Petition for Judicial Review in which Mr McGinty sought reduction of the National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 (NPF2) to the extent that it designates a new power station and transportation hub at Hunterston. Mr McGinty’s argument was that the Scottish Ministers had not complied with their obligations relating to notice and consultation with regard to the proposed development.

Outer House decision
In the Outer House Lord Glennie found that, although Mr McGinty (a bird watcher living 5 miles from the proposed development) had title to raise the action, he did not have “a real and legitimate interest to protect” or a “real and practical” interest to bring the proceedings. Lord Glennie also found that Ministers had not been shown to have failed to comply with their notice and consultation requirements.

Inner house decision
The Inner House has refused an appeal. It was unable to conclude that the Minister’s statutory requirements on publicity had not been fulfilled (finding that advertising in the Edinburgh Gazette was sufficient to comply with the requirement that the plans be advertised in a newspaper circulating in the area). It also found that the consultation period had not been obviously inadequate and noted, when considering the adequacy of the consultation documents, that as NPF2 was at a more general/higher level of qualifying plans, there was less need for a comprehensive environmental report. (On the basis a specific environmental impact assessment would still be required before the project actually proceeded).

However, in coming to its conclusions, the court did find that Mr McGinty had sufficient standing to raise the action holding that, the fact that the matter was one of public interest and Mr McGinty shared his interest with many other Hunterston residents, did not prevent him relying on that interest as an individual in order to complain.

“We have yet to consider the specifics of the petitioner’s challenge but applying the approach now desiderated by the Supreme Court, it may not be permissible to dismiss it as that of a mere busybody. He lives in an area which he has good reason to believe may be affected by a specific sort of development which will have an adverse impact on a specific coastal environment, about which he avers he is knowledgeable and in which he pursues a specific leisure activity which is of importance to him, as it is of importance to many others. He wished to make representations on the very matter which would have been relevant to the environmental assessment which the respondents were obliged, by both domestic and European law, to carry out. Accordingly, at least at this stage of the examination of the question, it appears that it can be said that the petitioner has standing to bring these proceedings.”

The full judgement is available here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.