Scotland's biggest council is fighting a new court action to try and finally block one of the nation's biggest demolition projects after rejecting calls for a full study of the environmental consequences despite concerns the project posed a risk to human health.

The city council has already had a £10,000 legal costs bill after admitting it made a technical error in law over a previous decision that meant the demolition of four 26-storey towers at Wyndford in the Maryhill area of Glasgow over two years could go ahead effectively without an environmental impact assessment (EIA).

A previous 'shocking' screening analysis from the council admitted there was a danger of the production of hazardous or toxic waste during construction or operation or decommissioning. This came from asbestos and construction or demolition waste.

Now a judicial review supported by the campaign group Wyndford Residents Union has been sanctioned and has begun into the decision in a bid to finally block the project.

A prior approval for the demolition was made by council officials as 'permitted development' in July, last year, without ever coming before city councillors who would be able to weigh up the impact on the area and decide if it should get planning permission.

The council, whose leader is SNP's Susan Aitken, says an assessment is not required because the demolition is "not likely to have significant effect on the environment".

The local authority is being supported in the Court of Sesson action by Wheatley Homes, the nation's largest social landlord, the developer behind the demolition plan.

The judicial review is expected to spark a rally involving protesters at Wheatley House today (Friday), the Scottish headquarters of social landlord.

The Wyndford blocks were earmarked for demolition by the Wheatley Group which wanted to replace the existing 600 social housing units with 300 new homes. At the end of last year only around 10 percent of the blocks were still occupied.

The housing association say the project will replace the "dated and unpopular blocks" with affordable family homes, 255 of which will be for social rent.

Wheatley say the project will replace the "dated and unpopular blocks" with affordable family homes, 255 of which will be for social rent.

The campaigners previously won a court battle over the council's actions, with judge Lord Lake ruling, following a concession from the council, that "adequate reasons" were "not provided" in terms of the law surrounding use of impact assessments in decision-making.

The council said it had agreed a joint minute that its decision on not having an impact assessment erred in law only by "failing to adequately explain the basis" of it.

The minute stated that the council "acknowledge... that the interests of [the campaigners] were prejudiced by a failure to comply with the relevant requirements and that for this reason alone the decision may properly be quashed by the court".

Campaigners had seen the judgement as a victory in their fight to stop £100m development plans put forward by Scotland's biggest publicly funded housing association.

In the new legal battle, the campaigners' solicitors led by James Mure KC says that the council has applied the "wrong test" for deciding that an EIA was not required.

Mr Mure says that the council had not had enough information to be sure that the area would be protected from the effects of the demolition without an EIA.

He said the council could "not be confident" that any mitigation measures would actually quash any impact to the area when carrying out a screening report which decided a thorough environmental impact assessment was not required.

The campaigners' legal team says the correct test is that the project is likely to "have significant effects on the environment".

A previous screening analysis admitted there was a risk of accidents during construction or operation of the development which could have an effect on people or the environment.

This related to "explosions, spillages and fires through the storage, handling and use or production of hazardous or toxic substances".

It found that the development would release pollutants or hazardous, toxic or noxious substances related to combustion of fossil fuels, construction activities and dust or odours from handling of materials including construction paraphernalia, sewage and waste.

The checkbox analysis found that many people would be affected and that there was the potential for a "significant environmental impact". The council said this was able to be addressed through its prior approval process.

There was an acceptance that there would be a risk to human health either during the construction or operation of the development. That involved air pollution from operational vehicle traffic and noise issues during the demolition period.

Wyndford estate at dusk in 1969

But the council said the risks can be accommodated by mitigation measures.

The campaigners' legal advice is that that constitutes an "error in law" saying the correct test over whether to carry out an EIA is whether it is likely there will be significant effects on the environment, not whether they can be adequately controlled.

Mr Mure has questioned why the council had not given detailed reasons over how the concerns arising from the demolition would be properly mitigated, meaning an EIA was necessary.

But Alasdair Burnet KC for the council said there was no evidence that mitigation measures planned would not work.

The residents union and the Scottish Tenants Organisation (STO) believe the flats can be safely retained and retrofitted. But Wheatley say that it is too difficult and expensive.

Wyndford estate was designed by Ernest Buteux, chief technical officer for the Scottish Special Housing Association (SSHA) from 1959-78. He was thought to be influenced by the designs of Le Corbusier – the father of modern architecture. It was built on a 55 acre site at the old Maryhill barracks, was estimated to cost £4m.

The anti-demolition campaign is backed by leading Scottish architects Alan Dunlop, Kate Macintosh and Malcolm Fraser.