fields.
The “utterly confounding process” is estimated to have cost Bristol council taxpayers several thousands of pounds in legal fees, according to campaigners.
Two opposing departments at Bristol City Council are locked in a courtroom battle with Cotham School over a fence around Stoke Lodge playing fields. The school has asked a High Court judge to overturn a decision made by councillors about whether the fence should be removed.
Lawyers working for the council will now “robustly defend” that decision, after initially backing the school. But the mystery over why that didn’t happen immediately sparked fury among campaigners, speaking at the public rights of way and greens committee on Monday.
David Mayer said: “I hold in absolute contempt the perpetrators and conspirators sneaking around in the shadows, plotting and planning to subvert the rule of law, in pursuit of some undisclosed and secret objective, all funded at the [council tax] payer’s expense. How can we expose their true motivation?”
The row over the 23-acre playing fields in Stoke Bishop has rumbled on for many years. Cotham School has used the fields for PE lessons and put the fence up for safety reasons, such as protecting pupils from dog poo, while We Love Stoke Lodge has campaigned to take the fence down, so the public can access the fields freely.
Last summer, councillors on the public rights of way and greens committee voted to register the fields as a village green. This means they must be kept open to the public by law, and the fence would have to come down. The school is legally challenging this decision.
Then in January, it emerged that the council would not defend the decision taken by the committee in court. The council has conflicting roles in the row, as both the education authority which owns the land, and the commons registration authority.
Somebody decided the role of landowner took priority, but it is unclear who took that decision and why. A judge ruled the council can only take a single position, rather than “suck and blow at the same time”.
Liberal Democrat Councillor Jos Clark said: “I’ve sat here with my head in my hands, because I’m just finding this whole process completely and utterly confounding. Members of the public deserve to have an explanation for their questions. Their questions aren’t unreasonable. If people take the time to come here, they should actually get a response. The council is not being open about information that the public requires. That sets up a relationship of distrust, which is really unhealthy.”
According to a written statement submitted to the meeting by campaign group We Love Stoke Lodge, the commons registration authority spent £2,400 making submissions to the court. The council as landowner also spent £12,700 fighting to be able to argue against the committee’s decision, it claimed. And having lost the hearing, the council was ordered to pay £1,800 towards costs.
Several members of the public attempted to ask questions during the committee meeting, about why the council decided to back the school in the legal challenge. But Tim O’Gara, director of legal services, refused to answer and suggested they ask the mayor Marvin Rees and his cabinet.
Governors from Cotham School attended the committee meeting but did not speak. They sat opposite the We Love Stoke Lodge campaigners and filmed them.
Campaigners claim the decision to back the school instead of the committee was unlawful.
Separate to the litigation, the school is also applying for a judicial review. A stay had been in place, pausing the review proceedings, but this was lifted on April 9. This means the council must file a summary of grounds for resisting the judicial review claim by the end of the month.