Campaigners lose legal bid to stop development of St Fittick's Park in Aberdeen

Campaigners who want to stop the potential development of a beloved city park have lost a legal bid to overturn a council ruling about the site.

The activists believe Aberdeen City Council shouldn’t allow St Fittick’s Park in the city’s Torry area to be developed.

They went to the Court of Session last month hoping that judge Lord Fairley would overturn a decision made by the local authority in September last year.

The campaigners believe that councillors were wrong to give the go head for formal talks with businesses over creating an Energy Transition Zone at the green space.

The scheme is seen by its supporters as a means of helping to diversify the north east economy.

Opponents of the scheme maintain that the local authority failed to carry out a public sector equality assessment aimed at finding out the impact it would have on groups such as the young, elderly and disabled.

Mike Dailly, for the campaigners, told a judge that under challenge was “a policy decision” of the council who failed to carry out an impact assessment and the loss of the amenity could impact health and well being.

Aberdeen City Council opposed the legal move and maintains that the challenge was “premature”.

Lawyers for the council argued that the decision made by the council meant that it did not need to perform such an assessment. The lawyers argued that the talks would allow the council to have the information it needed to perform the assessment at a later date.

Niall McLean, for the council, said at this stage it was not known what use the site would be put, how it would impact the community or how funds might be available to benefit the community.

He said these were all highly relevant factors to be taken into account that an impact assessment was to be carried out.

He told the court: “It is clear from the context of the decision itself and the documents that supported it that this decision is a step along the way, which is part of the decision making process which may or may not result in development at the park.”

On Wednesday, Lord Fairley published a judgment upholding the arguments made to him by the council’s legal team.

He wrote: “It is not contentious that the respondent is subject to the duties in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and regulation 5 of the 2012 Regulations.

“The very narrow point raised by this petition is whether, prior to passing resolution 9.6 on 11 September 2023, the respondent was under a duty to carry out an equality impact assessment.

“If the petitioner’s argument about that issue was correct, it would necessarily imply that the respondent was under a duty to carry out an assessment of impact without knowing what proposals it was assessing.

“The clear purpose of the resolution of 11 September 2023 was to facilitate the collection of relevant information about what development of the park by ETZ, PoA or any other interested party might entail.

“Logically, the ingathering of such information needed to take place before any impact assessment could be carried out.

“I therefore agree with the respondent’s submission that, in passing resolution 9.6 of 11 September 2023, it did not breach any of the duties incumbent upon it under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 or regulation 5 of the 2012 Regulations.

“I will therefore sustain the third, fourth and fifth pleas-in-law for the respondent and refuse the petition.”