Clarifying the Scope and Boundaries of Planning Permission in Principle and Reporter Discretion in AMSC Appeals

Introduction

This case arises from an appeal by J29 (Scotland) Limited ("the appellant") against the Scottish Ministers before the Scottish Court of Session (Inner House). It concerns the refusal of an application for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions ("AMSC") pursuant to a prior grant of Planning Permission in Principle ("PPiP") under section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The original PPiP, granted by Renfrewshire Council in March 2019, authorized a multi-use masterplan near Junction 29 of the M8 at Paisley, subject to conditions requiring detailed submissions on access, layout, drainage and noise, among other matters. The appellant’s AMSC sought approval for the first residential phase and its access arrangements. The Council refused on traffic-connectivity grounds. A Scottish Government reporter upheld that refusal in August 2024. The appellant challenged the reporter’s decision, alleging errors of law in interpreting the PPiP and its conditions. The Inner House delivered its judgment on 3 June 2025.

Summary of the Judgment

The Inner House dismissed the appeal and refused to quash the reporter’s decision. It reaffirmed that:

Section 239 permits judicial review of a reporter’s decision only for material legal error or irrationality, not on the merits of planning judgments.
An AMSC must be assessed within the “boundaries” of the original PPiP; it cannot introduce elements beyond its scope (Inverclyde District Council v Secretary of State for Scotland 1982 SC (HL) 64).
The reporter did not misinterpret the PPiP or elevate the indicative Masterplan to a mandatory blueprint; he exercised legitimate planning judgment in weighing connectivity issues and the strategic road framework established by the PPiP conditions and drawings.
No material error of law or procedural impropriety was shown. The reporter’s reasoning was intelligible, linked to the aims of conditions 2 and 3 of the PPiP, and fell squarely within his discretionary planning judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Wordie Property Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland (1984 SLT 345) — established that a reporter’s decision is beyond power if it involves material legal error or takes account of irrelevant considerations.
Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment ([1995] 1 WLR 759) — confirmed that planning judgments are within the decision-maker’s discretion and only challengeable if irrational or perverse.
Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ([2017] 1 WLR 1865) — distinguished issues of policy interpretation (for courts) from planning judgments (for decision-makers).
Inverclyde District Council v Secretary of State for Scotland (1982 SC (HL) 64) — held that AMSCs cannot extend a PPiP’s scope to new matters.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in two stages:

Scope of Review under Section 239: The court confirmed it reviews only for errors of law or irrationality. Planning judgments—such as evaluating traffic, connectivity and strategic site integration—fall within the reporter’s discretion.
Interpretation of the PPiP and AMSC Boundary:
- Conditions 2 and 3 of the PPiP required approval of access, layout, and defined maximum development areas aligned with an Indicative Masterplan drawing.
- The reporter treated the Masterplan as “indicative” but significant in setting a strategic framework for the site, particularly the reconfigured road network.
- The AMSC proposal encroached on the area earmarked for the strategic link and relied on a single access point, which the reporter found would compromise the wider development vision.

Impact

This judgment is likely to influence future AMSC applications and appeals in Scotland by:

Emphasizing that approval of reserved matters must stay within the PPiP’s “broad contours” and cannot introduce new strategic elements not envisaged by the original permission.
Reinforcing the distinction between legal interpretation of planning permissions (for courts) and substantive planning judgments (for reporters and planning authorities).
Clarifying that indicative masterplans, while not mandatory, may be treated as significant guides to strategic infrastructure delivery if reflected in conditions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Planning Permission in Principle (PPiP): A form of outline consent granting approval to the concept of a development, subject to later detailed approval of specified matters (e.g., access, layout).
AMSC (Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions): A detailed application to satisfy conditions attached to a PPiP before development can commence.
Reserved Matters vs. Planning Judgment: Courts interpret the legal scope of permission and conditions; decision-makers exercise planning judgment on whether detailed proposals meet policy objectives.
Irrationality Standard: A planning decision is only quashed if no reasonable decision-maker could have reached the same conclusion on the evidence.

Conclusion

The Inner House’s decision in J29 (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Ministers ([2025] CSIH 17) reaffirms that AMSCs must adhere to the parameters of the original PPiP and that reporters’ assessments of detailed proposals—especially concerning strategic infrastructure like road networks—fall within their planning judgment. The court’s role is confined to policing legal errors and irrationality, not re-weighing traffic or design considerations. This judgment thus provides clarity for both applicants and authorities on the legal boundaries of PPiP schemes and the scope of appeals under section 239.