Aberdeen City Council is facing a legal challenge from Alasdair Sutherland, a prominent lawyer, over the contentious bus gates in the city centre.
Sutherland, representing local traders, argues that the council’s implementation of these traffic measures was unlawful. The legal challenge, spearheaded by veteran retailer Norman Esslemont, has gained significant public support, with a crowdfunding campaign smashing its £35,000 target and now sitting at £40,000.
The conflict surrounding the contentious city centre traffic regulations is anticipated to reach the courts in the coming months – unless the local government concedes.
At the heart of Mr. Sutherland’s case is the assertion that the bus gates, which were implemented under an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO), were not truly experimental in nature.
The appeal was filed in the Court of Session on February 27th. The court issued initial orders for service on March 4th, and the appeal was delivered to Aberdeen City Council on March 5th.
Sutherland has outlined five key arguments in his appeal to the Court of Session:
- Lack of genuine experimentation: The bus gates were introduced under an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO), but Sutherland argues that this was not a genuine experiment. He claims that for the bus gates to be considered experimental, the council should have assessed their impact and made decisions based on that, rather than being predisposed to making them permanent. Sutherland asserts that the council failed to obtain necessary approval from the Scottish Government before making the bus gates permanent, rendering their actions unlawful.
- Failure to seek government approval: Sutherland asserts that the council failed to obtain necessary approval from the Scottish Government before making the bus gates permanent, rendering their actions unlawful.
- Inadequate justification: The council’s reasons for maintaining the bus gates, including concerns about potential financial repercussions from Transport Scotland, are deemed inadequate and lacking legitimacy by Sutherland.
- Prioritisation of Council agenda over business needs: Sutherland criticises the council for prioritising their own agenda over the needs of city centre businesses, particularly in relation to unsubstantiated fears about financial repercussions.
- Lack of transparency in decision-making: Sutherland points out that the council did not provide clear reasons for cementing the traffic layout, which should have been officially confirmed in writing when issuing the order.
Norman Esslemont, who has been vocal about the negative impact of the bus gates on local businesses, expressed optimism about the legal challenge to the P&J:
“Looking at all the grounds Mr Sutherland has based the legal challenge on, it certainly seems extremely positive and I’m quietly confident we’ll succeed.”
“Given the strength of the evidence that our lawyer has produced, I think the council should take that on board and have a serious rethink before they contest the appeal.
“That would be the sensible option, for them to – as everybody said in the past – see common sense.”
The council has 21 days to lodge answers in response. Should the council oppose the appeal, and following the submission of their response, the court will assign a date for a hearing on the appeal later in the year.
