Appeal by Hallam against the adoption of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Hallam argued that the Council had rejected reporters’ recommendations as to sites at Newcraighall North and Newcraighall East without giving adequate reasons for doing so. The Council’s development company EDI was involved in both developments and the reporters had recommended reducing the number of housing units allocated to each site. To make up the structure plan’s requirement for additional housing in the urban fringe, the reporters recommended increasing the number of units at two other sites (one of which was owned by Hallam).

Lord Malcolm allowed the appeal and granted an order quashing the Edinburgh City Local Plan in so far as it includes the allocation of housing units at both Newcraighall North and Newcraighall East. In coming to this decision Lord Malcolm referred to the decision in Oxford Diocesan Board of Finance v West Oxfordshire District Council and another (1998):

“Even in cases involving planning judgement, the planning authority must give adequate and intelligible reasons for its decision. It must be apparent that the authority fully and
properly considered the substantial points raised by the reporters. It must deal with the matters relevant to the merits of the decision and give sufficient reasons for departing from the reporters’ conclusions. The obligation to deal with the matter thoroughly, conscientiously, and fairly is enhanced when (as here) the council is both a promoter of a site and the ultimate decision-maker. It would not be sufficient for a planning authority merely to recite a series of assertions. While what is needed will vary from case to case and depend on the context and precise circumstances, fair and specific consideration of the report is required.”

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

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