Plans for Aberdeen’s Energy Transition Zone (ETZ) are back on track after Scotland’s highest court ruled that the city council did not act unlawfully over the proposals for a popular community park.
Publishing his ruling from the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Lord Douglas Fairley refused the petition from Friends of St Fittick’s Park which argued Aberdeen City Council had failed its legal duty to perform equality impact assessments on the proposals.
The body spearheading the ETZ development, which focuses on enabling investment in offshore wind and hydrogen technologies, welcomed the judgement.
What is ETZ?
ETZ limited, a private sector not-for-profit company backed by industrialist Sir Ian Wood, is behind ambitious plans to redevelop 75-100 acres of land around Aberdeen’s new £420million south harbour.
It has argued it needs access to the historic St Fittick’s park, directly across from the harbour, for laydown space and transporting components to and from the quayside.
However, Friends of St Fittick’s Park have been leading a fierce campaign against more industrial use of the green space in one of the city’s most deprived areas. This included taking a challenge to court, a move supported by Scotland’s legal aid-funded Govan Law Centre.
© Supplied by Friends of St FitticCampaigners had argued the council did not discharge its responsibilities as a “listed authority” under the Equalities Act, with lawyers acting on behalf of campaigners stating that a full council meeting on September 11 2023, where the proposals were discussed, triggered this clause.
Judge’s response
In response, the council said it did “no more than give express authority” for officers to investigate what developments of St Fittick’s Park may involve.
In his ruling published on Wednesday, Lord Fairley accepted the response from lawyers acting on behalf of the local authority, who argued the petitioner’s remarks were “premature” as the steps taken by officials did not yet necessitate an equality impact assessment.
He said: “If the petitioner’s argument about that issue was correct (whether they had a duty to carry out equality impact assessment) 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 September 11 2023 was to facilitate the collection of relevant information about what development of the park by ETZ … 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.”
Lord Fairley therefore refused the petition.
Ruling welcomed
A spokesman for ETZ Ltd said less than a third of the popular park would be used for the ETZ.
© Supplied by ETZ LtdHe said: “We welcome today’s Court of Session judgment.
“Through our Community & Coast programme, ETZ Ltd are firmly committed to enhancing wider greenspaces in proximity of the Energy Transition Zone in co-design and collaboration with the local community.
“This will include significant improvements to St Fittick’s Park, Tullos woods and the coastal path corridor as part of the project’s wider regeneration ambitions.
“It is important to highlight that we have proposed utilising, subject to planning, a significantly reduced area of development to St Fittick’s Park with just over half of the Aberdeen City Council proposed sites being developed equating to less than a third of the park overall.
“The ability to connect land with port assets, and transport large components to and from quayside, is a fundamental requirement so we achieve the investment required to ensure Aberdeen is positioned to capitalise on the vast opportunities provided by new and green energies, particularly offshore wind.
“Almost all other ports of scale across Scotland are making similar investments and we simply don’t want Aberdeen to miss out on the opportunity to position itself as a globally recognised hub for offshore renewables and the significant job benefits this will bring.”
ETZ a ‘grave injustice’
Richard Caie, of Friends of St Fittick’s park said the group was “dismayed but not discouraged” by the ruling and would continue to oppose the development.
“Friends of St Fitticks are disappointed that the SUpreme Court did not find in our favour. We are dismayed but not discouraged. We will continue to oppose the industrialisation of the community’s beloved park by all legal means,” he said.
“As a small group we are proud of our efforts so far and unlike ETZ Ltd, we do not have tends of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to promote a big PR campaign.
“Our thanks go to the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Mike Dailly and the Govan Law centre and many, many more who recognise the grave injustice being perpetuated on our community and who have helped us along the way.”
An Aberdeen City Council spokesperson said: “Aberdeen City Council notes today’s decision by the Court of Session.”
