A fresh row blew up today over York's controversial Northern Gateway park-and-ride scheme.

The York Natural Environment Trust claimed that City of York Council "created an illusion of support" from environmental organisations when it first submitted a bid for £2.5 million in Capital Challenge funding from the Government.

It said the council inaccurately cited "partnership" backing from bodies including the Environment Agency (EA), Countryside Commission (CC), British Trust for

Conservation Volunteers (BTCV) and Friends of Rawcliffe Meadows (FRM).

Chairman Barry Potter said the council had claimed in its submission document that the organisations had "all committed resources to the scheme through investment funding or help in kind".

But the National Audit Office had now said that the Countryside Commission and Environment Agency were not partners to the scheme and, while they supported the bid in principle, they would not necessarily commit any funds.

Nor had the BTCV or FRM ever committed themselves to becoming partners.

Vale of York MP Anne McIntosh said today the council had overstated the strength of support for the scheme, and it was possible in such circumstances it might have to repay the money.

But Roy Templeman, the council's director of environment and development services, said that from conversations and letters at the time of the bid, the authority had believed the four organisations were willing to become partners in the project.

He said the EA and CC had remained fully supportive and had committed resources, for example in terms of time, while the FWM had initially been very supportive before later changing its stance.

He said numerous complaints about the council had been made to the Local Government Ombudsman over the Northern Gateway scheme, but none had been upheld.

The authority was now working well with local people on the preparation of the scheme, which was due to be completed before the end of the financial year.

The National Audit Office said in a letter to Anne McIntosh that it concluded the Government Office had acted within its powers and competence in assessing and approving the council's funding bid.

The Audit Commission said in a letter that the district auditor was the most appropriate person to look into the allegations, and it had forwarded papers to the authority and asked for his comments.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.