Introduction

The case of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd v Scottish Ministers ([2023] CSIH 2) centers on a dispute over planning permission for the construction of approximately one hundred houses at Planetreeyetts Farm, located north of Kilmacolm, Scotland. The appellant, Taylor Wimpey UK Limited, a prominent property developer, sought approval from the local planning authority, Inverclyde Council, which ultimately refused the permission. The refusal was based on concerns that the development would adversely affect the landscape character and setting of Kilmacolm and lead to an unsustainable increase in car usage. Dissatisfied with this decision, Taylor Wimpey appealed to the Scottish Court of Session.

The key issues in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, particularly concerning sustainable development, material considerations, and adherence to the existing Local Development Plans. The parties involved were Taylor Wimpey UK Limited as the appellant and The Scottish Ministers as the respondent.

Summary of the Judgment

The Scottish Court of Session, under the guidance of LORD CARLOWAY, the Lord President, upheld the decision of the reporter who had refused the planning permission. The court examined whether the local planning authority had correctly applied relevant planning policies and material considerations, especially in light of the existing Clydeplan and the proposed Local Development Plan (LDP) for Kilmacolm.

The reporter concluded that the proposed development at Planetreeyetts Farm would significantly harm the landscape character and setting of Kilmacolm and would result in an unsustainable increase in car use. These adverse impacts were deemed to outweigh the benefits of providing additional housing, leading to the refusal of permission. The appellant's arguments, which suggested that the increase in car journeys was inevitable due to overall regional development plans, were found unpersuasive. The court affirmed that each development must be assessed on its specific merits and impacts, rather than inferred from broader, potentially unstable spatial strategies.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment frequently referenced established precedents to support its reasoning:

• Gladman Developments v Scottish Ministers 2020 SLT 898: This case provided a detailed exposition of relevant planning policies and the necessity of adhering to Strategic Development Plans and Local Development Plans.
• R (FoE) v Transport Secretary [2021] PTSR 190: This precedent was pivotal in defining what constitutes material considerations in planning decisions, emphasizing that only "obviously material" factors must be considered.
• Wordie Property Co v Secretary of State for Scotland 1984 SLT 345: This case clarified that a planning decision is ultra vires if it fails to consider a relevant factor, establishing that the relevance of considerations varies case by case.
• Mactaggart and Mickel Homes v Inverclyde Council 2021 SLT 19: This case challenged the lawfulness of the LDP, particularly the housing policies, which were subsequently quashed and left the LDP without detailed housing policy content.
• St Modwen v Communities and Local Govt Secretary [2018] PTSR 746: Emphasized the discretion required in planning judgments and the importance of site-specific assessments.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on several critical points:

• Compliance with Development Plans: Under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, any planning application must align with the relevant Strategic Development Plan (Clydeplan) and Local Development Plan unless overridden by material considerations.
• Sustainable Development Presumption: Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) establishes a presumption in favor of sustainable development, assessed through thirteen principles, including accessible housing, climate change mitigation, and protection of natural heritage.
• Material Considerations and Tilting the Balance: The reporter evaluated whether adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits. In this case, issues related to increased car usage and landscape impact were decisive.
• Site-Specific Assessment: The court underscored the necessity of evaluating each development on its individual merits, taking into account unique factors such as location, scale, and specific mitigations proposed.
• Uncertainty of Proposed LDP: Given the quashing of Chapter 7 of the LDP and the pending approval of the proposed new LDP, the court held that reliance on uncertain future plans was inappropriate in assessing the current application.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering strictly to existing development plans and robustly assessing material considerations in planning appeals. It clarifies that:

• Developers cannot rely on anticipated future developments or spatial strategies to mitigate adverse impacts of their proposals.
• Each application must be judged on its specific context and merits, ensuring that sustainability and environmental protection are not overshadowed by broader housing needs.
• The weight assigned to adverse impacts such as increased car usage and landscape deterioration must be substantial and demonstrable to override the benefits of housing development.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when evaluating the balance between development needs and environmental or social considerations, particularly in contexts where development interacts closely with protected landscapes or existing community settings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sustainable Development Presumption (SPP)

The Sustainable Development Presumption is a principle within Scottish planning policy that favors development projects deemed sustainable. To assess sustainability, the policy outlines thirteen specific principles, such as ensuring housing is accessible by various transport modes, supporting climate change initiatives, and protecting natural landscapes. If a development aligns with these principles and does not present adverse impacts that significantly outweigh its benefits, it is presumed to be sustainable.

Material Considerations

Material considerations are factors that must be taken into account when making planning decisions. They can include policies, environmental impacts, community needs, and more. In this case, the adverse effects on the landscape and increased car dependency were material considerations that outweighed the benefits of additional housing.

Clydeplan Policy 8

Clydeplan Policy 8 provides a framework for granting planning permission for new housing on greenfield sites within areas experiencing a shortfall in the five-year effective land supply. It outlines five criteria that must be met, including contributing to sustainable development and not undermining green belt objectives. This policy was central to evaluating the Taylor Wimpey application.

Conclusion

The judgment in Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 2 serves as a robust affirmation of the necessity to meticulously balance material considerations against development benefits within the Scottish planning framework. By upholding the decision to refuse planning permission based on significant and demonstrable adverse impacts, the court emphasized that sustainable development and environmental protection are paramount. This case underscores that while addressing housing shortages is essential, it must not come at the expense of compromising the character, landscape, and sustainability of local areas. Future planning appeals will reference this judgment to navigate the intricate balance between development imperatives and environmental stewardship.