Court battle over car park cost council £50k
A LEGAL battle over a car park cost Manchester city council £50,000 one of several financial losses.
An analysis by the M.E.N of council spending over £500 for 2020 shows just over £1.1million went on external ‘legal fees.’
In February, campaigners won a High Court battle against Manchester council’s plans to build a 440space temporary car park near a primary school.
Trees Not Cars sought a judicial review of the decision taken in October 2019 by the planning committee to keep parking facilities at the former Central Retail Park in Ancoats for two years - months after the council declared a climate emergency.
Town hall leaders hoped the car park would generate short-term income while plans to redevelop the Great Ancoats Street site, which it bought for £37m, were drawn up.
However His Honour Judge Bird ruled Manchester council officers ‘misled’ members of the city’s planning committee by relying on errorfilled reports regarding air quality impacts.
His judgement said the local authority also ‘failed’ its public sector equality duty by not considering the likely health effects on children attending New Islington Free School - some 26 metres away.
The planning permission, which is due to expire this October, has now been quashed, with the site currently being used as a Covid-19 testing site. Figures obtained via a Freedom of Information by Trees Not Cars show the council has spent £51,450 on its own legal costs associated with the court case to date. The council was also ordered to pay up to £35,000 towards legal costs incurred by Trees Not Cars.
The final total will be even higher if the council decides to pursue an appeal, as has been promised.
Trees Not Cars campaigner Gemma Cameron told the M.E.N.: “I’m disappointed Manchester city council has chosen to spend such vast sums of money fighting a local residents group fighting for clean air for children. Manchester council, which was represented by leading planning barrister Christopher Katkowski QC, described the judgement as ‘disappointing.’
A spokesperson added: “The reason we have contested this judicial review was not about its implications for the former Central Retail Park site but the precedent it would set and the potential impact of this decision on future applications.”