CAMPAIGNERS today lost their High Court bid to block the multi-million pound redevelopment of York's Barbican Centre site.

A judge dismissed an application for a judicial review of City of York Council's decision to grant planning permission without ordering an environmental impact assessment.

Mr Justice Elias said the decision, whether or not an assessment was required, was "a matter of judgement" for the authority.

But he indicated that his decision was not necessarily the "end of the road" for campaigners, represented in court by mature student Robert Collins.

While he refused permission to appeal against the ruling, he said the Court of Appeal could be petitioned directly for an appeal hearing.

Save Our Barbican (SOB) campaign spokesman Ernie Dickinson told the Evening Press it was taking legal advice about the possibility of lodging an appeal, on the grounds that it had been denied a fair hearing last week when its lawyers were forced to withdraw from the case due to difficulties over legal aid funding.

SOB had been trying to argue that an assessment should have been made because of the great environmental impact of the scheme - in particular the proposal for 240 apartments - on homes in Barbican Road and on the historic City Walls.

They claimed a senior council officer who prepared a "screening opinion" on which the council's decision was based as "acting in a mechanical way" and failing to take adequate account of the special sensitivity of the site.

But Mr Justice Elias said that the officer who prepared the screening opinion was "highly experienced."

He said it would have been surprising if he had not had well in mind the fundamental principle that each case must be considered on its own merits. The judge said that, even if he had heard full argument from lawyers on behalf of the objectors, an argument that the officer had given inadequate reasons for his decision "would have been difficult to sustain".

The decision is a victory for the council and Barbican Venture (York) Ltd, which warned last week that the whole project - including the construction of a replacement swimming pool - could be stymied if there were any further delays.

The court was told that, amid a falling property market and rising construction costs, the whole development was on a knife-edge.

Updated: 16:10 Monday, June 13, 2005