TCI commentary:
As mentioned in the article, this stems from an interesting little case in the Court of Session (Mark Guild & Another for Judicial Review). Whilst most of it was not consultation related, the Court did engage with a discussion of s.104 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which lays down that when local authorities are considering the disposal or change of use of property held as part of the common good, they must notify and invite representations from community councils and other community body with an interest in that property. At issue in this case was whether the Council should have consulted because they approved a recommendation to demolish the leisure centre. The Court decided that the council had decided that the leisure centre itself was not the property held under the common good, but the land itself was. As there was no proposal to dispose or change the use of the land, the s.104 provisions did not apply, and therefore there was no need to consult.
The assertions of Councillors in this article that there will be a full consultation before the leisure centre is demolished might best be seen as a best practice decision, rather than a legally necessary one. Given the apparent division in the Council on how to proceed, it should be an interesting one to watch
Article:
Leading Forfar councillors have vowed Lochside leisure centre will stay standing until a full public consultation is held on its future.
In the wake of a Court of Session judicial review decision clearing the way for the demolition of the disused 45-year-old building, three of the town’s four elected members are backing retention of the Forfar Loch facility and are pulling together a plan for a public meeting before a single brick is removed.
Fears have also been raised that £500,000 set aside for the knockdown has been “gobbled up” in the Forfar Community Campus project and the end bill for the scheme could head towards seven figures.
Following a judicial review challenge by two town businessmen, Lady Carmichael’s judgement vindicated the council’s handling of the Lochside issue, an outcome chief executive Margo Williamson said confirmed the authority had acted “appropriately and with integrity”.
Forfar Independents Colin Brown and Ian McLaren, as well as Conservative administration councillor Braden Davy have given their backing to looking at ways of saving the centre.
Depute Angus Provost Mr Brown said: “I would like to assure Forfar folk that, as far as I am concerned, there will be a public consultation and town meeting before this building goes.
“I hope all the Forfar councillors will be there and the facts can be set out rather than folk gossiping round the town. The date and venue is yet to be determined.
“I think we are in a different ball game now, and I’m also concerned about where the money to knock down the centre will come from because the original £500,000 seems to have been gobbled up.”
More than 800 people have signed a petition launched to save the centre in the wake of the Court of Session ruling.
Mr Davy said: “Last February when my amendment to stop demolition failed there was a huge outpouring of anger that we could be spending hundreds of thousands to demolish this building which could be put to good use.
“We can see this palpable sense of frustration again. The three Forfar councillors who voted against demolition last time are determined to find another way forward.”
Forfar SNP councillor Lynne Devine said Lady Carmichael’s “unambiguous” findings had further reinforced her view the centre should be razed.
“The council has won on seven out of seven points, and, while I understand that a lot of people will be disappointed, I really hope we can move on from this contentious issue and look to the future of the country park,” she said.
“This is a big commitment and nobody has come forward with an idea set out on how it could be run under a community asset transfer.”
Article originally appeared on The Courier
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case.
