Inner House case considering a planning appeal in respect of a proposed development of 12 flats by Greenland Developments on land to the south of Veitch’s  Square, Stockbridge in Edinburgh. Despite being recommended for approval by the planning officer, the application was refused as the development was deemed to be contrary to the Local Plan in various respects.  Greenland appealed to the Scottish Ministers.  Following an unaccompanied site inspection and consideration of the documentation, a Reporter refused the appeal by means of a brief decision letter. Greenland then appealed that decision. They argued:

• the Reporter had failed to provide adequate and intelligible reasons for refusing the appeal;
• the Reporter’s decision letter had failed to pay due regard to the terms of section 25 of the 1997 Act which provide that where, in making a determination under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise;
• the handling of the appeal by the Reporter had been tainted by procedural irregularities in that the Reporter had refused a reasonable request on behalf of the appellant that she should hold an accompanied site inspection and had also refused a request that she hear part of the appeal by way of oral process;
• Regulation 4(2) of the The Town & Country Planning (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 provides that within 21 days of receipt of notification of a Notice of Appeal, the planning authority must send to the Scottish Ministers its response to the appeal, together with associated documentation. In this case the Council had failed to do so; and
• finally, it was argued that the Reporter had erred in failing to consider whether the imposition of a relevant condition might have rendered acceptable what she otherwise considered to be an unacceptable development.

An Extra Division of the Inner House refused the appeal finding that it had been open to the Reporter to reach the findings she had. It was perfectly clear from the decision letter which findings and conclusions the Reporter had reached and why she had reached them.  She also had the discretion to refuse to have an accompanied visit and to refuse to hold an oral hearing.

With regard to s25 of the 1997 Act, although the Reporter did not specifically refer to the statutory provisions, she applied the correct legal test. She considered whether the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the New Town conservation area. In the light of those findings she assessed whether the proposed development complied with specified polices in the development plan, whether the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan and whether any other material considerations warranted granting planning permission in the face of conflict with the development plan.

With regard to the Reporter’s consideration of the response by the Council to the Greenland’s Notice of Appeal, regulation 4(2) provides that, in addition to the planning authority’s response, the planning authority also require to send to the Scottish Ministers a copy of the documents which were before the planning authority in reaching their decision, a copy of any report on handling and any conditions the planning authority consider should be imposed in the event that the Reporter decides that planning permission should be granted. Given the scope of the documentation, the Extra Division did not consider that the public interest would be served if the Reporter could not take the documents into account if they were not submitted in the 21 day period.

Finally, as regards the failure to consider whether the attachment of conditions may have rendered the development acceptable, although reference to a possible condition had been made on behalf of Greenland, it had not been argued that the imposition of the condition on its own would have enabled the Reporter to reach a different conclusion. Furthermore, the information before the Reporter was not such as could have satisfied the Reporter that the householder concerned would agree to the condition or that there was any reasonable prospect that such a condition could be complied with. The possibility of any other conditions being imposed was not raised with the Reporter at any stage.

The full text of the decision is available from the Scottish Courts website here.

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