The council's chief executive Norman Dunn revealed the hefty sum paid out to solicitors providing legal advice on its wrangle with Mr Robert McMitchell, owner of 67 Whitehouse Park, at a meeting in Mossley Mill on Monday night.
He stated the figure represented a mere drop in the ocean in that it did not include monies for technical experts, nor did it cover costs associated with the significant amount of time spent by council staff on this dispute.
The rear gardens of the property in question have been the subject of long running controversy following extensive infilling of the site and the erection of a fence on what is allegedly council-owned land by owner Mr McMitchell.
Significant amounts of clay, stone and rubble have been brought onto the site in order to raise the level of the rear garden, extending to land adjacent to Gideon's Park.
Mr McMitchell sought planning permission to retain and re-contour the land using inert material and top soiling to create a garden. Despite significant objections to the plans at the time, Planning Service recommended approval.
Late last year however, it was decided that Mr McMitchell must restore the council land to its pre-lease condition.
He was given until the end of June 2008 to complete the works, but Monday's meeting of the council heard that existing material on site has not been removed and remedial works not been carried out as specified.
Furthermore, no recent communication on the situation had been received either from Mr McMitchell or his solicitors.
Speaking at Monday's meeting, DUP Alderman Nigel Hamilton suggested some form of mediation as "a way to resolve and take the tension out of this."
However, Alliance councillor Tom Campbell who in April this year called on the Planning Service to instigate early enforcement action against Mr McMitchell, said that in as far as he could observe, Mr McMitchell had behaved "unreasonably" in his dealings with council. As such, Mr Campbell said he could not see mediation working.
"Many people would benefit from mediation but in my opinion Mr McMitchell is not one of these. Mediation implies that the individual concerned is able and willing to compromise and to be bound by mediation, but in my experience, in the problems that he has created for this council Mr McMitchell shows a lack of good faith. He comes across as an unreasonable individual and therefore, mediation is not the way to take this forward."
Mr Campbell added that he was "astonished" to hear that £15,000 plus of ratepayers' money had been spent taking legal advice on this matter, and all because Mr McMitchell seemed to believe that the problem was "everybody else's fault and not of his making".
Councillor Janet Crilly was also confounded at how six years on from the matter first coming to council attention, Mr McMitchell continued to "make excuses" for dumping material on the land, and despite being given plenty of opportunity to remedy the situation had failed to so do.
She added that council brought local residents to book for offences like throwing litter or for dog fouling, yet here she said, was a person who had dumped numerous tonnes of unauthorised landfill on council land and appeared for all intents and purposes to be getting away with it.
After a lengthy debate on the best way to negotiate the current stalemate, councillor Tom Campbell put forward that council instruct a consultant to assess the cost of work needed to recover material from council land, and also the cost of making the land safe once it is restored to its original condition.
The upshot of this is that it is hoped that council will arrange to carry out the necessary works and its lawyers instruct Mr McMitchell that it will recover the costs of that work from him
Alderman Nigel Hamilton requested for a vote to be taken on Mr Campbell's proposal and it was upheld by 9 councillors to 2, with only the DUP's Alderman Hamilton and Alderman Paul Girvan voting against.