Scarborough Borough Council 2015 accounts still pending approval
It's due to a long-running objection related to Whitby harbour
Scarborough Council’s accounts dating back to 2015 are still pending approval due to a long-running objection related to Whitby harbour that is now set to go to court.
Members of Scarborough Council’s Audit Committee were given an update on the proceedings which relate to an objection regarding the use of income from Whitby harbour.
Scarborough Council has denied the claims made by the Fight4Whitby pressure group which launched a legal challenge in 2016, arguing that more income has been taken out of the harbour by the council than has been spent on it.
This includes “the treatment of income from the car parks” in and around Whitby harbour.
The challenge is based on the 1905 Whitby Urban District Council Act which states that income from Whitby harbour should be used within the harbour, with the group hoping that the challenge will require Scarborough Council to direct funding specifically towards the area.
The case is now set to go to court following advice from the authority’s external auditor, Mazars LLP.
However, it has left the council’s accounts dating back to 2015/16 pending approval, while further delays to the case were revealed at the committee meeting on Thursday October 27.
Speaking at the audit committee’s meeting, council director Lisa Dixon said: “Members will be aware that the council accepted Mazars’ recommendation in July last year to progress with court proceedings for a declaration as to the extent of harbour land in Whitby, and also, how the income derived therefrom should be accounted for.”
Councillors were told that this summer the authority served its collated evidence in support of its arguments, which officers said amounted to “copious amounts” of documentation.
However, the audit committee heard that the case is expected to be delayed further due to the objector seeking an extension of time to file and serve their evidence until December 2.
This is the second extension of time granted by the council, according to officers, and will “likely” mean the case will still be ongoing when next April’s local government reorganisation takes place.
Council director, Ms Dixon, said: “At the end of September the objector’s solicitor wrote to the council seeking a further extension of time in relation to service of the documentation.
“The reasons given for this were that the objector is collating much of the information personally in order to minimise costs.”
She added: “In view of the reasons given by the objector’s solicitor, if the council was to refuse such a request, we think that the courts would view that the council was acting unreasonably in doing so, and we believe it is only right and proper that we give the objector the time requested to finish collating that evidence.”
Scarborough Council was approached for a comment regarding possible legal expenses and in light of the upcoming local government reorganisation, who would be responsible for legal fees once the case is closed, as well as whether it still stands by its original claims.
Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, a spokesperson said: “We will keep our audit committee updated when we hear of progress with the case.
“We are unable to comment further on the ongoing legal proceedings.”